Home What's New Speeches & Articles Newsletter - Sep 2008 Biography Diary Contact Information Photo Album Parliamentary Highlights Publications Links MEPs' Transparency   Conservative Party Latest News from Conservatives.com Conservative Party Website
		Written Debate Roger Helmer has recently taken part in a written debate for The European Parliament Magazine. His opponent is Dr. Markus Warasin, Secretary General of the European General of the European Bureau for Lesser Used Languages. Motion for debate: Retaining the current number of working languages in the EU, post enlargement, is neither viable nor desirable. DEAR MARKUS, The insistence on full multi-lingualism in the European Parliament is both expensive and indefensible. And with the likelihood of 22 languages after EU enlargement, with each language having to be translated into every other one, the situation will become unmanageable. With 11 languages there are 55 pairs of languages (Danish into Portuguese, Greek into Swedish etc) to translate. After enlargement, the Tower of Babel will become a nightmare - with say 22 languages, there would be 231 pairs, and the situation would be completely unmanageable. Currently a third of the Parliament budget goes on translation. There are dozens of meeting rooms, each has 11 boxes for translators, each with two or three interpreters, making the overall process very expensive. On top of this there is the cost of producing documents in all the different languages. The Parliament is also planning to invest in new building space - a significant part of which will be needed for translation. Like so much in the EU, this policy is indefensible. Finnish MEPs already prefer to speak in English because they are heard direct rather than in translation if they spoke their own tongue. And Central and Eastern European countries find German an easy language to learn due to the similarities with their own languages. Some people have suggested a "wheel and spokes" solution with the original being first translated into a core language and then translated again into a particular language. This would certainly reduce costs and simplify the current process. But even with our extremely skilled translators, speed and accuracy will suffer. The logical and most effective solution is for the Parliament to settle on a few core languages, possibly, English, French and German, as the main working languages. This would hugely reduce cost and provide consistency and simplicity in the translation process. And with the majority of European countries being so keen to give up their own currency I can't see why they should object to losing their own language. Sincerely yours, Roger DEAR ROGER, Linguistic diversity is a key element of Europe's cultural heritage. Embracing diversity is a prerequisite for constructing a Europe, in which all citizens enjoy equal status. Furthermore, it is a fact; trying to neglect it by using arguments like costs or efficiency does not solve the problem. In the last five decades of European integration we found out that unity in diversity is what being a European is all about. It is about respect, acceptance and appreciation of the great and rich diversity of Europe's cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. It is important to note, that our mother tongues - whether more or less widely spoken - are more than an assemblage of sounds, words and grammar. They are also a repository of the collective memory of a community and a reflection of the various aspects of social relations, moral values and political traditions and as a result they need to be present in Europe's political world in an appropriate way. The construction of Europe's unity has therefore always been founded on the respect for the cultural and linguistic diversity of its Member States. The European Parliament as the institution which is representing the people of Europe must pay tribute to this diversity, and in fact, it has always done so, not only regarding the eleven official languages of the EU but as well regarding lesser-used European languages. Supporting these languages means supporting Europe's linguistic diversity and it does certainly not mean - as some people might think - wasting money on "strange languages or cultures". I am therefore confident, that retaining the current number of working languages in the EU is viable and desirable: Promoting linguistic diversity means precisely to avoid becoming like the Tower of Babel; it means to make sure everyone understands each other, so when decisions are taken, all Members of the European Parliament - whether English native speakers or not - are fully aware what the stakes are and can fully contribute to the decision making process. Sincerely yours Markus DEAR MARKUS, Thank you for your thoughts on the languages issue, and may I say in passing that I myself am by no means committed to "the Construction of Europe's Unity". I am one of the many Brits who feel that integration has gone quite far enough, and needs to be unwound in key areas. I agree with you about the need for diversity, including linguistic diversity - indeed one of my concerns about the European project is that it replaces the glorious diversity of Europe's cultures and nations and peoples with the dead hand of Brussels. But that cannot mean that all languages must be represented everywhere. Would you call for all EU libraries to carry every EU book in every EU language for example? To follow your argument to its logical conclusion, you would also have to include other minority languages. The leader of our Conservative delegation, Jonathan Evans, is Welsh. Why should he not speak and listen in his native Welsh tongue? What about Gaelic, Erse, Cornish, Breton, Basque? Where do you stop? You simply cannot ignore the context, the cost and the confusion of attempting to operate the parliament in 20+ languages. There is a limit to what taxpayers will bear. For the sake of your ideological commitment to a pandemonium of tongues, you risk making the entire institution unworkable. Other European institutions operate in a few core languages - why not the parliament too? As I pointed out initially, many MEPs from minority language countries actually prefer to use English, to be better understood. I am confident we will find that many MEPs from the Central and Eastern European accession states prefer to use German. Why stand in their way? Personally, I believe that a common language in the EU should have been a pre-condition for a common currency. It is certainly a pre-condition for the impossible dream of a pan-European democracy, for as our British philosopher John Stuart Mill said, "Where peoples read and speak different languages, the common public opinion necessary to representative government cannot exist". Yours sincerely, Roger Helmer DEAR ROGER John Stuart Mill was one of the most influential English philosophers. As a Doctor in Philosophy I pay him all my respect and admiration. However, Mill belongs to 19th century political and moral thought. Things have changed since then. In a time which forms the milestone between two millennia, we are trying to establish a European architecture for the 21st century. As in previous years of successful European integration, policy making and co-operation within the EU today is about learning from each other's experiences and helping to solve each other's problems. Times of national supremacy or splendid isolation are long gone. Consequently, recent opinion polls show that many Europeans have accepted the idea of globalisation and of the European integration process in economics, in sciences and in life generally, under the condition that peculiarities and specifically cultural and linguistic diversity can be preserved. Thus, the promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity not only legitimises but humanises as well the European integration process substantially. Moreover, costs of the multilingualism policy of the EU are remarkably low: Expenditure on translation and interpretation in all EU institutions in 2000 came to the equivalent of less than 2 euro for each of the Union's 370 million inhabitants (0.003 Euro Cent go to lesser-used languages) and just 0.8% of the total EU budget. I am therefore convinced, that all linguistic communities - whether big or small - must have equal opportunities to benefit from our cultural and linguistic diversity. However, this does not mean, that lesser-used language communities - as often erroneously presumed - ask for an official status for their languages within the EU institutions. Regional and minority language communities do not intend to support such a latter-day Tower of Babel; on the order to favour mutual understanding and respect. We do not want an English, German or French Europe, but a fair Europe as a place in which all Europeans, whether English or German, whether French or any linguistic minority, can feel at home in. Finally, European democracy is a reality and not a dream anymore. We need further commitment to develop and expand it, like Winston Churchill, one of the fathers of European integration, concluded in his famous speech in Zurich in 1947: "Therefore I say to you: let Europe arise!" Sincerely yours, Markus