Following enormously conflictive campaign against the governmental candidate  this time de Mella won, commencing a string of Carlist Estella victories which was to last almost continuously until the end of Restoration. A member of tiny Carlist minority,  in the Cortes de Mella exercised little influence over the legislative work. However, he soon gained attention as an individual, taking on most respected politicians and his exhilarating addresses exercising hypnotic effect. Acting on Carlos VII's order de Mella resigned from the parliament in  and did not take part in the elections.
Suspecting the entire party leadership of treason,  he ordered de Mella out of Correo. De Mella decided to comply with the order of his king. It is not clear whether there were any official administrative measures intended against him; possibly fearing further governmental reprisals, in the very late via France he left for Portugal  and settled in Lisbon.
De Mella's position within Carlism was still precarious. De Mella developed particular dislike towards him, in private sparing his jefe little insult.
QUA 3 PDF Book - Mediafile Sharing
Some scholars claim that with de Cerralbo aging, tired of conflict and increasingly disoriented politically, it was rather de Mella who assumed command of the party from the back seat. At that stage he probably hoped that Don Jaime could be pushed to a decorative role, reduced to "un rey a su imagen y semejanza". Outbreak of the Great War played into de Mella's hands: Don Jaime was left hardly contactable in his house arrest in Austria. The Mellistas took almost full control of the election strategy;  the Carlist Cortes campaigns of ,   and were visibly marked by de Mella's vision.
It aimed at a non-dynastical alliance of ultra-Right,  leading to emergence of a maximalist ultra-Right party, perhaps a new incarnation of Traditionalism,  which in turn would do away with liberal democracy  and ensure passage to Traditionalist, corporative system. The alliances hardly outlived electoral campaigns  and did not improve Carlist standing in the parliament;  in regions with strong local identity party militants grumbled that fuerismo might suffer in a hypothetical ultra-Right alliance.
Following outbreak of the Great War  earlier demonstrated pro-German de Mella's sympathies,  very much shared by the party rank and file, turned into a full-blown campaign. Today there are different opinions as to the role of World War One alliances in general de Mella's vision.
According to some the question was central and Mellismo is simply a pro-German stance. De Mella and his supporters concluded that the strategy employed previously in struggle for domination in the party — cornering the claimant in private to elicit his conformity — would no longer work and that an ultimate all-out confrontation was imminent. Though initially it might have appeared that the strengths of both sides were comparable, Don Jaime soon tilted the balance in his favor.
Some scholars claim that at that point he already acknowledged that the struggle to control Jaimist structures was pointless; they interpret his appeal as decision to walk out and build a new party. Though de Mella lost the battle to control Carlism, on rebellious path he was followed by most of its local leaders,  MPs  and otherwise distinguished figures;  it was only among the rank and file that Mellistas gained little support, the group resembling an army of generals with rather few soldiers. By it was clear that de Mella was struggling organizing his own party.
His dislike for systematic effort and commitment - demonstrated already during academic years, Correo management, inability to produce a major written opus, never completed Academia entry address and solitary lifestyle - again took its toll. Once again reasserting his anti-system views he confirmed Traditionalist monarchy as an ultimate goal and declared himself committed to work towards it as theorist and ideologue, though not as a politician any more.
Initially he might have been inclined to support the dictatorship, as the press informed about his work to set up a new political formation  and in he was received by Primo himself. He died shortly after having completed a philosophical study on Eucharist ,  his death  widely discussed by Spanish periodicals. De Mella's writings are typically categorized as political theory.
Political sovereignty lies with a monarch equipped with strong but highly limited powers; such entity is united by common orthodoxy, defined by Catholic faith and Spanish tradition. Exact nature of these components were elaborated down to minuscule details. Key elements of de Mella's thought are defined as society, religion, family, regionalism, tradition and monarchy. Different from political sovereignty exercised exclusively by the monarch,  it attributes to communities the right to govern themselves  with no interference on part of external agents, be it the king or other communities; social sovereignty is embodied in the Cortes.
There are scholars who emphasize Mellista regionalism,  with state to be organized on a federative basis  and regions being one type of intermediary bodies and local emanations of a nation. Most of his contemporaries were impressed not with de Mella's writings, his thought or leadership style, but rather with his oratorical skills. It is recorded that each his address was a great show: body language of eye movement, head movement, gestures and steps combined with master command of verbal communication  bestowed upon him "a majesty of a lion".
It is not clear whether in general he was improvising or rather coming with at least a sketch of the text pre-prepared; as a huge number of his addresses were reconstructed on basis of his private papers,  it seems that the latter was the case. Tres claves de la vida inglesa was result of Larramendi's spell in London. Formally discussing legal, commercial and insurance systems, the book was praise of the British social and state model; it was hailed as merger of efficient economic order and organization on the one hand, and traditional values and structures on the other.
The British system was judged as balanced, especially compared to the French model, stemming from bureaucratic illusions as to state and its powers to build a new order. In practical terms it vaguely proposed a hybrid regime with some regulatory mechanisms working as checks-and-balances versus politics decided by universal suffrage,  thought most Francoist institutions were deemed useless. Francoism in general was acknowledged with mixed feelings as a system which ensured peace and socio-economic transformation, but was plagued by corruption and vengeance.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Ignacio Hernando de Larramendi y Montiano. One brother became Ministry of Justice official, another settled as a phyiscian in Chicago and another was a publisher, Larramendi , p. Aportes , Canal , p. Mauricio de Sivatte. The company was created by landholders challenged by new republican regulations; until it broadened its activities to transport, life and civil reponsability.
And it is why we cannot understand the silence and the complicity of those who are concerned about the rule of law in some countries but not in others. Of course, you can ignore our criticism, but you should never ignore the voice of your own people. Romanians fought for their liberties against communism. They tore down a tyranny and built up a democracy. They are a brave and a decent people, Prime Minister, and you are ignoring them. Tell me, what interests are hidden behind the actions of your Government? Tell me, what are you afraid of?
They just want integrity, transparency and justice. They just want to have a better future in their own country — not outside it. Nothing more, but nothing less. Prime Minister, you have two options: you can listen to this Parliament, you can listen to the Commission, you can listen to the Romanian Parliament, you can listen to your people; or you can ignore all the democratic controls. But, with all due respect, this Parliament will remain and it will wait by the side of the noble and proud people of Romania.
There is not another option for us. You should understand that. Deswegen wurde der CVM-Mechanismus vereinbart. Imaginile din 10 august nu mint. Este un popor viu. The nub of my message today is that both problems need to be tackled, and that Romania has to end the bad tradition of what was the Securitate , a Secret Service instrumentalised by one side of the political establishment to hit the other side.
This has to stop, Prime Minister. That is not the way that we liberals should govern. Not in our name and certainly not with our name! So, may I give you one piece of advice, Prime Minister? Embrace fully the remarks and recommendations of the Venice Commission and let them systematically review your legislative proposals, because the fight against corruption must be strengthened and not weakened, and the independence of the courts must be guaranteed and not undermined.
And, yes, the murky power of the new-old Securitate definitely needs to be broken. The one is not in contradiction with the other. The efforts to move towards democracy and civil liberties cannot be overestimated. Democratic institutions have been developed and Romania has joined the European Union. It is therefore even more worrying, Prime Minister, to see that there is a real backlash. With the reforms of the Romanian Criminal Code, your government is making it legal for officials to abuse their power.
Your government will allow convicted criminals to get away with their stolen money and not have it confiscated. You are de facto legalising corruption with that reform. Corruption makes people lose trust in the state and in democracy. Money is being diverted from the benefit of the many to the pockets of the few. Romanian citizens now lose five times more money to corruption than the state spends on hospitals and healthcare.
Romanians do care. They took to the streets to ask for democracy, for good governance from you, Prime Minister, as is their right, as is the right of any European citizen. But, instead of listening to them, you actually sent the police in to attack them, tear-gassing an entire public square. Even further, your government is now planning to reduce the freedom of assembly, making it obligatory to have an authorisation.
Romania would be the first European Union Member State to require an authorisation.
- The Case of the Missing Minute: Book 1 (4th Dimension Detective Agency)?
- Navigation menu?
- Door County Outdoors: A Guide to the Best Hiking, Biking, Paddling, Beaches, and Natural Places.
- La luna de la medianoche (Cazadores Oscuros 13) (Spanish Edition)!
- CRISEI - PRÍNCIPE VALIENTE: NUEVA EDICIÓN GIGANTE Y EN COLOR - Bitácora de Rafael Marín.
Do you really want to go that low? Colleagues, Commissioner, Romanian citizens are asking for freedom, nothing else. Freedom from corruption, freedom of assembly, freedom from discrimination. Europe is built on that freedom. As someone who grew up in the Eastern bloc, I can testify to how important that freedom is. That freedom, democracy and civil liberties are being called into question in more and more Member States.
As European institutions, as European deputies, we have to defend the rights of Romanian citizens as well as the rights of every European citizen, be it in Hungary, be it in Poland, be it in Austria, be it anywhere. There is no second—class citizenship. Now is the time to change. Now is the time to act. Secondo, nel movimento ci sono lati oscuri. I sostenitori del PSD sono dileggiati come anziani, stupidi, rurali. Non dimentichiamo, anche noi, gli emarginati del mercato unico. Terzo, il movimento non combatte solo la corruzione, include anche battaglie contro la costituzionalizzazione della famiglia come unione esclusiva fra uomo e donna.
Ha parlato giustamente di immagini shock, di protestatari pacifici picchiati dalla polizia, di inchieste da aprire subito. Siamo preoccupati da quello che leggiamo su quanto sta accadendo in Romania. Temo che le riforme del Codice penale portate avanti dal governo in corso non solo possano minare l'indipendenza della magistratura nel paese e favorire la corruzione, ma anche indebolire la cooperazione giudiziaria in materia penale con gli altri paesi dell'Unione, potenzialmente facendo della Romania un porto sicuro per continuare i propri affari illeciti impunemente.
Mi riferisco alla legge che accorcia la prescrizione a un anno, di fatto lasciando impuniti gli autori di reati gravi, quali corruzione e riciclaggio di denaro, ma anche i provvedimenti abrogativi e reato di abuso di ufficio, fino alla rimozione del divieto di ricoprire cariche pubbliche per i condannati di corruzione o di abuso di ufficio e la depenalizzazione del reato di corruzione. Noi, ad esempio in Italia, vogliamo fare esattamente l'opposto. Nella direttiva per la lotta al riciclaggio di cui io sono stato relatore, siamo riusciti ad introdurre la sanzione accessoria al divieto di assumere cariche pubbliche e di candidarsi alle elezioni per coloro che hanno subito una condanna definitiva per reati di riciclaggio.
Questo deve essere l'obiettivo, Primo ministro, della Romania e di tutta l'Unione europea. Nicolas Bay, au nom du groupe ENF. Steven Woolfe NI. I worked with intelligent, smart and caring lawyers alongside me. We worked on the international rules that finally became your own legislation. What I also remember of my time in Romania was how proud they were of you becoming an independent country, how they can once again vote for their own Prime Minister, such as yourself.
Be in no doubt: today, you are here to be once more one of those Prime Ministers who are to be attacked, bullied and abused by those people on the front bench for having one simple thing: the audacity to actually stand up to them and their anti-democratic ways. You are a Prime Minister who has a vote. You are a Prime Minister that has received the backing of its people. You are standing up to those people in this room who have one vision and that is their own vision. Ich brauche von Ihnen keine Belehrungen.
Ich achte sehr genau darauf, was dazwischengerufen wird. Ich entscheide das. Dazu brauche ich keine Zurufe von der Seitenlinie von Ihnen. Could I have an answer to that? James Carver NI , blue-card question. This is one of a series of debates that have been taking place in here concerning the rule of law in a particular EU Member State. Is it not an indication of the increasing authoritarian approach across the European Union and of the fact that the UK, which has always been a bastion of free speech and democracy, has made the correct choice by voting to leave this increasingly federalist and undemocratic organisation?
From the right and from the left — right-wing governments have been criticised, and now left-wing governments are being criticised. Surely it is an indication that my country has made the right choice, seeing what is happening in Hungary, in Poland and in Romania, and seeing how the European Union does not like what is happening? So wird das nichts. Ich war am Anfang nicht so streng. Aber Sie haben es jetzt auch beim zweiten Mal nicht geschafft, eine Frage zu formulieren. Deshalb brauchen wir auch keine Antwort. The European Parliament is not the enemy.
I would also call on all political parties — I know I cannot call on the government, but all political parties — to campaign against the anti-LGBTI referendum. I also officially asked the Presidency of this House to investigate claims that EU or EP funding has been used to fund the campaign against …. Es scheint sich herumgesprochen zu haben, dass wir sehr viele Wortmeldungen zum Thema catch-the-eye haben. Ich kann nicht erlauben, dass das umgangen wird.
Harald Vilimsky ENF. Meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren! Und ein anderer hat behauptet, man wolle eine Gegendemonstration aufziehen und diese Menschen niedertreten. Das sind Dinge, die schlichtweg inakzeptabel sind. Daher kann ich nur an Sie, meine Damen und Herren von den Sozialdemokraten, appellieren: Machen Sie Ordnung im eigenen Stall und ziehen sie nicht ein Theater hoch, wo kein Theater notwendig ist.
Marek Jurek ECR. Klar ist auf jeden Fall, dass man mit blauen Karten nicht eine unbestreitbar vorhandene Vielzahl von beantragten spontanen Wortmeldungen umgehen kann. Aber die Redezeit im Plenum ist nicht dazu da, dass nur eine Sicht der Dinge transportiert wird und nicht nur die Sicht aus einem Land. Roberta Metsola PPE. The scenes of protesters being beaten are deeply disturbing. These are ordinary people on the receiving end of the baton. These are the mothers, fathers, sons and daughters of Romania, Europeans whose only crime is to demand an end to corruption and abuse.
That is all they want. They stood up for the Romania they were promised and for the rights guaranteed by the EU treaties. This should not be too much to ask. After all, modern Europe is built on the shoulders of the people who shaped history by speaking out with their lungs bursting with tear gas. Erstens spricht man im Stehen. Zweitens entscheide das ich. Sie haben es in der Hand, zu sagen, Sie gestatten keine Frage. Ich entnehme Ihrer Antwort, dass das ein Nein ist. I think the Prime Minister was on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development with me a few years ago, and I would like to tell her that I have a constituent in my region, whose lighting company sold some materials to a firm in Romania, which then sold them on to another firm in Romania; it paid the original firm in Romania but that firm did not pay my constituent; he then went to court in Romania, and he believes that the official organising the timing of the hearings kept putting them off because he was being bribed to do so.
In the end, my constituent went bankrupt. I tried to get the Commission interested because it is supposed to intervene in such cases but it did absolutely nothing. My constituent had thought the European Union would be on his side. He has ended up losing heavily. Please, Prime Minister, can you have a look at your own country, and endeavour to ensure that British businesspeople can invest there with confidence. Solange diese sich im Blick auf die Form und den Inhalt im Rahmen halten, gedenke ich nicht, das zu untebinden. Zweitens habe ich vorhin gesagt, ich werde nicht zulassen, dass durch blaue Karten Wortmeldungen zum Catch-the-eye umgangen werden.
Und ich habe gerade vorhin Frau Kollegin Nicolai gesagt, ob eine Zwischenfrage zugelassen wird, entscheiden zwei Leute: der Sitzungsleiter und derjenige, der gefragt werden soll. Ich sage Ihnen auch, warum ich hier geneigt war, die Zwischenfrage zuzulassen. Deshalb habe ich gedacht, ich lasse das zu. Ich habe drei Dinge gesagt. Erstens, dass ich, wenn ich jemandem das Wort entziehe, weil er zu lange gesprochen hat, dann lasse ich von mir aus keine blaue Karte zu.
Da hatten Sie sich unter anderem gemeldet. Und zweitens habe ich darauf hingewiesen, dass einige Kollegen jetzt durch blaue Karten versuchen, ihre Meldung im Catch-the-eye sozusagen umzupolen. Das werde ich auch nicht zulassen. Ich habe zu keinem Zeitpunkt davon gesprochen, ob ich umgekehrt blaue Karten im Catch-the-eye -Verfahren zulasse. Catch-the-eye jest zbiorem normalnych wypowiedzi w debacie. It was not just corrupt because of the corruption, it was morally corrupt. The nation had been under the direction of a morally deeply corrupt dictator and his system.
Over those decades, huge progress was made. So why am I so worried today? Because, in the final stretch of this long and painful marathon, we now risk not reaching the finishing line to ensure that the fight against corruption cannot be reversed and that the rule of law is irreversible. To go in the other direction would be to undo some of the most important achievements by the Romanian people in ridding themselves of this horrible past. Someone who comes from a country like mine cannot even begin to imagine how difficult this must have been for the Romanian people.
So, if we now speak out and speak up, it is because we are doing it for the Romanian people, who want to fulfil their European destiny by being sure that the system they live in — the country they live in — is a democracy based on the rule of law, with full respect for human rights, and where corruption is combated effectively and rooted out of society.
I think they constitute a good road map for ensuring that reform is irreversible. I will continue the dialogue with the Romanian Government. Because of time, I could not be precise on every question and critique we have on the proposed and already promulgated laws, but I will be very meticulous and precise in putting my questions to the Romanian Government, and in inviting them to answer those questions and to continue the dialogue so that we can resolve these issues.
Let me be very clear: what is at stake is of huge importance for the future of our European Union, but what is at stake is of even greater importance for the future of the Romanian people. So, if the Commission needs to be brutal in our assessment we will be brutal. If we need to use other instruments at our disposal, we will use them. This is not a threat. This is just the Commission setting out what our role is and pointing out that we are the guardian of the Treaty and we need to take this role very seriously indeed.
I hope I have made clear today that we have made a clinical assessment of the situation: that we have analysed precisely the proposed changes in the legislation, that we are doing this on behalf of the Romanian people, not against the Romanian people, and that we look at each and every Member State in exactly the same way. We look at the facts, while also recognising that every situation is different. We are not putting Member States all in one batch, we are looking at every Member State on the basis of the specific issues in that Member State, and I really want us to be successful here.
I urge the Romanian Government, once again: keep the dialogue open and listen to our recommendations — they have been put down on paper in a spirit of cooperation, and of keeping Romania on the right European track. I also want to thank Commissioner Timmermans. The First Vice—President made the situation and the necessity for a dialogue very clear. Let me assure you once again that the Austrian Presidency and the Council as a whole attaches great importance to upholding the rule of law and fundamental values within the European Union.
I speak as Presidency of the Council and therefore in the name of all of its Member States. The Council will continue to follow this issue closely and the Presidency will pay particular attention to the views which were expressed during the dialogue and during this debate. Antanas Guoga PPE , in writing. It is very worrying, especially before the upcoming EP elections. What we see now in Romania is a clear sign of an illiberal democracy in the EU: the Social Democratic Party of Romania has embarked on a process of overhauling the judiciary and change legislation to decriminalise several graft offences.
Several party members, including leader Liviu Dragnea, are under investigation or on trial for corruption. We see a clear threat to transparent judiciary processes in Romania which also leads to direct threats to the democratic rights of Romanian people, which we have to protect. However, the Prime Minister herself calls this fake news.
Do you see the current processes in Romania as a healthy democratic development of your country Prime Minister? Il se fonde sur le pluralisme et repose sur un socle de valeurs. Romana Tomc PPE , pisno. Iz tega lahko sklepamo, da ne gre za iskreno zavzemanje za vladavino prava po enakih kriterijih in merilih za vse. I am honoured to be back in this great House.
I would like to thank President Tajani for organising the debates on the future of Europe and for giving me the opportunity to participate. Today, we can all together congratulate our German friends, and all Europeans on the occasion of German Unity Day. For my generation, this day symbolises not only the end of the division of Germany, but it also heralded the liberation of Eastern Europe and the start of the eastward enlargement of the European Union.
It made possible the starting of accession talks 20 years ago. It has been an amazing journey for our country, for Estonia. The role of the European Parliament in it has been remarkable. I would like to thank you, honourable Members of the European Parliament, for your support. This year, Estonia celebrates the hundredth anniversary of our statehood.
I very clearly remember watching Finnish TV, as this was our only connection to the free world. This is why I, from the bottom of my heart, dislike borders in Europe: those still existing for Member States who have fulfilled all criteria to join Schengen; those that have been partly reintroduced following the migration crisis — although I understand the concerns back then — and those that still may be erected, should we collectively fail in Brexit negotiations, which I refuse to accept. Against this background, it is not hard to understand why Estonians have such a special emotional connection to Europe.
Compared to its share of territory and population in the world, Europe is small and diverse. But by sharing our sovereignty and pooling our strength, by having common policies, we have been able to make a difference in the world. I believe that we all have shared interests in rules-based and effective multilateral order, built on liberal values and democratic principles. We also have common interests in open, free and fair global markets. It is what the world expects from us and it is what our citizens want.
We Europeans are all stronger together, and I hope that we will spare no effort in securing our collective interests and the values in the world. Nothing represents this better than the fate of small nations in the European family. Therefore, allow me to express here modest enthusiasm when it comes to grand institutional designs in Europe, which could lead to a lesser role for smaller nations in our common institutions.
Less diversity will also result in less Europe. Today, in this limited timeframe, please allow me to focus on only some of the areas essential for Europe according to Estonia. Firstly, preserving unity within the EU. There is a saying that the best way to predict the future is to create it. Future is not something abstract or another Treaty-change. We are building our future every day. We are doing this by providing answers to the concrete concerns of our citizens, and, where possible, building connections that bring Europeans closer together — human, physical and professional connections.
Europeans also expect us to tackle transformational challenges that are too big for a single Member State, such as European defence, climate change and digital transformation. We will also have to find answers to global population growth and migration, triggered by these changes. I therefore hope for an ambitious Multiannual Financial Framework that reflects these challenges.
A new Multiannual Financial Framework is actually the best indicator of how we will see our common future. But as we know, unity does not have to mean uniformity. Sometimes we should simply recognise our different views, without compromising on the same values. I find different levels of direct taxes in Member States to be perfectly normal. Also, we expect Europe to be big in big things, but at the same time it has to be excellent in details.
Without standards and fine details, the Single Market or Capital Markets Union would simply not function. We are now trying to find consensus when deciding on the core elements on how to manage migration. It is difficult, but we all realise that short-term measures will only bring short-term solutions. The key in decreasing irregular migration is to work with third countries. We must use all the instruments that our trade, visa and development policies offer. Estonia pulls its weight here.
Estonia is geographically distant from Africa, but the digital world does not recognise distance. I cannot imagine a better example than the Single Market to prove that we are bigger and stronger together. But it still remains unfinished. Take, for example, the field of services: while the sector continues to grow unlike anything else, especially in the digital domain, we are far from using its full cross-border potential. For example, public services remain essentially national.
I understand him well, and I always worry: when did talking about the completion of the Single Market, our economic engine, become a taboo? It is high time that we set ourselves new goals in building the Single Market. Or the worst. In the field of artificial intelligence, the race is definitely on. Everybody is keen on exploring and developing strategies and reaping the benefits while we are still struggling to make it work.
As it moves from the age of invention into the age of implementation of AI, Europe has to reinforce our values and lead technological change in the public and private sectors. We need progress in the areas of the free movement of data, the data economy and artificial intelligence. In the world of hybrid warfare, cybercrime and fake news, security in cyberspace should come by design and go hand in hand with emerging technologies.
We need to build data integrity into systems, to be able to guarantee that the sensors, inputs and computing of the robotic systems are not compromised. We need to develop strong digital identities, in order to be able to distinguish real persons from fake unfriendly bots. We need to establish practice with a strong professional spirit on keeping AI open and transparent. I am very pleased with the Commission proposals resulting from the Tallinn Digital Summit last year, especially our commitment to invest in technological and social readiness throughout the new budget.
It is time to adopt proposals to complete the Digital Single Market and enable digital transformation. The world will not wait. Thirdly, it is important to maintain and enhance internal and external security. All Eurobarometer surveys have shown that our people are most concerned about security. Our long-term focus should be on prevention of crime and illegal activities at our borders. A high level of border and customs surveillance ensures security throughout Europe. Common standards and investments into both technical and operational features in border surveillance are required.
Also, effective control of people and goods at our external borders demands reliable databases that can communicate with each other. We do not need to collect the same data in different information systems, we just have to make them able to share the information. Interoperability of EU-wide databases by is the only way forward.
We must also explore how to develop better synergies between the internal security, border control and customs information systems. Similarly, Romania and Bulgaria would also benefit from membership in the Schengen area. The call for European nations to show that they take their security seriously has been around for a long time, and clearly it will not go away. This is not merely a question about maintaining or increasing our military capabilities.
This is ultimately a question about how serious Europe is about its role in its immediate neighbourhood and in the world in general. How serious are we about our transatlantic partnership with the United States? A Europe that protects has to maintain a strong relationship with our global partners. In addition to the European defence cooperation, it is vital that we preserve transatlantic unity.
Ignacio Hernando de Larramendi y Montiano
Europe cannot deal with global security risks alone. For the European Union, this means going beyond its current role as a regulatory superpower and starting to support the development and deployment of more traditional instruments of foreign and security policy. Therefore, increased defence cooperation among the EU Member States is very welcome. This will lead to increased defence spending and to a larger number of commonly usable capabilities. The final point I would like to make is that we need to strengthen the European feeling and fight populism. We are working hard in the EU to make our citizens feel well.
However, in a recent youth forum in Estonia, students said that even their teachers were not able to explain the European Union. Upcoming European Parliament elections give us politicians a perfect opportunity to explain our decisions. The European Union has brought so many opportunities that people nowadays seem to take for granted. Working for a better Europe that benefits citizens is daily work. This also includes taking responsibility for the decisions and compromises made in the EU, and showing very clearly that we own these decisions.
The action taken after the Bratislava and Rome Summits already seems to have had positive results and to enjoy the support of the people. More than two—thirds of EU citizens feel that EU membership has been beneficial to their country — the best results since To summarise, external pressure and crises have always pushed the EU forward and motivated Member States and institutions to cooperate.
Our common response to the Russian aggression against Ukraine, to the Bataclan terrorist attack, or, if we will, to the eurozone crisis, is an example of solidarity and an example of common values. The European Union as a community of values — and, of course, shared interests — has to have the means to stand up for the respect of individual freedoms and fundamental rights, for a multilateral and rules-based order and to tackle the challenges to our security, peace and wellbeing. I believe that our citizens understand this, as we engage in the negotiations over the next Multiannual Financial Framework.
The fundamentals of the European Union are constantly being disputed by the people, by the Member States, and by third states.
Hispania. Volume 73, Number 4, December 1990
Our Union is therefore politically fragile. This means that we need a self-confident, reassuring Union that protects its citizens and its members. We also need citizens and Member States that are passionate about the Union and everything it stands for as a family of peoples and states.
There must be more of us. I really hope that 10 years from now, I can listen to a colleague from any of the current candidate countries in the same capacity as I am standing here today. Kallid parlamendiliikmed! Nii see on. Prima di dare la parola alla Commissione, vi chiedo se tutti coloro che sono interessati a registrarsi per il catch-the-eye lo hanno fatto.
Siete ancora in tempo, stiamo per chiudere ora il sistema.
- Carmen Albuera (carmenalbuera) on Pinterest!
- Complex Analysis.
- Where Have You Been, My Lambkin?!
- Blackout: An Inspector Espinosa Mystery (Inspector Espinosa Mysteries)!
- Big Sky Reunion (Mills & Boon Love Inspired)!
Bisogna registrarsi con la carta di voto. Bene allora possiamo chiudere il sistema elettronico. Andrus Ansip, Euroopa Komisjoni asepresident. As you know, this is a special year for Estonia. Today, Estonia is a modern country, flourishing at the heart of Europe. It may be one of the smaller Member States, but it is an example for others to follow.
Estonia always fights to take its rightful place at the heart of our European Union, whether Schengen, the euro or on defence. It always seeks compromise and works for a unity. We saw this repeatedly during the first—ever Estonian EU Presidency last year. All of this shows that Estonia will continue to be a leader in the European Union in the future.
Nowhere is this more important than when it comes to making our people safe. Defence and security are not abstract terms for Estonians. They are daily and visible preoccupations. Estonia knows first—hand the true value of this partnership. Estonia is also leading the way through its participation in permanent structured cooperation.
Its planned project with Finland, Latvia and others to develop unmanned land systems is a perfect example of how we can achieve more by working together and how we can bring digital solutions to the battlefield to save lives. We need to back this up with the resources to match. All of our proposals for the Multiannual Financial Framework focus on areas where we can achieve more together to build a stronger Europe. We have seen the potential of targeted investments. Rail Baltica is a good example.
This project connects Europeans and creates new opportunities for people and businesses from Helsinki to Tallinn, through Riga and Vilnius, and eventually to Warsaw. These projects cannot happen overnight or within one financial period. The same applies to digital, which is in the DNA of Estonia. This is why we are fully focused on building a true digital single market. I rely on the support of this House, as well as the Council, to agree on the remaining proposals as quickly as possible.
This will be especially important when it comes to implementing the Tallinn Declaration on e—government. All of this shows the importance of agreeing on the new long—term budget as quickly as possible. As President Juncker said in this very room only a few weeks ago, there would be no better message, no greater symbol to show Europeans that their Union will invest in the future and take its destiny into its own hands. Honourable Members, Prime Minister, only a strong and united Europe can protect our citizens, make the most of the new digital world and create new opportunities for its people and businesses alike.
But to do so, we will have to work together and work for a compromise. We will probably have to do less, be more focussed on the things that matter, and do things more efficiently. As ever, Estonia is showing the way. It is time to take it. Prime Minister, it is good to have you here because we can be inspired by the history of Estonia and by the strength of its people. In the PPE Group, we are lucky to have one of your compatriots within our family. He is only one but he counts for ten.
He fought the Soviet occupation at first hand and was not afraid to stand up against injustice despite the great risks. Together, he and all the people of Estonia achieved a lot: a Europe that fights back for what is right, a Europe that is strongly together against all the odds and a Europe that sticks to its values. Estonia is a small, innovative and courageous country.
Javier Perez Andujar
If there is no Europe which cares about the small Member States, there is no Europe at all. You said it, Prime Minister: diversity is what Europe is all about. Estonia was reborn from the ashes. It was one of several victims of nationalism and brutalism. For Estonia, a united Europe means, first of all, freedom and security. Today, with Vladimir Putin on one side, Estonia needs a strong Europe; and with Donald Trump on the other side, Estonia also needs a self-confident Europe, which cares about security.
You mentioned this in your speech, Prime Minister. In the future it could probably be a fascinating idea to guarantee the future security of the Baltic states with European troops present there. Sadly, Estonia was also one of the first countries to know a brand new type of warfare. Back in it withstood one of the first cyberattacks. Today Estonia is a leading nation in cybersecurity at European level and also globally.
Its experience could also be a starting point from which to create in the future a cyber-rearguard, defending the whole European Union in response to these modern challenges. Today I want to focus on the question of the digital revolution. The new technologies are improving dramatically and we can all see this. Innovation is key and it is part of the European DNA. That is why we need to consider and discuss how we can now organise and use the opportunity of the next wave in the digital transformation which is ahead of us. Let me underline one important point for us. When a waiter feels that an iPad is taking over his job or a truck driver fears the self-driving vehicles which will be on our streets in the future, then we have to give an answer in terms of a digital social market economy.