Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-05-06-Speech-3-446"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090506.41.3-446"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, this package of reports shows that, if the Lisbon Treaty comes into force – and this is without prejudice, of course, to the decision of the Irish people – then we will have a Union that offers more opportunities for participation, more accountability, more democracy and more checks and balances. That is the central message we can give out tonight, whether it is through the Leinen report showing the increased role for this elected Parliament within the institutional system; the Brok report showing the new opportunities for national parliaments to participate; the Dehaene report looking at the extra accountability of the executive branches of the institutions and how we will operate a possible transitional period; the Guy-Quint report showing that there will no longer be parts of the European budget that are ring-fenced from parliamentary control; and of course the Kaufmann report on the citizens’ initiative.
My group will support all these resolutions and we are proud to do so, I would just say, with one particular reservation, and that is on the Kaufmann report, which we see as a first step: putting on the table a first reflection on how that might operate in the future. But we have to be careful – and I agree with what the Commissioner said earlier – not to set up a system that is too onerous for citizens or has too many bureaucratic obstacles for exercising that right. But we have plenty of time to come back to that, should the Treaty indeed come into force.
We are talking on the day where we have achieved the 26th parliamentary ratification. I know that the British Conservatives over there are not interested in that. They are chatting away on some other matter no doubt, but it is an important fact.
Twenty-six ratifications through parliamentary procedures: 26 ‘yeses’ to the Treaty; one ‘no’. I would suggest that, in that situation of 26 ‘yeses’ and one ‘no’, it is not, as some people have suggested, undemocratic to look at that result and ask the one country that has said ‘no’ whether or not it is willing to reconsider in light of the ratification of the others. It remains their choice to do so or not. But I think it is quite reasonable that they themselves in Ireland have come to the conclusion that they might be willing to reconsider if certain conditions are met. And it is incumbent on us to do what we can to address the concerns that were expressed by the ‘no’ vote. That has to be part and parcel of the answer and that, after all, is what the Union has agreed to do.
All the other Member States – because it is the Member States, not just the European institutions involved in this – have agreed to try and address those concerns to make it possible to achieve the 27th ratification.
There is a wider lesson to learn from this. Our basic rule book in the European Union, the treaties signed and ratified by Member States, can only ever be modified by the unanimous agreement of each and every single one of those Member States. That is a very high hurdle to reach. It shows that those that claim that we are running roughshod over democratic accountability and ignoring the views of the people have got it completely the wrong way around. It is very easy to block any step forward, any reform of the European instructions. Those Eurosceptics over there only need one victory out of 27. The dice is loaded in their favour, not in the favour of those who, like Mr Duff, would want a much more speedy integration. That is the way it is.
They also quote referendums that have given a ‘no’ result. I notice they only quote the referendums that have given a ‘no’ result. They never manage to mention the Spanish referendum, the Luxembourg referendum. I think if you look at the history of European integration there have been some 32 (if I remember correctly) referendums in the Member States over the years, with 26 or 27 of them giving a ‘yes’ result and only a handful giving a ‘no’ result. But whenever there has been a ‘no’ result, it has been impossible to override it without coming back and addressing the concerns that were expressed and asking the country in question whether or not it wished to reconsider; whether or not it wished to change its mind.
I find nothing wrong in democratic terms with that, with building up gradually, step by step, slowly, by means of consensus of all the Member States, this Union that we have worked on over half a century, this Union that we should be proud of, with the fact that we have 27 countries working together in a continent which our history shows has all too often been torn asunder by the national embers that some are seeking to revive."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples