Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-06-24-Speech-2-010"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080624.3.2-010"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, President of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen, the Council has managed to sum up its conclusions of the most important issue on its agenda in just over half a page. The entire document runs to 25 pages. This is – and I should like to emphasise this – a commendable show of restraint. The style of the deliberations is also in keeping with the circumstances. The Council is taking its time; it wishes to address the issue of the Lisbon Treaty again in October and, until then, it is doing what it can to clarify the matter.
This is why we need to develop a new culture of subsidiarity. We must allow the Member States to exercise their powers and responsibilities, and we must also ensure that they do assume that responsibility.
The President of the Council spoke about the European identity. It is, indeed, important. However, it must be based on what is Europe’s responsibility and what must remain the Member States’ responsibility. This is why we must do what we can to save the Treaty. It is so very much better than anything that Nice has to offer us. We must make the most of this opportunity – if such an opportunity exists – and we must try to reconnect the citizens with Europe.
This is all right and proper. It is right and proper to respect the Irish vote. It is wrong to start cracking the whip now and to expect that the Irish will then cosy up to us – that is utter nonsense. Nevertheless, we must now give some thought to how we can overcome this situation, for the crisis that we are currently facing goes beyond what is now the second failed attempt at a treaty reform that is still necessary. This crisis affects the EU’s fundamental relationship with its citizens and the citizens’ relationship with their Union.
Naturally, the Irish said ‘no’ for all kinds of different reasons. A referendum is a political hotchpotch consisting of many different ingredients; in this case, several reasons have certainly had a part to play. They lie partly in Irish domestic politics and partly in the Irish people’s general disillusionment with politics – that is true; however, ladies and gentlemen, a system error is starting to filter through here. A constitution needs a referendum and popular consent, but here we are dealing with an international treaty. An international treaty is generally unsuitable for a referendum. This system error is at our cost.
We shall have to consider whether we wish to continue in this way in future. However, if you leave aside all aspects that derive from domestic political considerations, the Irish ‘no’ was basically directed at the European Union and perhaps least of all at the text of the Treaty. President Barroso, your Commissioner, Mr McCreevy, is probably not the only one who has not read the Treaty, for it is essentially quite clear that the European Union is seeing its citizens increasingly turn against it.
It is up to us here to start searching for the reasons for this – we cannot leave that to the Irish. It is up to us, to Parliament, to the Council and, not least, Mr President, to the Commission to start searching for those reasons. The Commission’s role is to serve as the source of EU policy initiatives. Most notably, the Commission shapes the political climate. When people talk about Brussels, then most think of the Commission, and only subsequently – rightly or regrettably – of Parliament or of the Council.
European unification is, essentially, undisputed. I know of hardly any citizen who says that he is against European countries working together. It is all the more astonishing that there has been such a large-scale rejection, which, in essence, is also encountered in all other countries to a greater or lesser degree. It is rather the European Union’s everyday image, primarily shaped by the Commission, that is presenting us with problems.
I think it can be said, President of the Commission, that Brussels increasingly gets on people’s nerves. The idea of the EU as a peacemaker and as a successful economic superpower is receding rapidly, and it appears to be a moloch whose vast and unwieldy bureaucracy, at times operating arbitrarily, makes people feel as if they have no say in their own affairs.
President of the Commission, you stated that you cannot bash Europe all week long and then expect a joyful ‘yes’ to Europe on Sunday. It would have been more correct to say that you cannot continually lay down the law, regulate and tie everything up with red tape all week long and then expect a friendly ‘yes’ from the people on Sunday.
Let me give you an example: the Soil Protection Directive has been rejected by the requisite number of Member States on the grounds that it breaches the principle of subsidiarity. The Commission is not concerned why this came about; instead, it is now making an attempt to ignore the ‘no’ vote and attain its stated objective. It would be more appropriate that we in the European Union set ourselves limits – over and above the Treaty and its detailed provisions – and make decisions in Europe which manifestly need to be taken at European level."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples