Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-06-Speech-3-433"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090506.41.3-433"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Vice-President, looking around this House I somehow have the impression that the occupants of the constitutional ivory tower have been invited to continue their discussions in the plenary sitting of this House. That was not the agreement. What had been agreed on was a major debate of the European Parliament on the consequences of the Treaty of Lisbon.
I believe we should be more militant. I hope that this House will really claim the rights to which it is entitled under the Treaty of Lisbon with tremendous selfconfidence and with great loyalty to the citizens of the European Union, assert them and then consider how the whole thing can be developed a lot better towards a European democracy and a social order. Mr President, I am not giving up on my dream.
I am not giving up on my dream to enable my children and their children to at least say:
Would it not have been nice if this Parliament had discussed the treaty this morning at the same time as the Czech Senate and had made it clear to the citizens of the European Union that the treaty was the work of the European Parliament, starting with the Convention and continuing right through to the present day, that this reform had not been imposed by an EU of elites, but that it was a major piece of work resulting from a collaborative effort?
When something fails, my 15 years of experience tells me that the failure is usually down to governments and not to parliaments. Now, we are all covered in scars and bedecked with decorations. I am giving my last speech after 15 years. We have come a long way. It has been a great honour. I was also invited – along with Mr Duff – to be a rapporteur for this House, both on the Charter of Fundamental Rights and on the Constitution.
I am bound to say – and I think I also speak for the other members of the Convention – that we always felt supported by the approval of the European Parliament. We stuck our necks out, dared to have visions that provoked much shaking of heads, resistance on the part of governments, many a veto, almost the collapse of the Convention. But there is, in fact, no denying that the driving force, the visionary force in this process was the parliaments. As such it was also a first victory for the citizens of the European Union.
Allow me to, perhaps, take a look into the future. We know what we all think of the progress made by this treaty. When the Intergovernmental Conference attacked the results of the Convention, abolished the Legislative Council, re-introduced laws made by the Council and added on the third part – and all these things that really upset us today – I had the idea of a First Amendment of the Constitution in a far and distant future.
One of the important cardinal elements of this treaty is the European Parliament’s right of initiative, its right to propose motions for a Convention to be formed to amend the Constitution. And we have not yet come to the end of the road. When we fought for our visions, we were often told in the Convention: ‘Ah, you with your comparison to the Philadelphia Convention, Europe needs a major crisis. Without a major crisis you will never manage to create a real European democracy, a real political community. We really do need a major crisis’. They were clearly thinking of the next hundred years. But we have it. We have this crisis. And now, suddenly, the citizens are asking why we do not have any economic governance. They are asking why we do not have a minimum of common European economic law, at least with regard to the key aspects of fiscal policy, corporate taxes and transaction taxes. People are also asking for a social Europe. Yes, we did not dismount from the barricades, the governments simply said
. Today, the whole of Europe is asking where are the powers of the European Union to defend the social market economy, a fair distribution? In the meantime billions of euros will be spent into the next generation. And we have no democratic power, no legal basis to develop a social Europe.
Every day I am asked what the situation is with regard to military action in the name of Europe. A couple of nation states are taking military action in the context of cabinet politics as practised in the 19th century. Should we not reflect on the fact that this House has to agree before military action can take place in the name of Europe? And the citizens’ initiatives? There too constitutional changes were excluded. Why? Why can there not be a Citizens’ Initiative calling for the treaty to be amended and for the further development of the European Constitution?
I think there is still a long way to go. The timidity and shyness of this Parliament before the Council is a huge obstacle."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Njet"1
"“Vive la République d'Europe!”"1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples