Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-10-07-Speech-3-120"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20091007.17.3-120"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, let us imagine that tonight, when this interminable debate finishes, we go out and we meet 27 fellow Members downstairs and we have to decide unanimously which restaurant we are going to. If we negotiate this obstacle, then imagine that the 27 of us have to choose the same thing to eat, and that the 27 of us also have to decide whether or not to have wine.
Mr President, that is what I believe that we must now do, in unity, as Europeans and as Parliament.
Mr President, this metaphor, which comes from someone who is on a diet, provides a good illustration of the current situation of the European Union and what the Treaty of Lisbon brings in: in my view, it is the most important thing, namely eliminating the requirement for unanimity.
If those of us who have spoken here all want the European Union to function properly, to be effective, to produce added value for the people, then the first thing that needs to be done is to replace the requirement for unanimity with a requirement for super-qualified majorities. That is the most significant achievement of the Treaty of Lisbon.
Opposing the Treaty of Lisbon means not wanting Europe to function properly or to have an important role in the world.
Mr President, I do not understand, and it is a source of regret for me, how some fellow Members who have freely entered this Parliament can have more confidence in the Council of Ministers than in the European Parliament. In addition, these are people who will never be in the Council of Ministers. Why do they believe that their interests are better defended by the Council of Ministers than by this Parliament, where they are present and where they can vote?
Mr President, another thing I do not understand is why a certain fellow Member said that what they want is to take their country – and this is a legitimate view – out of the European Union. In that case, ladies and gentlemen, it is necessary to be in favour of the Treaty of Lisbon, because the Treaty of Lisbon establishes, for the first time, an exit clause. Now, in truth, it is necessary to have the courage and the ambition to say to their people that it is necessary to leave the European Union. That is also something that I would like to see.
Mr President, to sum up, I believe that through the result of the Irish referendum we are completing the process.
Mr President, I would like to say to Mr Rouček and Mr Brok – who are concerned by the attitude of the President of the Czech Republic – that I have no doubts. I have no doubts because a person who refused to sign what had been adopted by the Chambers that elected him, a person who refused to sign the Treaty, would be like the Queen of England refusing to sign a law from Westminster. That is not possible. I am also certain that someone as patriotic as Mr Klaus would not want to see his country engulfed in an internal constitutional crisis.
Mr President, I therefore believe that the time has come to join forces, for us to realise that the world is not waiting for us, the Europeans, and that either we Europeans must unite and maintain constructive positions regarding the problems that our citizens are experiencing at the moment, or else Europe, as a power, will disappear from the map."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples