Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-18-Speech-3-231"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20060118.20.3-231"6
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
"Mr President, this is Parliament’s first response to the crisis created by France and the Netherlands in rejecting the Constitution. It is a chance for us to reflect on what will be lost, especially for Parliament, should we be incapable of salvaging the project and bringing it to a successful conclusion. It is a chance for us to respond to the cacophony of sounds emerging from the ranks of the Council – some simplistic, some in breach of the Treaty, some improbable politically. It is a chance for us to encourage the Commission to be more forthright and incisive to assist us in finding a way forward out of the crisis. It is a chance for Parliament to fill some political space and to bring a focus to the period of reflection. We know that we cannot achieve all this by ourselves but must have the close collaboration of national parliaments. I must say that I find it fairly curious in this context that the Presidents of the Austrian, Finnish and German Parliaments seem somewhat reluctant to cooperate with us. It is up to the parliaments to decide whether or not they turn up. Those who choose to turn up will have a decisive say in fashioning the decisions about the future of Europe. The proposals, which received strong support from the committee, set out a parliamentary process. We seek to establish a series of parliamentary forums to debate some fundamental – perhaps even primitive – questions about the nature and purpose of Europe. We want to have the debate about the reform of common policies that the first Convention was in some part frustrated in being denied. This policy debate can and should be radical, but it must take place within the constitutional context and be closely related to issues of competences, to instruments and to procedures. The first of these forums will take place on 9 May and will address its conclusions to the European Council, which is to take some first decisions about the furtherance of the project. We would like to draw the period of reflection to a close at the end of 2007 with a firm, clear decision on what to do with the Treaty. As the resolution states, there are, in theory, several scenarios we could follow, but in practice there are only two. The first is to supplement the present Treaty with interpretative protocols or declarations. The second is to make rather more substantive changes to Part III so that we address the legitimate concerns and disquiet expressed by citizens in France and the Netherlands and in some other Member States. Between and inside the groups there is certainly controversy about the appropriate way to express ourselves. However, on the essentials of salvaging the Treaty, we are strongly united and I commend the resolution to Parliament."@en4
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, this is Parliament’s first response to the crisis created by France and the Netherlands in rejecting the Constitution. It is a chance for us to reflect on what will be lost, especially for Parliament, should we be incapable of salvaging the project and bringing it to a successful conclusion. It is a chance for us to respond to the cacophony of sounds emerging from the ranks of the Council – some simplistic, some in breach of the Treaty, some improbable politically. It is a chance for us to encourage the Commission to be more forthright and incisive to assist us in finding a way forward out of the crisis. It is a chance for Parliament to fill some political space and to bring a focus to the period of reflection. We know that we cannot achieve all this by ourselves but must have the close collaboration of national parliaments. I must say that I find it fairly curious in this context that the Presidents of the Austrian, Finnish and German Parliaments seem somewhat reluctant to cooperate with us. It is up to the parliaments to decide whether or not they turn up. Those who choose to turn up will have a decisive say in fashioning the decisions about the future of Europe. The proposals, which received strong support from the committee, set out a parliamentary process. We seek to establish a series of parliamentary forums to debate some fundamental – perhaps even primitive – questions about the nature and purpose of Europe. We want to have the debate about the reform of common policies that the first Convention was in some part frustrated in being denied. This policy debate can and should be radical, but it must take place within the constitutional context and be closely related to issues of competences, to instruments and to procedures. The first of these forums will take place on 9 May and will address its conclusions to the European Council, which is to take some first decisions about the furtherance of the project. We would like to draw the period of reflection to a close at the end of 2007 with a firm, clear decision on what to do with the Treaty. As the resolution states, there are, in theory, several scenarios we could follow, but in practice there are only two. The first is to supplement the present Treaty with interpretative protocols or declarations. The second is to make rather more substantive changes to Part III so that we address the legitimate concerns and disquiet expressed by citizens in France and the Netherlands and in some other Member States. Between and inside the groups there is certainly controversy about the appropriate way to express ourselves. However, on the essentials of salvaging the Treaty, we are strongly united and I commend the resolution to Parliament."@cs1
"Hr. formand, dette er Parlamentets første reaktion på den krise, som Frankrig og Nederlandene skabte ved at forkaste forfatningen. Den giver os mulighed for at overveje, hvad der, især for Parlamentet, går tabt, hvis vi ikke er i stand til at redde projektet og gennemføre det med succes. Den giver os lejlighed til at reagere på kakofonien af udtalelser fra Rådet, hvoraf nogle er overforenklede, nogle er i strid med traktaten og nogle er politisk usandsynlige. Den giver os mulighed for at tilskynde Kommissionen til at være mere direkte og skarp i sine bestræbelser på at hjælpe os med at finde en vej ud af krisen. Den giver Parlamentet mulighed for at udfylde et politisk rum og sætte tænkepausen i fokus. Vi er godt klar over, at vi ikke kan opnå alt dette alene, men må samarbejde snævert med de nationale parlamenter. I denne forbindelse må jeg sige, at jeg finder det temmelig ejendommeligt, at formændene for det østrigske, det finske og det tyske parlament synes at være noget uvillige til at samarbejde med os. Det er op til parlamenterne at beslutte, om de vil komme. De, der vælger at komme, vil få afgørende indflydelse på beslutningerne om Europas fremtid. I de forslag, der fik stærk støtte i udvalget, fastlægges der en parlamentarisk proces. Vi vil oprette en række parlamentariske fora, som skal debattere nogle grundlæggende - måske endog primitive - spørgsmål om Europas karakter og formål. Vi vil have den debat om reformen af de fælles politikker, som det første konvent blev nægtet, hvorved det til dels blev modarbejdet. Denne politikdebat kan og bør være radikal, men den skal finde sted inden for rammerne af den forfatningsmæssige kontekst og være tæt forbundet med spørgsmål om beføjelser, instrumenter og procedurer. Det første af disse fora finder sted den 9. maj, og dets konklusioner vil være henvendt til Det Europæiske Råd, som skal træffe nogle indledende beslutninger om fremme af projektet. Vi vil gerne afslutte tænkepausen i slutningen af 2007 med en fast og klar beslutning om, hvad der skal ske med traktaten. Som det fremgår af beslutningen, er der i teorien flere forskellige scenarier, vi kan følge, men i praksis er der kun to. Det første går ud på at supplere den nuværende traktat med fortolkende protokoller eller erklæringer. Det andet går ud på at ændre del III noget mere gennemgribende, så vi reagerer på de berettigede bekymringer og den uro, som borgerne i Frankrig og Nederlandene og visse andre medlemsstater har givet udtryk for. Mellem og i grupperne er der helt klart uenighed om, hvordan vi udtrykker os bedst muligt. Men i det afgørende spørgsmål om at redde traktaten står vi sammen, og jeg anbefaler beslutningen til Parlamentet."@da2
"Herr Präsident! Dies ist die erste Reaktion des Parlaments auf die wegen der in Frankreich und den Niederlanden abgelehnten Verfassung entstandene Krise. Für uns ist es eine Möglichkeit, über mögliche Verluste nachzudenken, insbesondere für das Parlament, wenn wir es nicht schaffen, dieses Projekt zu retten und es einem erfolgreichen Abschluss zuzuführen. Es ist eine Möglichkeit, auf den aus dem Rat zu vernehmenden Missklang an Stimmen – manche primitiv, manche vertragsverletzend und manche politisch untragbar – zu reagieren. Es ist eine Möglichkeit, die Kommission darin zu bestärken, uns eindeutiger und unmittelbarer dabei zu unterstützen, einen Weg aus der Krise zu finden. Für das Parlament ist es eine Möglichkeit, politisch tätig zu werden und der Reflexionsphase einen Schwerpunkt zu verleihen. Uns ist bewusst, dass wir all das nicht aus eigener Kraft erreichen können, sondern auf die enge Zusammenarbeit mit den einzelstaatlichen Parlamenten angewiesen sind. Ich muss gestehen, dass ich es in diesem Zusammenhang recht merkwürdig finde, dass die Präsidenten der Parlamente Österreichs, Finnlands und Deutschlands nur widerstrebend mit uns zusammenarbeiten. Die Entscheidung liegt bei den Parlamenten, ob sie mitmachen wollen oder nicht. Alle, die sich beteiligen, werden in entscheidender Weise darüber mitbestimmen können, wie die Zukunft Europas aussehen soll. Die Vorschläge, die im Ausschuss vehement unterstützt wurden, setzten einen parlamentarischen Prozess in Gang. Wir wollen eine Reihe parlamentarischer Foren auf den Weg bringen, um einige grundsätzliche – vielleicht sogar primitive – Fragen über das Wesen und den Zweck Europas zu erörtern. Wir wollen die Aussprache über die Reform der Gemeinschaftspolitiken, die dem ersten Konvent teilweise verwehrt wurde. Diese politische Debatte kann und sollte radikal geführt werden, sie muss jedoch im Verfassungskontext stattfinden und sich eng an Zuständigkeitsfragen, Instrumenten und Verfahren orientieren. Das erste dieser Foren wird am 9. Mai stattfinden. Dessen Schlussfolgerungen werden dem Europäischen Rat vorgestellt, der dann erste Entscheidungen in Bezug auf die Fortsetzung dieses Projekts treffen muss. Unserer Auffassung nach sollte die Reflexionsphase dann gegen Ende 2007 mit einer klaren Entscheidung darüber zu Ende gehen, was mit dem Vertrag passieren soll. Laut Entschließungsantrag sind theoretisch mehrere Szenarien denkbar, doch praktisch gibt es für uns nur zwei. Das erste besteht darin, zum aktuellen Vertrag erklärende Protokolle oder Deklarationen hinzuzufügen. Das zweite wäre, Teil III in wesentlichen Teilen stärker zu ändern, so dass wir den berechtigten Bedenken und Sorgen der Bürger in Frankreich und den Niederlanden sowie einigen anderen Mitgliedstaaten Rechnung tragen können. Zwischen und innerhalb der Fraktionen gehen die Meinungen sicherlich darüber auseinander, wie wir uns am besten verständlich machen können. Doch was die Rettung des Vertrags angeht, so sind wir uns einig, und ich empfehle den Entschließungsantrag dem Parlament."@de9
". Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αυτή είναι η πρώτη αντίδραση του Κοινοβουλίου στην κρίση που δημιούργησαν η Γαλλία και οι Κάτω Χώρες με την απόρριψη του Συντάγματος. Είναι μια ευκαιρία να σκεφτούμε όλα όσα θα χαθούν, ιδίως για το Κοινοβούλιο, εάν δεν καταφέρουμε να διασώσουμε αυτό το σχέδιο και να το φέρουμε σε αίσιο πέρας. Είναι μια ευκαιρία να απαντήσουμε στις συγκεχυμένες απόψεις που εκφράζονται στις τάξεις του Συμβουλίου – άλλες υπεραπλουστευτικές, άλλες αντίθετες με τη Συνθήκη και άλλες πολιτικά ανέφικτες. Είναι μια ευκαιρία να ενθαρρύνουμε την Επιτροπή να επιδείξει μεγαλύτερη ευθύτητα και αποφασιστικότητα και να μας βοηθήσει να βρούμε έναν τρόπο εξόδου από αυτή την κρίση. Είναι μια ευκαιρία να καλύψει το Κοινοβούλιο τον κενό πολιτικό χώρο και να κατευθύνει σε συγκεκριμένους στόχους την περίοδο προβληματισμού. Γνωρίζουμε ότι όλα αυτά δεν μπορούμε να τα επιτύχουμε μόνοι μας, αλλά χρειαζόμαστε τη στενή συνεργασία των εθνικών κοινοβουλίων. Επ’ αυτού, οφείλω να δηλώσω ότι θεωρώ πολύ παράξενο το γεγονός ότι οι πρόεδροι των κοινοβουλίων της Αυστρίας, της Φινλανδίας και της Γερμανίας εμφανίζονται κάπως διστακτικοί όσον αφορά τη συνεργασία μαζί μας. Επαφίεται στα ίδια τα κοινοβούλια να αποφασίσουν κατά πόσον θα μετάσχουν σε αυτή την προσπάθεια. Όσοι αποφασίσουν να μετάσχουν θα διαδραματίσουν καίριο ρόλο στη διαμόρφωση των αποφάσεων σχετικά με το μέλλον της Ευρώπης. Οι προτάσεις, οι οποίες έτυχαν ιδιαίτερης στήριξης από την αρμόδια επιτροπή, καθορίζουν μια κοινοβουλευτική διαδικασία. Προσπαθούμε να δημιουργήσουμε μια σειρά από κοινοβουλευτικά φόρα τα οποία θα μας προσφέρουν τη δυνατότητα να συζητήσουμε θέματα τα οποία έχουν συχνά πρωταρχική –ίσως και στοιχειώδη– σημασία για τον χαρακτήρα και τους σκοπούς της Ευρώπης. Θέλουμε να διεξαχθεί μια συζήτηση σχετικά με τη μεταρρύθμιση των κοινών πολιτικών, δεδομένου ότι η πρώτη Συνέλευση αντιμετώπισε ορισμένες δυσκολίες επειδή δεν της δόθηκε αυτή η δυνατότητα. Αυτή η πολιτική συζήτηση μπορεί και πρέπει να είναι ρηξικέλευθη, αλλά πρέπει να διεξαχθεί εντός του συνταγματικού πλαισίου και να συνδυαστεί με θέματα αρμοδιοτήτων, μέσων και διαδικασιών. Το πρώτο από αυτά τα φόρα θα διοργανωθεί στις 9 Μαΐου και τα συμπεράσματά του θα απευθύνονται στο Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο, το οποίο καλείται να λάβει πρώτο αποφάσεις σχετικά με την πορεία του συνταγματικού σχεδίου. Επιθυμούμε την ολοκλήρωση της περιόδου προβληματισμού στα τέλη του 2007 με μια οριστική, σαφή απόφαση σχετικά με το μέλλον της Συνθήκης. Όπως αναφέρεται στο ψήφισμα, θεωρητικώς υπάρχουν πολλά σενάρια τα οποία θα μπορούσαμε να ακολουθήσουμε. Στην πράξη, όμως, τα πιθανά σενάρια είναι μόνο δύο. Το πρώτο είναι η συμπλήρωση της ισχύουσας Συνθήκης με ερμηνευτικά πρωτόκολλα ή δηλώσεις. Το δεύτερο είναι να προβούμε σε ουσιαστικές αλλαγές στο τρίτο μέρος της συνταγματικής συνθήκης, έτσι ώστε να αντιμετωπίζονται οι εύλογες ανησυχίες και η δυσαρέσκεια που εξέφρασαν οι πολίτες της Γαλλίας και των Κάτω Χωρών, καθώς και ορισμένων άλλων κρατών μελών. Μεταξύ των πολιτικών ομάδων, αλλά και στο εσωτερικό τους, υπάρχουν ασφαλώς διαφωνίες σχετικά με τη στάση που πρέπει να τηρήσουμε. Εντούτοις, όσον αφορά τις βασικές πτυχές της διάσωσης της Συνθήκης, είμαστε εξαιρετικά ενωμένοι και, γι’ αυτό, συνιστώ την έγκριση αυτού του ψηφίσματος από το Κοινοβούλιο."@el10
". Señor Presidente, esta es la primera respuesta del Parlamento a la crisis suscitada por Francia y los Países Bajos con su rechazo de la Constitución. Se trata de una oportunidad para que reflexionemos sobre lo que se perderá, especialmente el Parlamento, si somos incapaces de rescatar el proyecto y llevarlo a buen puerto. También es una oportunidad para que respondamos a la algarabía de sonidos que provienen de las filas del Consejo: algunos simplistas, otros contrarios al Tratado y otros políticamente improbables. Es una oportunidad para animar a la Comisión a que sea más directa e incisiva a la hora de ayudarnos a encontrar una salida a la crisis, y para que el Parlamento llene algún espacio político y oriente el período de reflexión. Sabemos que no podemos conseguir todo esto por nosotros mismos, sino que debemos contar con la estrecha colaboración de los Parlamentos nacionales. En este contexto debo decir que me parece muy curioso que los Presidentes de los Parlamentos austriaco, finlandés y alemán parezcan ser algo reacios a cooperar con nosotros. Depende de los Parlamentos decidir si participan o no. Aquellos que opten por participar tendrán un papel decisivo a la hora de dar forma a las decisiones relativas al futuro de Europa. Las propuestas, que recibieron un fuerte respaldo de la comisión, establecen un proceso parlamentario. Pretendemos formar una serie de foros parlamentarios para debatir algunas cuestiones fundamentales –quizás incluso primitivas– sobre la naturaleza y el objetivo de Europa. Queremos celebrar el debate sobre la reforma de las política común cuya negación frustró en parte la primera Convención. Este debate político puede y debe ser radical, pero hay que celebrarlo dentro del contexto constitucional y debe estar estrechamente relacionado con cuestiones de competencias, instrumentos y procedimientos. El primero de estos foros se celebrará el 9 de mayo y planteará sus conclusiones al Consejo Europeo, que tomará algunas decisiones iniciales sobre la promoción de este proyecto. Quisiéramos que el período de reflexión concluyese a finales de 2007 con una decisión clara y firme sobre qué hacer con el Tratado. Como establece la resolución, en teoría existen varias perspectivas que podríamos seguir, pero en la práctica hay solo dos. La primera es complementar el actual Tratado con protocolos o declaraciones interpretativas. La segunda consiste en hacer cambios bastante más sustanciales a la Parte III, de forma que tratemos la inquietud y las preocupaciones legítimas expresadas por los ciudadanos de Francia y los Países Bajos, así como de otros Estados miembros. Por supuesto, entre los Grupos y dentro de estos hay sin duda controversia sobre el modo adecuado en que debemos expresarnos. Sin embargo, estamos firmemente unidos en torno a los aspectos esenciales de rescatar el Tratado y recomiendo al Parlamento que apruebe la resolución."@es20
"Mr President, this is Parliament’s first response to the crisis created by France and the Netherlands in rejecting the Constitution. It is a chance for us to reflect on what will be lost, especially for Parliament, should we be incapable of salvaging the project and bringing it to a successful conclusion. It is a chance for us to respond to the cacophony of sounds emerging from the ranks of the Council – some simplistic, some in breach of the Treaty, some improbable politically. It is a chance for us to encourage the Commission to be more forthright and incisive to assist us in finding a way forward out of the crisis. It is a chance for Parliament to fill some political space and to bring a focus to the period of reflection. We know that we cannot achieve all this by ourselves but must have the close collaboration of national parliaments. I must say that I find it fairly curious in this context that the Presidents of the Austrian, Finnish and German Parliaments seem somewhat reluctant to cooperate with us. It is up to the parliaments to decide whether or not they turn up. Those who choose to turn up will have a decisive say in fashioning the decisions about the future of Europe. The proposals, which received strong support from the committee, set out a parliamentary process. We seek to establish a series of parliamentary forums to debate some fundamental – perhaps even primitive – questions about the nature and purpose of Europe. We want to have the debate about the reform of common policies that the first Convention was in some part frustrated in being denied. This policy debate can and should be radical, but it must take place within the constitutional context and be closely related to issues of competences, to instruments and to procedures. The first of these forums will take place on 9 May and will address its conclusions to the European Council, which is to take some first decisions about the furtherance of the project. We would like to draw the period of reflection to a close at the end of 2007 with a firm, clear decision on what to do with the Treaty. As the resolution states, there are, in theory, several scenarios we could follow, but in practice there are only two. The first is to supplement the present Treaty with interpretative protocols or declarations. The second is to make rather more substantive changes to Part III so that we address the legitimate concerns and disquiet expressed by citizens in France and the Netherlands and in some other Member States. Between and inside the groups there is certainly controversy about the appropriate way to express ourselves. However, on the essentials of salvaging the Treaty, we are strongly united and I commend the resolution to Parliament."@et5
". Arvoisa puhemies, tämä mietintö on parlamentin ensimmäinen kannanotto kriisiin, jonka Ranska ja Alankomaat aiheuttivat hylätessään perustuslain. Mietintö antaa meille ja erityisesti parlamentille mahdollisuuden pohtia, mitä menetämme, jos emme kykene pelastamaan tätä hanketta ja saattamaan sitä menestyksekkäästi päätökseen. Se antaa meille mahdollisuuden vastata neuvostosta kuuluvaan mielipiteiden kakofoniaan – joidenkin jäsenvaltioiden näkemykset ovat yksinkertaistettuja, joidenkin ristiriidassa sopimuksen kanssa ja joidenkin poliittisesti epätodennäköisiä. Mietintö antaa meille mahdollisuuden kannustaa komissiota toimimaan suoraviivaisemmin ja tehokkaammin, jotta se voi auttaa meitä löytämään ulospääsytien tästä kriisistä. Se myös antaa parlamentille mahdollisuuden täyttää paikkansa poliittisella kentällä ja keskittyä harkintakauteen. Tiedämme, ettemme voi saavuttaa kaikkea tätä yksin vaan tarvitsemme kansallisten parlamenttien tiivistä yhteistyötä. Minun on todettava, että pidän tähän liittyen melko omituisena, että Itävallan, Suomen ja Saksan parlamenttien puhemiehet vaikuttavat jossain määrin haluttomilta tekemään yhteistyötä kanssamme. Parlamenttien tehtävä on päättää, tekevätkö ne yhteistyötä vai eivät. Niillä kansallisilla parlamenteilla, jotka päättävät tehdä yhteistyötä, on ratkaisevaa sananvaltaa Euroopan unionin tulevaisuutta koskevien päätösten muovaamisessa. Ehdotuksissa, joille valiokunta antoi voimakkaan tukensa, esitetään parlamentaarista prosessia. Tarkoituksenamme on perustaa useita parlamentaarisia foorumeita, joissa keskustellaan muutamista Euroopan unionin luonteeseen ja tarkoitukseen liittyvistä perustavanlaatuisista – ehkä jopa alkeellisista – kysymyksistä. Haluamme käydä yhteisten politiikkojen uudistamista koskevaa keskustelua, jonka kieltäminen oli osin turhauttavaa ensimmäiselle Eurooppa-valmistelukunnalle. Tämä keskustelu voi olla ja sen pitäisi olla radikaalia, mutta sitä on käytävä perustuslain kontekstissa ja sen on liityttävä läheisesti toimivaltakysymyksiin, välineisiin ja menettelyihin. Ensimmäinen näistä foorumeista järjestetään 9. toukokuuta, ja se esittää päätelmänsä Eurooppa-neuvostolle, jonka on määrä tehdä ensimmäiset päätökset hankkeen edistämisestä. Haluaisimme saattaa harkintakauden päätökseen vuoden 2007 lopussa tekemällä sitovan ja selkeän päätöksen siitä, mitä perustuslakisopimukselle tehdään. Kuten päätöslauselmassa todetaan, unionilla on käytettävissään teoriassa useita vaihtoehtoja, mutta käytännössä niitä on vain kaksi. Ensimmäinen vaihtoehto on täydentää nykyistä sopimusta tulkitsevilla pöytäkirjoilla tai julistuksilla. Toisena vaihtoehtona on muuttaa pikemminkin III osan asiasisältöä, jotta voimme käsitellä niitä oikeutettuja huolenaiheita ja levottomuutta, joita kansalaiset Ranskassa ja Alankomaissa sekä muutamissa muissa jäsenvaltioissa ovat ilmaisseet. Poliittisten ryhmien välillä ja sisällä on epäilemättä kiistaa asianmukaisesta tavasta ilmaista itseämme. Olemme kuitenkin hyvin yksimielisiä perustuslakisopimuksen pelastamisen pääkohdista, ja suositan parlamentille päätöslauselman hyväksymistä."@fi7
". Monsieur le Président, il s’agit là de la première réponse du Parlement à la crise née du rejet de la Constitution par la France et les Pays-Bas. C’est l’occasion pour nous de réfléchir à ce qui sera perdu, notamment pour le Parlement, si nous nous révélions incapables de sauvegarder le projet et de l’amener à une conclusion couronnée de succès. C’est l’occasion pour nous de réagir à la cacophonie qui émerge des rangs du Conseil - certains sons étant simplistes, d’autres enfreignant le Traité, d’autres encore s’avérant politiquement improbables. C’est l’occasion pour nous d’encourager la Commission à se montrer plus franche et plus incisive s’agissant de nous aider à trouver la manière d’aller de l’avant pour sortir de cette crise. C’est l’occasion enfin, pour le Parlement, d’occuper un espace politique et de mettre l’accent sur la période de réflexion. Nous savons que nous ne pouvons pas obtenir tout cela par nous-mêmes, mais que nous devons compter sur la collaboration étroite des parlements nationaux. Je dois dire que je trouve bien curieux, dans ce contexte, que les présidents des parlements autrichien, finlandais et allemand semblent quelque peu réticents à coopérer avec nous. Il revient aux parlements de décider s’ils souhaitent ou non se manifester. Ceux d’entre eux qui choisiront de se manifester auront un rôle décisif dans l’élaboration des décisions concernant l’avenir de l’Europe. Les propositions, qui ont reçu un fort soutien de la part de la commission, exposaient un processus parlementaire. Nous cherchons à mettre en place une série de forums parlementaires afin de débattre de certaines questions fondamentales - et peut-être même primitives - à propos de la nature et de la finalité de l’Europe. Nous voulons avoir ce débat sur la réforme des politiques communes, dont la première Convention avait été en partie frustrée qu’on le lui refuse. Ce débat politique peut, et doit, être radical, mais il doit avoir lieu dans le contexte constitutionnel et être étroitement lié aux questions de compétences, aux instruments et aux procédures. Le premier de ces forums aura lieu le 9 mai et il transmettra ses conclusions au Conseil européen, qui devra prendre certaines premières décisions relatives à l’avancement du projet. Nous souhaiterions amener la période de réflexion à une conclusion pour la fin 2007, avec une décision ferme et claire sur ce que l’on doit faire du Traité. Comme l’affirme la résolution, il y a, en théorie, plusieurs scénarios que nous pouvons suivre, mais en pratique, il n’y en a que deux. Le premier consiste à compléter le Traité actuel par des protocoles ou des déclarations interprétatifs complémentaires. Le second consiste à procéder à des modifications plus importantes à la partie III, de façon à répondre aux préoccupations légitimes et aux inquiétudes exprimées par les citoyens en France et aux Pays-Bas, ainsi que dans d’autres États membres. Entre les différents groupes, ainsi qu’au sein de chaque groupe, une certaine controverse se manifeste quant à la manière appropriée de nous exprimer. Toutefois, sur les points essentiels concernant la sauvegarde du Traité, nous sommes fortement unis et je recommande au Parlement l’adoption de cette résolution."@fr8
"Mr President, this is Parliament’s first response to the crisis created by France and the Netherlands in rejecting the Constitution. It is a chance for us to reflect on what will be lost, especially for Parliament, should we be incapable of salvaging the project and bringing it to a successful conclusion. It is a chance for us to respond to the cacophony of sounds emerging from the ranks of the Council – some simplistic, some in breach of the Treaty, some improbable politically. It is a chance for us to encourage the Commission to be more forthright and incisive to assist us in finding a way forward out of the crisis. It is a chance for Parliament to fill some political space and to bring a focus to the period of reflection. We know that we cannot achieve all this by ourselves but must have the close collaboration of national parliaments. I must say that I find it fairly curious in this context that the Presidents of the Austrian, Finnish and German Parliaments seem somewhat reluctant to cooperate with us. It is up to the parliaments to decide whether or not they turn up. Those who choose to turn up will have a decisive say in fashioning the decisions about the future of Europe. The proposals, which received strong support from the committee, set out a parliamentary process. We seek to establish a series of parliamentary forums to debate some fundamental – perhaps even primitive – questions about the nature and purpose of Europe. We want to have the debate about the reform of common policies that the first Convention was in some part frustrated in being denied. This policy debate can and should be radical, but it must take place within the constitutional context and be closely related to issues of competences, to instruments and to procedures. The first of these forums will take place on 9 May and will address its conclusions to the European Council, which is to take some first decisions about the furtherance of the project. We would like to draw the period of reflection to a close at the end of 2007 with a firm, clear decision on what to do with the Treaty. As the resolution states, there are, in theory, several scenarios we could follow, but in practice there are only two. The first is to supplement the present Treaty with interpretative protocols or declarations. The second is to make rather more substantive changes to Part III so that we address the legitimate concerns and disquiet expressed by citizens in France and the Netherlands and in some other Member States. Between and inside the groups there is certainly controversy about the appropriate way to express ourselves. However, on the essentials of salvaging the Treaty, we are strongly united and I commend the resolution to Parliament."@hu11
"Signor Presidente, questa è la prima risposta del Parlamento alla crisi creata dalla Francia e dai Paesi Bassi con il loro rifiuto della Costituzione. E’ un’occasione per riflettere su quanto andrà perso, specialmente per il Parlamento, se non riuscissimo a salvare il progetto e a condurlo a una conclusione positiva. E’ un’occasione per rispondere alle voci discordanti che emergono dal Consiglio – alcune semplicistiche, alcune contrarie al Trattato, altre politicamente improbabili. E’ un’occasione per incoraggiare la Commissione a essere più esplicita e incisiva nell’aiutarci a trovare una via d’uscita dalla crisi. E’ un’occasione perché il Parlamento possa occupare un certo spazio politico e dare un orientamento al periodo di riflessione. Sappiamo che non possiamo realizzare tutto questo da soli, ma dobbiamo avere la stretta collaborazione dei parlamenti nazionali. Devo dire che trovo abbastanza curioso in questo contesto che i presidenti dei parlamenti austriaco, finlandese e tedesco siano a quanto pare piuttosto restii a cooperare con noi. Spetta ai parlamenti decidere se dare o meno la propria disponibilità. Quelli che scelgono di essere presenti avranno una voce in capitolo determinante per definire le decisioni sul futuro dell’Europa. Le proposte, che hanno ricevuto un forte appoggio dalla commissione, hanno delineato un percorso parlamentare. Vogliamo indire una serie di parlamentari al fine di discutere alcune questioni fondamentali – forse persino basilari – sulla natura e sullo scopo dell’Europa. Vogliamo svolgere il dibattito sulla riforma delle politiche comuni, in parte negato alla prima Convenzione. Tale dibattito sulle politiche può e deve essere radicale, ma deve svolgersi all’interno del contesto costituzionale ed essere strettamente collegato alle questioni di competenze, agli strumenti e alle procedure. Il primo di questi si svolgerà il 9 maggio e trasmetterà le sue conclusioni al Consiglio europeo, che dovrà prendere le prime decisioni sull’avanzamento del progetto. Vorremmo concludere il periodo di riflessione alla fine del 2007 con una decisione chiara e ferma su cosa fare riguardo al Trattato. Come viene rilevato nella risoluzione, disponiamo in teoria di varie opzioni, ma in pratica queste si riducono a due. La prima è quella di integrare il presente Trattato con dichiarazioni o protocolli interpretativi. La seconda è quella di apportare modifiche più consistenti alla parte III in modo da rispondere alle legittime preoccupazioni e inquietudini espresse dai cittadini in Francia, nei Paesi Bassi e in altri Stati membri. Tra i gruppi, e al loro interno, vi sono certamente controversie sul modo più appropriato di esprimerci. Siamo comunque saldamente uniti sull’obiettivo essenziale di salvare il Trattato, e raccomando quindi la risoluzione al Parlamento."@it12
"Mr President, this is Parliament’s first response to the crisis created by France and the Netherlands in rejecting the Constitution. It is a chance for us to reflect on what will be lost, especially for Parliament, should we be incapable of salvaging the project and bringing it to a successful conclusion. It is a chance for us to respond to the cacophony of sounds emerging from the ranks of the Council – some simplistic, some in breach of the Treaty, some improbable politically. It is a chance for us to encourage the Commission to be more forthright and incisive to assist us in finding a way forward out of the crisis. It is a chance for Parliament to fill some political space and to bring a focus to the period of reflection. We know that we cannot achieve all this by ourselves but must have the close collaboration of national parliaments. I must say that I find it fairly curious in this context that the Presidents of the Austrian, Finnish and German Parliaments seem somewhat reluctant to cooperate with us. It is up to the parliaments to decide whether or not they turn up. Those who choose to turn up will have a decisive say in fashioning the decisions about the future of Europe. The proposals, which received strong support from the committee, set out a parliamentary process. We seek to establish a series of parliamentary forums to debate some fundamental – perhaps even primitive – questions about the nature and purpose of Europe. We want to have the debate about the reform of common policies that the first Convention was in some part frustrated in being denied. This policy debate can and should be radical, but it must take place within the constitutional context and be closely related to issues of competences, to instruments and to procedures. The first of these forums will take place on 9 May and will address its conclusions to the European Council, which is to take some first decisions about the furtherance of the project. We would like to draw the period of reflection to a close at the end of 2007 with a firm, clear decision on what to do with the Treaty. As the resolution states, there are, in theory, several scenarios we could follow, but in practice there are only two. The first is to supplement the present Treaty with interpretative protocols or declarations. The second is to make rather more substantive changes to Part III so that we address the legitimate concerns and disquiet expressed by citizens in France and the Netherlands and in some other Member States. Between and inside the groups there is certainly controversy about the appropriate way to express ourselves. However, on the essentials of salvaging the Treaty, we are strongly united and I commend the resolution to Parliament."@lt14
"Mr President, this is Parliament’s first response to the crisis created by France and the Netherlands in rejecting the Constitution. It is a chance for us to reflect on what will be lost, especially for Parliament, should we be incapable of salvaging the project and bringing it to a successful conclusion. It is a chance for us to respond to the cacophony of sounds emerging from the ranks of the Council – some simplistic, some in breach of the Treaty, some improbable politically. It is a chance for us to encourage the Commission to be more forthright and incisive to assist us in finding a way forward out of the crisis. It is a chance for Parliament to fill some political space and to bring a focus to the period of reflection. We know that we cannot achieve all this by ourselves but must have the close collaboration of national parliaments. I must say that I find it fairly curious in this context that the Presidents of the Austrian, Finnish and German Parliaments seem somewhat reluctant to cooperate with us. It is up to the parliaments to decide whether or not they turn up. Those who choose to turn up will have a decisive say in fashioning the decisions about the future of Europe. The proposals, which received strong support from the committee, set out a parliamentary process. We seek to establish a series of parliamentary forums to debate some fundamental – perhaps even primitive – questions about the nature and purpose of Europe. We want to have the debate about the reform of common policies that the first Convention was in some part frustrated in being denied. This policy debate can and should be radical, but it must take place within the constitutional context and be closely related to issues of competences, to instruments and to procedures. The first of these forums will take place on 9 May and will address its conclusions to the European Council, which is to take some first decisions about the furtherance of the project. We would like to draw the period of reflection to a close at the end of 2007 with a firm, clear decision on what to do with the Treaty. As the resolution states, there are, in theory, several scenarios we could follow, but in practice there are only two. The first is to supplement the present Treaty with interpretative protocols or declarations. The second is to make rather more substantive changes to Part III so that we address the legitimate concerns and disquiet expressed by citizens in France and the Netherlands and in some other Member States. Between and inside the groups there is certainly controversy about the appropriate way to express ourselves. However, on the essentials of salvaging the Treaty, we are strongly united and I commend the resolution to Parliament."@lv13
"Mr President, this is Parliament’s first response to the crisis created by France and the Netherlands in rejecting the Constitution. It is a chance for us to reflect on what will be lost, especially for Parliament, should we be incapable of salvaging the project and bringing it to a successful conclusion. It is a chance for us to respond to the cacophony of sounds emerging from the ranks of the Council – some simplistic, some in breach of the Treaty, some improbable politically. It is a chance for us to encourage the Commission to be more forthright and incisive to assist us in finding a way forward out of the crisis. It is a chance for Parliament to fill some political space and to bring a focus to the period of reflection. We know that we cannot achieve all this by ourselves but must have the close collaboration of national parliaments. I must say that I find it fairly curious in this context that the Presidents of the Austrian, Finnish and German Parliaments seem somewhat reluctant to cooperate with us. It is up to the parliaments to decide whether or not they turn up. Those who choose to turn up will have a decisive say in fashioning the decisions about the future of Europe. The proposals, which received strong support from the committee, set out a parliamentary process. We seek to establish a series of parliamentary forums to debate some fundamental – perhaps even primitive – questions about the nature and purpose of Europe. We want to have the debate about the reform of common policies that the first Convention was in some part frustrated in being denied. This policy debate can and should be radical, but it must take place within the constitutional context and be closely related to issues of competences, to instruments and to procedures. The first of these forums will take place on 9 May and will address its conclusions to the European Council, which is to take some first decisions about the furtherance of the project. We would like to draw the period of reflection to a close at the end of 2007 with a firm, clear decision on what to do with the Treaty. As the resolution states, there are, in theory, several scenarios we could follow, but in practice there are only two. The first is to supplement the present Treaty with interpretative protocols or declarations. The second is to make rather more substantive changes to Part III so that we address the legitimate concerns and disquiet expressed by citizens in France and the Netherlands and in some other Member States. Between and inside the groups there is certainly controversy about the appropriate way to express ourselves. However, on the essentials of salvaging the Treaty, we are strongly united and I commend the resolution to Parliament."@mt15
". Mijnheer de Voorzitter, dit is het eerste respons van het Parlement op de crisis die Frankrijk en Nederland hebben veroorzaakt door de Grondwet te verwerpen. Het is een kans voor ons om na te denken over wat, vooral voor het Parlement, verloren zal gaan als we niet in staat zijn om het project te redden en tot een succesvol einde te brengen. Het is een kans voor ons om te reageren op de kakofonie van geluiden die uit de gelederen van de Raad komt. Sommige van die geluiden zijn simplistisch, andere in strijd met het Verdrag, en weer andere politiek onwaarschijnlijk. Het is een kans voor ons om de Commissie aan te moedigen tot meer vastberadenheid en doortastender optreden en om haar te vragen ons te helpen bij het vinden van een uitweg uit deze crisis. Het is een kans voor het Parlement om een politieke leemte op te vullen en de periode van bezinning duidelijk te omlijnen. We weten dat we dit niet allemaal alleen kunnen bereiken, maar dat we de nauwe samenwerking van de nationale parlementen nodig hebben. Ik moet zeggen dat ik het in dit verband tamelijk curieus vind dat de voorzitters van het Oostenrijkse, Finse en Duitse parlement enigszins terughoudend lijken te zijn om met ons samen te werken. Het is aan de parlementen om te beslissen of ze wel of niet komen opdagen. De parlementen die besluiten wel te komen opdagen, zullen een beslissende stem hebben in de modellering van de besluiten over de toekomst van Europa. In de voorstellen, die ruime steun hebben gekregen van de commissie, wordt een parlementair proces beschreven. We proberen een reeks parlementaire fora op te zetten om te debatteren over enkele fundamentele, misschien zelfs primitieve vragen over de aard en het doel van Europa. We willen dat het debat gaat over de hervorming van het gemeenschappelijk beleid, een debat dat de eerste Conventie - tot haar frustratie - helaas ten dele werd ontzegd. Dit debat over het beleid kan en moet radicaal zijn, maar het moet plaatsvinden binnen de constitutionele context, en het moet nauw samenhangen met de vraagstukken van de bevoegdheden, de instrumenten en de procedures. Het eerste van deze fora zal plaatsvinden op 9 mei. De conclusies daarvan zullen gericht worden tot de Europese Raad, die enkele eerste besluiten zal moeten nemen over de voortzetting van het project. We zouden eind 2007 de periode van bezinning willen afsluiten met een stevig, helder besluit over wat we met het Verdrag moeten doen. Zoals de resolutie aangeeft, zijn er in theorie meerdere scenario's die we zouden kunnen volgen, maar in de praktijk zijn het er slechts twee. Het eerste scenario is dat we het huidige Verdrag aanvullen met interpretatieve protocollen en verklaringen. Het tweede scenario is dat we inhoudelijke veranderingen aanbrengen in deel III, zodat we iets doen aan de legitieme zorgen en onrust die zijn geuit door de burgers van Frankrijk en Nederland en enkele andere lidstaten. Tussen en binnen de fracties is zeker sprake van een controverse over de juiste manier om onze mening te geven. Ten aanzien van het essentiële punt van het redden van het Verdrag zijn we echter zeer eensgezind, en ik wil derhalve de ontwerpresolutie aan het Parlement aanbevelen."@nl3
"Mr President, this is Parliament’s first response to the crisis created by France and the Netherlands in rejecting the Constitution. It is a chance for us to reflect on what will be lost, especially for Parliament, should we be incapable of salvaging the project and bringing it to a successful conclusion. It is a chance for us to respond to the cacophony of sounds emerging from the ranks of the Council – some simplistic, some in breach of the Treaty, some improbable politically. It is a chance for us to encourage the Commission to be more forthright and incisive to assist us in finding a way forward out of the crisis. It is a chance for Parliament to fill some political space and to bring a focus to the period of reflection. We know that we cannot achieve all this by ourselves but must have the close collaboration of national parliaments. I must say that I find it fairly curious in this context that the Presidents of the Austrian, Finnish and German Parliaments seem somewhat reluctant to cooperate with us. It is up to the parliaments to decide whether or not they turn up. Those who choose to turn up will have a decisive say in fashioning the decisions about the future of Europe. The proposals, which received strong support from the committee, set out a parliamentary process. We seek to establish a series of parliamentary forums to debate some fundamental – perhaps even primitive – questions about the nature and purpose of Europe. We want to have the debate about the reform of common policies that the first Convention was in some part frustrated in being denied. This policy debate can and should be radical, but it must take place within the constitutional context and be closely related to issues of competences, to instruments and to procedures. The first of these forums will take place on 9 May and will address its conclusions to the European Council, which is to take some first decisions about the furtherance of the project. We would like to draw the period of reflection to a close at the end of 2007 with a firm, clear decision on what to do with the Treaty. As the resolution states, there are, in theory, several scenarios we could follow, but in practice there are only two. The first is to supplement the present Treaty with interpretative protocols or declarations. The second is to make rather more substantive changes to Part III so that we address the legitimate concerns and disquiet expressed by citizens in France and the Netherlands and in some other Member States. Between and inside the groups there is certainly controversy about the appropriate way to express ourselves. However, on the essentials of salvaging the Treaty, we are strongly united and I commend the resolution to Parliament."@pl16
"Senhor Presidente, esta é a primeira resposta do Parlamento à crise criada com a rejeição do projecto de Constituição Europeia pelos eleitores em França e nos Países Baixos. Trata-se de uma oportunidade de reflectirmos no que se perderá, em especial para o Parlamento, se formos incapazes de salvar o projecto em questão e de o levar a bom porto. Trata-se de uma oportunidade de respondermos à cacofonia que se ouve nas fileiras do Conselho – alguma simplista, alguma em violação do Tratado, alguma improvável do ponto de vista político. Trata-se de uma oportunidade de encorajarmos a Comissão a ser mais directa e assertiva, por forma a ajudar-nos a encontrar uma saída para a crise. Trata-se de uma oportunidade de o Parlamento ocupar um determinado espaço político e de dar enfoque ao período de reflexão. Sabemos que não podemos alcançar tudo isto por nós próprios, sem a estreita colaboração dos Parlamentos Nacionais. Devo dizer que considero uma tanto invulgar, neste contexto, o facto de os Presidentes dos Parlamentos Austríaco, Finlandês e Alemão parecerem de algum modo relutantes em cooperar connosco. Cabe aos Parlamentos decidir se querem ou não estar presentes. Aqueles que optarem por participar terão uma palavra decisiva a dizer sobre o rumo das decisões relativas ao futuro da Europa. As propostas, que receberam um forte apoio da Comissão, estabelecem um processo parlamentar. Procuramos realizar uma série de fóruns parlamentares com vista a debater algumas questões fundamentais – talvez até primárias – sobre a natureza e propósito da Europa. Queremos realizar o debate sobre a reforma das políticas comuns, debate esse que ao ser negado à primeira Convenção a posicionou, de alguma forma, aquém das expectativas. Este debate político pode e deverá ser radical, mas tem de ter lugar no quadro constitucional e estar intimamente ligado às questões de competência, instrumentos e procedimentos. O primeiro destes fóruns terá lugar em 9 de Maio e apresentará as suas conclusões ao Conselho Europeu, que deverá então tomar as primeiras decisões sobre o avanço do projecto. Gostaríamos de terminar o período de reflexão em finais de 2007, com uma decisão firme e clara sobre o que fazer relativamente ao Tratado. Como afirma a resolução, dispomos em teoria de vários cenários, mas, na prática, temos apenas dois. O primeiro é completar o actual Tratado com protocolos interpretativos ou declarações. O segundo é proceder a mudanças bem mais substantivas à Parte III, de modo a que possamos responder às legítimas preocupações e inquietações expressas pelos cidadãos em França e nos Países Baixos e ainda noutros Estados-Membros. Entre e no seio dos grupos existe seguramente alguma controvérsia quanto à forma correcta de nos expressarmos. Contudo, no que diz respeito à questão fundamental de salvar o Tratado, estamos fortemente unidos, pelo que recomendo a resolução em apreço ao Parlamento."@pt17
"Mr President, this is Parliament’s first response to the crisis created by France and the Netherlands in rejecting the Constitution. It is a chance for us to reflect on what will be lost, especially for Parliament, should we be incapable of salvaging the project and bringing it to a successful conclusion. It is a chance for us to respond to the cacophony of sounds emerging from the ranks of the Council – some simplistic, some in breach of the Treaty, some improbable politically. It is a chance for us to encourage the Commission to be more forthright and incisive to assist us in finding a way forward out of the crisis. It is a chance for Parliament to fill some political space and to bring a focus to the period of reflection. We know that we cannot achieve all this by ourselves but must have the close collaboration of national parliaments. I must say that I find it fairly curious in this context that the Presidents of the Austrian, Finnish and German Parliaments seem somewhat reluctant to cooperate with us. It is up to the parliaments to decide whether or not they turn up. Those who choose to turn up will have a decisive say in fashioning the decisions about the future of Europe. The proposals, which received strong support from the committee, set out a parliamentary process. We seek to establish a series of parliamentary forums to debate some fundamental – perhaps even primitive – questions about the nature and purpose of Europe. We want to have the debate about the reform of common policies that the first Convention was in some part frustrated in being denied. This policy debate can and should be radical, but it must take place within the constitutional context and be closely related to issues of competences, to instruments and to procedures. The first of these forums will take place on 9 May and will address its conclusions to the European Council, which is to take some first decisions about the furtherance of the project. We would like to draw the period of reflection to a close at the end of 2007 with a firm, clear decision on what to do with the Treaty. As the resolution states, there are, in theory, several scenarios we could follow, but in practice there are only two. The first is to supplement the present Treaty with interpretative protocols or declarations. The second is to make rather more substantive changes to Part III so that we address the legitimate concerns and disquiet expressed by citizens in France and the Netherlands and in some other Member States. Between and inside the groups there is certainly controversy about the appropriate way to express ourselves. However, on the essentials of salvaging the Treaty, we are strongly united and I commend the resolution to Parliament."@sk18
"Mr President, this is Parliament’s first response to the crisis created by France and the Netherlands in rejecting the Constitution. It is a chance for us to reflect on what will be lost, especially for Parliament, should we be incapable of salvaging the project and bringing it to a successful conclusion. It is a chance for us to respond to the cacophony of sounds emerging from the ranks of the Council – some simplistic, some in breach of the Treaty, some improbable politically. It is a chance for us to encourage the Commission to be more forthright and incisive to assist us in finding a way forward out of the crisis. It is a chance for Parliament to fill some political space and to bring a focus to the period of reflection. We know that we cannot achieve all this by ourselves but must have the close collaboration of national parliaments. I must say that I find it fairly curious in this context that the Presidents of the Austrian, Finnish and German Parliaments seem somewhat reluctant to cooperate with us. It is up to the parliaments to decide whether or not they turn up. Those who choose to turn up will have a decisive say in fashioning the decisions about the future of Europe. The proposals, which received strong support from the committee, set out a parliamentary process. We seek to establish a series of parliamentary forums to debate some fundamental – perhaps even primitive – questions about the nature and purpose of Europe. We want to have the debate about the reform of common policies that the first Convention was in some part frustrated in being denied. This policy debate can and should be radical, but it must take place within the constitutional context and be closely related to issues of competences, to instruments and to procedures. The first of these forums will take place on 9 May and will address its conclusions to the European Council, which is to take some first decisions about the furtherance of the project. We would like to draw the period of reflection to a close at the end of 2007 with a firm, clear decision on what to do with the Treaty. As the resolution states, there are, in theory, several scenarios we could follow, but in practice there are only two. The first is to supplement the present Treaty with interpretative protocols or declarations. The second is to make rather more substantive changes to Part III so that we address the legitimate concerns and disquiet expressed by citizens in France and the Netherlands and in some other Member States. Between and inside the groups there is certainly controversy about the appropriate way to express ourselves. However, on the essentials of salvaging the Treaty, we are strongly united and I commend the resolution to Parliament."@sl19
"Herr talman! Detta är parlamentets första svar på den kris som Frankrike och Nederländerna skapade i och med att de förkastade fördraget. Det ger oss en möjlighet, parlamentet i synnerhet, att tänka över vad som kommer att gå förlorat om vi inte kan rädda detta projekt och komma fram till en framgångsrik slutsats. Det ger oss möjlighet att besvara den kakofoni av röster som kommer från rådets sida. En del av dem är naiva, en del strider mot fördraget och en del är otroligt politiska. Det ger oss möjlighet att uppmana kommissionen att vara mer rättfram och skarpsinnig när de gäller att hjälpa oss att hitta en väg som kan leda oss ut ur krisen. Det ger parlamentet möjlighet att täcka ett politiskt område och sätta perioden av eftertanke i fokus. Vi är medvetna om att vi inte kan uppnå detta på egen hand utan måste ha ett nära samarbete med de nationella parlamenten. I detta sammanhang tycker jag att det är rätt så egendomligt att ordförandena för de österrikiska, finska och tyska parlamenten verkar förhållandevis motvilliga till att samarbeta med oss. Det är upp till parlamenten att besluta om de vill komma eller inte. De som väljer att komma, kommer att ha en avgörande röst när det gäller att utforma besluten om framtidens EU. Förslagen, som fick starkt stöd av utskottet, blev inledningen på en parlamentarisk process. Vi försöker att inrätta ett antal parlamentariska forum för att debattera några grundläggande, kanske till och med enkla, frågor om EU:s struktur och syfte. Vi vill ha den debatt om förändring av den gemensamma politiken som man under det första konventet blev ganska besviken över att nekas. Denna politiska debatt kan och bör vara radikal, men den måste ske inom den konstitutionella ramen och vara nära förbunden med frågor om befogenheter, styrmedel och förfaringssätt. Det första av dessa forum kommer att äga rum den 9 maj och resultaten från det kommer att sändas till Europeiska rådet som ska ta de första besluten om främjandet av projektet. Vi skulle vilja att perioden av eftertanke avslutades vid slutet av 2007 och att ett bestämt och tydligt beslut då fattas om hur man ska gå vidare med fördraget. Som anges i resolutionen finns det ett antal teoretiska scenarier som vi kan följa, men i praktiken finns det bara två. Det första innebär att komplettera det nuvarande fördraget med förklarande protokoll eller klargöranden. Det andra innebär mer konkreta förändringar i del tre, så att vi tar upp de rättmätiga bekymmer och orosmoment som medborgarna i Frankrike, Nederländerna och en del andra medlemsstater har uttryckt. Det finns alldeles säkert oenigheter mellan och inom grupperna om det korrekta sättet att uttrycka oss. Vi är emellertid djupt eniga om väsentligheterna för att kunna rädda fördraget och jag anförtror resolutionen till parlamentet."@sv21
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"(Applause)"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,13,4
"Andrew Duff (ALDE ),"5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4
"rapporteur"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