Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-06-Speech-3-434"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090506.41.3-434"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the speeches show that the Treaty of Lisbon is clearly viewed emotionally and not rationally. Why do we not wait for the next Parliament and let the new Parliament discuss the issue and just wait and see whether the Treaty of Lisbon actually materialises? No, there are some people here who are absolutely fixated on this Treaty and who want to explain its supposed advantages again and again.
Burkhard Hirsch, the excessive moralist, put it so beautifully when he said that the Irish should not be seen as rain-soaked shepherds and as the only Europeans incapable of understanding the blessings of the Treaty of Lisbon. The referenda would have obtained a negative result elsewhere because we cannot expect, nor should we expect, voters to endorse a Treaty that even a wellintentioned reader will never be able to understand.
The Treaty of Lisbon does not only regulate the relationship between the EU institutions; no, the Treaty of Lisbon establishes policies. And that is important. For example, Article 43(1) of the Treaty of Lisbon lays down the tasks of combat forces of the European Union. The Solidarity clause in Article 222(1a) states that all available resources are to be mobilised to prevent the terrorist threat in the territory of the Member States. The European Union will therefore become a military alliance and there is even the possibility of military operations being conducted inside the European Union. Article 43(1) talks of assistance being given to third countries to fight terrorism in their territory.
There are a number of regulations in this area. There is ‘permanent structured cooperation’ enabling a military core Europe. There is a role for NATO in this Treaty and ‘Member States shall undertake progressively to improve their military capabilities’. In the future, should this Treaty be ratified – and I hope it will not – there will be a start-up fund (Article 41): the EU budget could also be used for military purposes in the area of foreign and military policy.
In terms of economic policy, the economic logic of the Treaty of Lisbon is precisely the economic logic that led to the economic crisis: ‘an open market economy with free competition’. Only one would never call it that today.
I have the impression that the people who want this treaty, especially those from the EU elite, are actually living in the past. Conditions have changed fundamentally. What we need is a new treaty for a new era. Ireland has decided. The decision in the referendum was clear. The treaty was voted against and is therefore dead. All of a sudden there is going to be a second vote. Who in France would say, following the election of President Sarkozy, that they should simply vote again because somebody does not like him. I want to make one thing perfectly clear: there are good, purely rational reasons why we should not ratify this Treaty. What was said in Ireland should stand; in other words ‘no’ means ‘no’. This means that the Treaty of Lisbon is dead, and I do not understand why we are discussing it today in this context.
There is a shift in power within this treaty in the direction of the large Member States. I will make no bones about it: as internationalists we defend the European idea against those who want to make the EU a military power and a purely economic alliance. We need an alternative treaty to the Treaty of Lisbon, and that means a treaty that is oriented towards peace and not a treaty that is, at heart, a military treaty. Thank you."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples