Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-18-Speech-3-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080618.2.3-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, I would on this occasion like to highlight the remarkable consensus in this House on the next steps to be taken. We believe, with just a few exceptions that merely add colour to the debate, that it would be wise for all the Member States to complete their ratification processes. That is also the opinion that has been expressed by the Irish Government and by the Members, specifically Mr Crowley, who is Irish and who has stated that all the countries have the same right to express their opinion. If we can thus conclude this process, we will be in a position to discuss the matter constructively with our Irish friends in a spirit of solidarity, for there can be no union without solidarity. I believe that this is the consensus that is being consolidated, and I hope that it will be consolidated by the debate in the European Council tomorrow and beyond. In any event, it is the position that the Commission is going to present to the European Council.
At the same time, as many of you have pointed out, including Mr Watson and others, it is important not to become paralysed by examining solely the institutional question. The best way of consolidating the European Union’s democratic legitimacy is to provide results and to demonstrate that we are working for our citizens; indeed, the world cannot wait for Europe to take its institutional decisions. There are urgent issues such as climate change, energy security and migration that demand responses from the Union, even with the current institutional framework.
Another point, which I would address to my good friend Mr Schulz, is that we need to avoid finding easy scapegoats. Obviously I was not particularly pleased with the comments made by my fellow Commissioner, Mr McCreevy. However, I could also mention certain comments by national politicians that were not helpful in this process, and even Members of this House who do not always say what we want to hear.
Let us be realistic! In the constituency in which Mr McCreevy campaigned, the ‘yes’ vote won, and I think that attacking the Irish Commissioner now is not the best way to ensure successful dialogue with our Irish friends. We must concentrate on the positive aspects without trying to find easy scapegoats; that would not be fair. If we act in a spirit of cooperation with our institutions, if we concentrate on the results the citizens expect from us, if we find the best atmosphere for this dialogue, I believe that it will be possible to resolve this problem. It is a serious problem, but it is a problem that can be resolved. We will not resolve it with recriminations, nor with pessimism, ‘
’ or talk of decline. We will resolve it by endeavouring, through our results, to reinforce our democratic legitimacy and by recognising that all of us must act, in the European institutions and in the national governments, and that we have a shared responsibility to keep our ideal, our European ideal alive."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples