Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-14-Speech-2-038"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20041214.5.2-038"6
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
"Mr President, I am sorry to supplement Mr Barroso's catalogue of strategic priorities – which has already grown during the debate – but I hope that the Commission will focus upon the necessity of preventing a collapse in the transatlantic partnership. There is currently a dangerous and unprecedented American reaction to European integration. Europe and America diverge on a clutch of important questions: trade; science; fundamental rights; climate change; monetary policy; competition policy; foreign, security and defence policy and the Constitution. It is a priority for us all that the Constitution should enter into force. We have to fight for it across the Atlantic as well as within our Member States. It falls to the Commission to state clearly what the Constitution says, why it says it, and what the outcome will be if it is not brought into force. It is surely a perfectly sensible question for the citizen to ask 'What happens if I vote no?'. We need some serious answers to that question. The Commission should not fight shy of offending some of our governments that have sought refuge in plebiscites but are failing to show any signs of wanting to make an effort to win them. The public should be informed of the sheer folly of rejecting the Constitution and of what the outcome would be for an enfeebled European Union."@en4
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, I am sorry to supplement Mr Barroso's catalogue of strategic priorities – which has already grown during the debate – but I hope that the Commission will focus upon the necessity of preventing a collapse in the transatlantic partnership. There is currently a dangerous and unprecedented American reaction to European integration. Europe and America diverge on a clutch of important questions: trade; science; fundamental rights; climate change; monetary policy; competition policy; foreign, security and defence policy and the Constitution. It is a priority for us all that the Constitution should enter into force. We have to fight for it across the Atlantic as well as within our Member States. It falls to the Commission to state clearly what the Constitution says, why it says it, and what the outcome will be if it is not brought into force. It is surely a perfectly sensible question for the citizen to ask 'What happens if I vote no?'. We need some serious answers to that question. The Commission should not fight shy of offending some of our governments that have sought refuge in plebiscites but are failing to show any signs of wanting to make an effort to win them. The public should be informed of the sheer folly of rejecting the Constitution and of what the outcome would be for an enfeebled European Union."@cs1
"Hr. formand, jeg er ked af at supplere hr. Barrosos katalog over strategiske prioriteringer - som allerede er vokset under denne debat - men jeg håber, at Kommissionen vil fokusere på nødvendigheden af at forhindre et kollaps af det transatlantiske partnerskab. I øjeblikket er der en farlig reaktion uden fortilfælde fra USA på den europæiske integration. Europa og USA er uenige om en række vigtige spørgsmål: handel, videnskab, de grundlæggende rettigheder, klimaforandringer, pengepolitik, konkurrencepolitik, udenrigs-, sikkerheds- og forsvarspolitik og forfatningen. Det må have høj prioritet for os alle, at forfatningen træder i kraft. Vi må kæmpe for den tværs over Atlanten såvel som inden for medlemsstaterne. Det bliver Kommissionens opgave klart at formulere, hvad der står i forfatningen, hvorfor det står der, og hvad resultatet vil blive, hvis den ikke træder i kraft. Det er da et helt fornuftigt spørgsmål for borgerne at spørge "Hvad sker der, hvis jeg stemmer nej?". Vi behøver seriøse svar på dette spørgsmål. Kommissionen bør ikke vige tilbage for at fornærme nogen af vores regeringer, der har søgt tilflugt bag folkeafstemninger, men ikke viser tegn på virkelig at ville gøre noget for at vinde dem. Offentligheden bør informeres om det tåbelige i at afvise forfatningen, og hvad resultatet ville blive for en svækket Union."@da2
"Herr Präsident! Ich bitte um Entschuldigung dafür, dass ich Herrn Barrosos Katalog der strategischen Prioritäten noch weiter ergänze – er ist ja während der Aussprache bereits umfangreicher geworden –, doch ich hoffe, die Kommission wird auch einen Schwerpunkt auf die erforderliche Verhinderung eines Scheiterns der transatlantischen Partnerschaft setzen. Zurzeit ist die amerikanische Reaktion auf die europäische Integration gefährlich und beispiellos. Die europäischen und amerikanischen Meinungen gehen bei zahlreichen wichtigen Themen auseinander: Handel, Wissenschaft, Grundrechte, Klimawandel, Geldpolitik, Wettbewerbspolitik, Außen-, Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik und Verfassung. Das Inkrafttreten der Verfassung hat für uns alle Vorrang. Dafür müssen wir uns auf der anderen Seite des Atlantiks genauso einsetzen wie in unseren Mitgliedstaaten. Der Kommission fällt die Aufgabe zu, eindeutig darzulegen, was in der Verfassung steht, warum das dort steht und was geschehen wird, wenn sie nicht in Kraft tritt. Mit Sicherheit klingt folgende Frage für den Bürger vollkommen sinnvoll: „Was geschieht, wenn ich mit Nein stimme?“ Auf diese Frage müssen wir ernsthafte Antworten geben. Die Kommission sollte nicht davor zurückscheuen, bei einigen unserer Regierungen anzuecken, die in Volksentscheiden Zuflucht gesucht haben, aber nicht die geringsten Anzeichen für ein Bemühen zeigen, diese zu gewinnen. Die Öffentlichkeit sollte über den reinen Wahnwitz informiert werden, den die Ablehnung der Verfassung bedeutet, und darüber, was eine Ablehnung für eine geschwächte Europäische Union nach sich ziehen würde."@de9
"Κύριε Πρόεδρε, λυπάμαι που συμπληρώνω τον κατάλογο στρατηγικών προτεραιοτήτων του κ. Barroso –ο οποίος μεγάλωσε ήδη στη διάρκεια της συζήτησης– αλλά ελπίζω ότι η Επιτροπή θα εστιάσει στην αναγκαιότητα αποτροπής της κατάρρευσης της διατλαντικής εταιρικής σχέσης. Σήμερα υπάρχει μια επικίνδυνη και πρωτόγνωρη αμερικανική αντίδραση στην ευρωπαϊκή ολοκλήρωση. Η Ευρώπη και η Αμερική αποκλίνουν σε μια σειρά σημαντικών θεμάτων: εμπόριο, επιστήμη, θεμελιώδη δικαιώματα, αλλαγή του κλίματος, νομισματική πολιτική, πολιτική ανταγωνισμού, εξωτερική πολιτική, πολιτική ασφάλειας και άμυνας και Σύνταγμα. Είναι προτεραιότητα όλων μας να τεθεί σε ισχύ το Σύνταγμα. Πρέπει να αγωνιστούμε για αυτό τόσο στην άλλη πλευρά του Ατλαντικού όσο και στο εσωτερικό των κρατών μελών. Εναπόκειται στην Επιτροπή να δηλώσει ρητά τι λέει το Σύνταγμα, γιατί το λέει και ποιο θα είναι το αποτέλεσμα αν δεν τεθεί σε ισχύ. Ασφαλώς, είναι απόλυτα λογικό να ρωτήσει ο πολίτης: τι θα συμβεί αν ψηφίσω αρνητικά; Χρειαζόμαστε ορισμένες σοβαρές απαντήσεις σε αυτό το ερώτημα. Η Επιτροπή δεν πρέπει να διστάσει να προσβάλει ορισμένες κυβερνήσεις οι οποίες καταφεύγουν σε δημοψήφισμα, αλλά δεν δείχνουν πρόθυμες να προσπαθήσουν να το κερδίσουν. Οι πολίτες πρέπει να ενημερωθούν για το πόσο απερίσκεπτη θα ήταν η απόρριψη του Συντάγματος και για το ποιο θα ήταν το αποτέλεσμα για μια αποδυναμωμένη Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση."@el10
"Señor Presidente, lamento tener que completar el catálogo de prioridades estratégicas del señor Barroso –que ya ha crecido durante el debate–, pero espero que la Comisión se centre en la necesidad de impedir un colapso en la asociación trasatlántica. Actualmente existe una reacción peligrosa y sin precedentes por parte de los Estados Unidos frente a la integración europea. Europa y los Estados Unidos difieren en un puñado de cuestiones importantes: el comercio; la ciencia; los derechos fundamentales; el cambio climático; la política monetaria; la política de competencia; la política de seguridad y defensa y la Constitución. Es prioritario para todos nosotros que sea ratificada la Constitución. Tenemos que luchar por ella al otro lado del Atlántico, así como dentro de nuestros Estados miembros. Compete a la Comisión exponer claramente lo que dice la Constitución, por qué lo dice, y qué ocurrirá si no se ratifica. Se trata sin lugar a dudas de una cuestión perfectamente razonable para el ciudadano preguntar «Qué ocurre si voto que no?». Necesitamos algunas respuestas serias a esta pregunta. La Comisión no debería tener miedo a escandalizar a algunos de nuestros Gobiernos que han buscado refugio en los plebiscitos pero que no aparentan querer esforzarse por ganarlos. Hay que informar a los ciudadanos de la flagrante insensatez de rechazar la Constitución y de lo que esto significaría para una Unión Europea debilitada."@es20
"Mr President, I am sorry to supplement Mr Barroso's catalogue of strategic priorities – which has already grown during the debate – but I hope that the Commission will focus upon the necessity of preventing a collapse in the transatlantic partnership. There is currently a dangerous and unprecedented American reaction to European integration. Europe and America diverge on a clutch of important questions: trade; science; fundamental rights; climate change; monetary policy; competition policy; foreign, security and defence policy and the Constitution. It is a priority for us all that the Constitution should enter into force. We have to fight for it across the Atlantic as well as within our Member States. It falls to the Commission to state clearly what the Constitution says, why it says it, and what the outcome will be if it is not brought into force. It is surely a perfectly sensible question for the citizen to ask 'What happens if I vote no?'. We need some serious answers to that question. The Commission should not fight shy of offending some of our governments that have sought refuge in plebiscites but are failing to show any signs of wanting to make an effort to win them. The public should be informed of the sheer folly of rejecting the Constitution and of what the outcome would be for an enfeebled European Union."@et5
"Arvoisa puhemies, joudun valitettavasti täydentämään komission puheenjohtajan Barroson strategisten painopisteiden luetteloa – joka on jo laajentunut keskustelun aikana – mutta toivon komission kiinnittävän huomiota siihen, että on välttämätöntä estää transatlanttisen kumppanuuden romahdus. Yhdysvaltojen nykyinen reaktio Euroopan yhdentymiseen on vaarallinen ja ennennäkemätön. Eurooppa ja Yhdysvallat ovat erimielisiä lukuisista kysymyksistä: kaupasta, tutkimuksesta, perusoikeuksista, ilmastonmuutoksesta, rahapolitiikasta, kilpailupolitiikasta, ulko-, turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikasta ja perustuslaista. Meidän kaikkien ensisijainen tavoite on saattaa perustuslaki voimaan. Meidän on taisteltava sen puolesta sekä Atlantin toisella puolella että jäsenvaltioissamme. Komission tehtävänä on ilmoittaa selvästi, mitä perustuslaissa sanotaan, miksi siinä sanotaan niin ja mitkä ovat seuraukset, ellei perustuslakia saateta voimaan. Kansalaisten on varmasti aivan järkevää kysyä, mitä tapahtuu, jos perustuslakia ei hyväksytä. Tarvitsemme totuudenmukaisia vastauksia tähän kysymykseen. Komission ei pitäisi pelätä loukkaavansa sellaisia hallituksia, jotka turvautuvat kansanäänestyksiin, mutta eivät osoita lainkaan toimintatarmoa niiden voittamiseksi. Kansalaisille pitäisi ilmoittaa, että perustuslain torjuminen on sulaa hulluutta ja myös, mitkä seuraukset siitä olisi heikentyneelle Euroopan unionille."@fi7
"Monsieur le Président, je suis désolé d’allonger la liste de priorités stratégiques de Monsieur Barroso - qui s’est déjà étoffée pendant le débat - mais j’espère que la Commission se concentrera sur la nécessité de prévenir un éclatement du partenariat transatlantique. L’on constate actuellement une réaction américaine dangereuse et sans précédent à l’intégration européenne. L’Europe et les États-Unis divergent sur une poignée de sujets importants: le commerce, les sciences, les droits fondamentaux, le changement climatique, la politique monétaire, la politique de concurrence, la politique étrangère, de sécurité et de défense et la Constitution. L’entrée en vigueur de la Constitution est une priorité pour nous tous. Nous devons nous battre pour cela de l’autre côté de l’Atlantique comme dans nos États membres. Il incombe à la Commission de déclarer clairement ce que dit la Constitution, pourquoi elle le dit, et quelles seront les conséquences si elle n’entre pas en vigueur. Pour un citoyen, il est parfaitement sensé de se demander: «Qu’est-ce qui va se passer si je vote non?» Nous avons besoin de réponses sérieuses à cette question. La Commission ne devrait pas craindre d’offenser certains de nos gouvernements qui ont cherché une échappatoire dans des plébiscites, mais qui ne montrent aucun signe de leur volonté de faire un effort pour les gagner. Les citoyens devraient être informés de la pure folie que constitue le rejet de la Constitution et des conséquences d’un tel rejet pour une Union européenne affaiblie."@fr8
"Mr President, I am sorry to supplement Mr Barroso's catalogue of strategic priorities – which has already grown during the debate – but I hope that the Commission will focus upon the necessity of preventing a collapse in the transatlantic partnership. There is currently a dangerous and unprecedented American reaction to European integration. Europe and America diverge on a clutch of important questions: trade; science; fundamental rights; climate change; monetary policy; competition policy; foreign, security and defence policy and the Constitution. It is a priority for us all that the Constitution should enter into force. We have to fight for it across the Atlantic as well as within our Member States. It falls to the Commission to state clearly what the Constitution says, why it says it, and what the outcome will be if it is not brought into force. It is surely a perfectly sensible question for the citizen to ask 'What happens if I vote no?'. We need some serious answers to that question. The Commission should not fight shy of offending some of our governments that have sought refuge in plebiscites but are failing to show any signs of wanting to make an effort to win them. The public should be informed of the sheer folly of rejecting the Constitution and of what the outcome would be for an enfeebled European Union."@hu11
"Signor Presidente, mi spiace di dover allungare l’elenco di priorità strategiche del Presidente Barroso – che si è già allungato nel corso della discussione –, ma spero che la Commissione si concentrerà sulla necessità di prevenire un crollo nel partenariato transatlantico. Attualmente vi è da parte degli Stati Uniti una reazione pericolosa e senza precedenti all’integrazione europea. L’Europa e l’America divergono su una serie di importanti questioni: il commercio, la scienza, i diritti fondamentali, i mutamenti climatici, la politica monetaria, la politica di concorrenza, la politica estera, di sicurezza e di difesa e la Costituzione. E’ una priorità per noi tutti che la Costituzione entri in vigore. Dobbiamo lottare per questo fine sia attraverso l’Atlantico sia all’interno dei nostri Stati membri. Spetta alla Commissione spiegare chiaramente cosa dice la Costituzione, perché lo dice e quali saranno le conseguenze se non entrerà in vigore. E’ perfettamente ragionevole che il cittadino chieda che cosa succede se vota “no”. Abbiamo bisogno di risposte serie a questa domanda. La Commissione non dovrebbe temere di offendere alcuni dei nostri governi che si sono rifugiati nei popolari, senza però dare alcun segnale di voler compiere uno sforzo per vincerli. Occorre spiegare ai cittadini che sarebbe una follia rifiutare la Costituzione e informarli delle conseguenze di un’Unione europea indebolita."@it12
"Mr President, I am sorry to supplement Mr Barroso's catalogue of strategic priorities – which has already grown during the debate – but I hope that the Commission will focus upon the necessity of preventing a collapse in the transatlantic partnership. There is currently a dangerous and unprecedented American reaction to European integration. Europe and America diverge on a clutch of important questions: trade; science; fundamental rights; climate change; monetary policy; competition policy; foreign, security and defence policy and the Constitution. It is a priority for us all that the Constitution should enter into force. We have to fight for it across the Atlantic as well as within our Member States. It falls to the Commission to state clearly what the Constitution says, why it says it, and what the outcome will be if it is not brought into force. It is surely a perfectly sensible question for the citizen to ask 'What happens if I vote no?'. We need some serious answers to that question. The Commission should not fight shy of offending some of our governments that have sought refuge in plebiscites but are failing to show any signs of wanting to make an effort to win them. The public should be informed of the sheer folly of rejecting the Constitution and of what the outcome would be for an enfeebled European Union."@lt14
"Mr President, I am sorry to supplement Mr Barroso's catalogue of strategic priorities – which has already grown during the debate – but I hope that the Commission will focus upon the necessity of preventing a collapse in the transatlantic partnership. There is currently a dangerous and unprecedented American reaction to European integration. Europe and America diverge on a clutch of important questions: trade; science; fundamental rights; climate change; monetary policy; competition policy; foreign, security and defence policy and the Constitution. It is a priority for us all that the Constitution should enter into force. We have to fight for it across the Atlantic as well as within our Member States. It falls to the Commission to state clearly what the Constitution says, why it says it, and what the outcome will be if it is not brought into force. It is surely a perfectly sensible question for the citizen to ask 'What happens if I vote no?'. We need some serious answers to that question. The Commission should not fight shy of offending some of our governments that have sought refuge in plebiscites but are failing to show any signs of wanting to make an effort to win them. The public should be informed of the sheer folly of rejecting the Constitution and of what the outcome would be for an enfeebled European Union."@lv13
"Mr President, I am sorry to supplement Mr Barroso's catalogue of strategic priorities – which has already grown during the debate – but I hope that the Commission will focus upon the necessity of preventing a collapse in the transatlantic partnership. There is currently a dangerous and unprecedented American reaction to European integration. Europe and America diverge on a clutch of important questions: trade; science; fundamental rights; climate change; monetary policy; competition policy; foreign, security and defence policy and the Constitution. It is a priority for us all that the Constitution should enter into force. We have to fight for it across the Atlantic as well as within our Member States. It falls to the Commission to state clearly what the Constitution says, why it says it, and what the outcome will be if it is not brought into force. It is surely a perfectly sensible question for the citizen to ask 'What happens if I vote no?'. We need some serious answers to that question. The Commission should not fight shy of offending some of our governments that have sought refuge in plebiscites but are failing to show any signs of wanting to make an effort to win them. The public should be informed of the sheer folly of rejecting the Constitution and of what the outcome would be for an enfeebled European Union."@mt15
"Mijnheer de Voorzitter, tot mijn spijt moet ik de reeks van strategische prioriteiten van de heer Barroso - die tijdens het debat al is aangevuld - verder uitbreiden. Ik hoop echter dat de Commissie haar inspanningen zal concentreren op de noodzaak een ondergang van het transatlantisch partnerschap te voorkomen. De huidige reactie van Amerika op de Europese integratie is gevaarlijk en zonder precedent. De wegen van Europa en Amerika lopen uiteen bij belangrijke vraagstukken, zoals handel, wetenschap, grondrechten, klimaatverandering, monetair beleid, mededingingsbeleid, het buitenlands, veiligheids- en defensiebeleid en de Grondwet. De inwerkingtreding van de Grondwet is voor ons allen een prioriteit. Daar moeten we voor strijden, zowel over de Atlantische Oceaan heen als binnen onze lidstaten. De Commissie moet duidelijk maken wat er in de Grondwet staat, waarom het er instaat en wat de gevolgen zijn als de Grondwet niet in werking treedt. Als burgers vragen “Wat gebeurt er als ik ‘nee’ stem?” is dat natuurlijk volkomen redelijk. Sommige van onze regeringen hebben hun toevlucht gezocht tot een referendum maar doen geen pogingen om dat referendum te winnen. De Commissie zou zich best eens nadrukkelijker mogen opstellen om die regeringen de helpende hand te bieden. De bevolking moet ervan in kennis worden gesteld dat het pure dwaasheid zou zijn om de Grondwet af te wijzen en dat een afwijzing zou uitmonden in een verzwakte Europese Unie."@nl3
"Mr President, I am sorry to supplement Mr Barroso's catalogue of strategic priorities – which has already grown during the debate – but I hope that the Commission will focus upon the necessity of preventing a collapse in the transatlantic partnership. There is currently a dangerous and unprecedented American reaction to European integration. Europe and America diverge on a clutch of important questions: trade; science; fundamental rights; climate change; monetary policy; competition policy; foreign, security and defence policy and the Constitution. It is a priority for us all that the Constitution should enter into force. We have to fight for it across the Atlantic as well as within our Member States. It falls to the Commission to state clearly what the Constitution says, why it says it, and what the outcome will be if it is not brought into force. It is surely a perfectly sensible question for the citizen to ask 'What happens if I vote no?'. We need some serious answers to that question. The Commission should not fight shy of offending some of our governments that have sought refuge in plebiscites but are failing to show any signs of wanting to make an effort to win them. The public should be informed of the sheer folly of rejecting the Constitution and of what the outcome would be for an enfeebled European Union."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, lamento aumentar o catálogo de prioridades estratégicas do Presidente José Manuel Barroso – catálogo que aliás já aumentou durante este debate –, mas espero que a Comissão faça incidir a sua atenção na necessidade de impedir o colapso da Parceria Transatlântica. Existe presentemente uma reacção americana, perigosa e sem precedentes, à integração europeia. A Europa e a América divergem em algumas importantes questões: comércio, ciência, direitos fundamentais, alterações climáticas, política monetária, política da concorrência, política externa, de segurança e de defesa e a Constituição. É uma prioridade para todos nós que a Constituição entre em vigor, e temos de lutar por ela até ao outro lado do Atlântico e no seio dos nossos Estados-Membros. Compete à Comissão expor claramente o que é dito pela Constituição e por que razão, e qual será o resultado se esta não entrar em vigor. Não há dúvida de que é pertinente para o cidadão colocar a pergunta “O que acontece se eu votar não?”. Precisamos de respostas sérias a esta pergunta. A Comissão não deve coibir-se de enfrentar alguns dos nossos governos que procuraram refúgio em referendos, mas não mostram sinais de pretender fazer qualquer esforço para os ganhar. Os cidadãos devem ser informados do perfeito erro em que incorrem ao rejeitar a Constituição, bem como dos possíveis resultados para uma União Europeia enfraquecida."@pt17
"Mr President, I am sorry to supplement Mr Barroso's catalogue of strategic priorities – which has already grown during the debate – but I hope that the Commission will focus upon the necessity of preventing a collapse in the transatlantic partnership. There is currently a dangerous and unprecedented American reaction to European integration. Europe and America diverge on a clutch of important questions: trade; science; fundamental rights; climate change; monetary policy; competition policy; foreign, security and defence policy and the Constitution. It is a priority for us all that the Constitution should enter into force. We have to fight for it across the Atlantic as well as within our Member States. It falls to the Commission to state clearly what the Constitution says, why it says it, and what the outcome will be if it is not brought into force. It is surely a perfectly sensible question for the citizen to ask 'What happens if I vote no?'. We need some serious answers to that question. The Commission should not fight shy of offending some of our governments that have sought refuge in plebiscites but are failing to show any signs of wanting to make an effort to win them. The public should be informed of the sheer folly of rejecting the Constitution and of what the outcome would be for an enfeebled European Union."@sk18
"Mr President, I am sorry to supplement Mr Barroso's catalogue of strategic priorities – which has already grown during the debate – but I hope that the Commission will focus upon the necessity of preventing a collapse in the transatlantic partnership. There is currently a dangerous and unprecedented American reaction to European integration. Europe and America diverge on a clutch of important questions: trade; science; fundamental rights; climate change; monetary policy; competition policy; foreign, security and defence policy and the Constitution. It is a priority for us all that the Constitution should enter into force. We have to fight for it across the Atlantic as well as within our Member States. It falls to the Commission to state clearly what the Constitution says, why it says it, and what the outcome will be if it is not brought into force. It is surely a perfectly sensible question for the citizen to ask 'What happens if I vote no?'. We need some serious answers to that question. The Commission should not fight shy of offending some of our governments that have sought refuge in plebiscites but are failing to show any signs of wanting to make an effort to win them. The public should be informed of the sheer folly of rejecting the Constitution and of what the outcome would be for an enfeebled European Union."@sl19
"Herr talman! Jag ber om ursäkt för att jag utökar José Manuel Barrosos katalog över strategiska prioriteringar – som redan har växt under debatten – men jag hoppas att kommissionen kommer att inrikta sig på nödvändigheten av att förhindra ett sammanbrott i det transatlantiska partnerskapet. För närvarande märks en farlig och exempellös reaktion på den europeiska integrationen. Europa och Amerika går åt olika håll i en rad viktiga frågor: handel, vetenskap, grundläggande rättigheter, klimatförändring, penningpolitik, konkurrenspolitik, utrikes-, säkerhets- och försvarspolitik samt konstitutionen. Det är en prioritering för oss alla att konstitutionen träder i kraft. Vi måste kämpa för den såväl över Atlanten som inom våra medlemsstater. Det åligger kommissionen att tydligt förklara vad konstitutionen säger, varför den säger det och vilka följderna blir om den inte sätts i kraft. Det är verkligen fullt förnuftigt att medborgarna frågar sig: ”Vad händer om jag röstar nej?” Vi behöver några seriösa svar på den frågan. Kommissionen bör inte dra sig för att förolämpa några av de regeringar som har sökt sin tillflykt i folkomröstningar, men som inte visar några tecken på att vilja göra en ansträngning att vinna dem. Allmänheten bör upplysas om det rent dåraktiga i att förkasta konstitutionen och om vilka följderna skulle bli för en försvagad europeisk union."@sv21
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Duff (ALDE )."5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Czech.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Danish.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Dutch.ttl.gz
4http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
5http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Estonian.ttl.gz
6http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
7http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Finnish.ttl.gz
8http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/French.ttl.gz
9http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/German.ttl.gz
10http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Greek.ttl.gz
11http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Hungarian.ttl.gz
12http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Italian.ttl.gz
13http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Latvian.ttl.gz
14http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Lithuanian.ttl.gz
15http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Maltese.ttl.gz
16http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Polish.ttl.gz
17http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Portuguese.ttl.gz
18http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Slovak.ttl.gz
19http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Slovenian.ttl.gz
20http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Spanish.ttl.gz
21http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Swedish.ttl.gz
22http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph