Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-13-Speech-3-031"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2006-12-13"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Laienemisstrateegia ja peamised väljakutsed 2006-2007 – Institutsioonilised aspektid, mis käsitlevad Euroopa Liidu võimet integreerida uued liikmesriigid (arutelu)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061213.4.3-031"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-12-13-Speech-3-032⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Jim Allister⁶
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, it is clear to me that proponents of the rejected Constitution see enlargement as a bandwagon to secure implementation of parts of that Constitution. Hence, in the Stubb report, the ill-argued but vehemently demanded further assault on national vetoes, the requirement for a minister of foreign affairs, the demand for more powers for the unelected Commission and the expansionist Court of Justice and more competences for the EU. Enlargement itself requires none of this, but Europhile fanatics like our two rapporteurs, devoid of sustainable arguments to overcome popular opposition to the Constitution, have come up with this spurious spin that enlargement demands a constitution. I say neither this EU, nor one bloated by foolishly encompassing Turkey, needs a constitution. What a fine mess Laurel Brok and Hardy Stubb would get us into! And all this with no thought of who would pay. As in the past, the expectation seems to be that countries like the United Kingdom will happily continue to bankroll this runaway madness. With the EU already costing my country GBP 4 billion net per annum, I have to say to you that we simply cannot afford any more charity."@en⁴
lpv:spokenAs	member; PECH (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² substitute; INTA (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)²² member; NA (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)²² member; AFCO (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)²² unknown; Democratic Unionist Party (Northern Ireland) (2004-07-20--2007-03-27)²²
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, it is clear to me that proponents of the rejected Constitution see enlargement as a bandwagon to secure implementation of parts of that Constitution. Hence, in the Stubb report, the ill-argued but vehemently demanded further assault on national vetoes, the requirement for a minister of foreign affairs, the demand for more powers for the unelected Commission and the expansionist Court of Justice and more competences for the EU. Enlargement itself requires none of this, but Europhile fanatics like our two rapporteurs, devoid of sustainable arguments to overcome popular opposition to the Constitution, have come up with this spurious spin that enlargement demands a constitution. I say neither this EU, nor one bloated by foolishly encompassing Turkey, needs a constitution. What a fine mess Laurel Brok and Hardy Stubb would get us into! And all this with no thought of who would pay. As in the past, the expectation seems to be that countries like the United Kingdom will happily continue to bankroll this runaway madness. With the EU already costing my country GBP 4 billion net per annum, I have to say to you that we simply cannot afford any more charity."@cs¹ "Hr. formand! Der er for mig ingen tvivl om, at fortalere for den forkastede forfatning ser udvidelse som et populært indslag, der kan bane vejen for gennemførelse af dele af forfatningen. Derfor Stubb-betænkningens dårligt underbyggede, men lidenskabeligt fremførte krav om yderligere angreb på nationale vetoer, kravet om en udenrigsminister, kravet om mere magt til den ikkefolkevalgte Kommission og den ekspansionistiske EF-Domstol og om flere kompetencer til EU. Intet af dette nødvendigt for udvidelse i sig selv, men i mangel af holdbare argumenter, der kan overvinde den folkelige modstand mod forfatningen, finder EU-fanatikere som de to ordførere på en gang forlorent spin om, at en forfatning er nødvendig for udvidelsen. Efter min mening behøver hverken dette EU eller et, der er opsvulmet efter en tåbelig optagelse af Tyrkiet, en forfatning. Det er en køn redelighed, Gøg og Gokke, alias Brok og Stubb, ville kaste os ud i! Og alt sammen uden tanke for, hvem der skal betale. Ligesom tidligere lader det til, at man forventer, at lande som Det Forenede Kongerige gladelig fortsætter med at finansiere dette galoperende vanvid. EU koster allerede mit land 4 milliarder britiske pund netto om året, så jeg er nødt til at sige, at vi ganske enkelt ikke har råd til mere velgørenhed."@da² "Herr Präsident! Mir ist klar, dass die Befürworter der gescheiterten Verfassung in der Erweiterung eine Möglichkeit sehen, die Umsetzung von Teilen dieser Verfassung zu erreichen. Darauf zielen der jeder Grundlage entbehrende, aber vehemente neuerliche Angriff auf das Vetorecht der Mitgliedstaaten, die Forderung nach einem Außenminister, die Forderung nach mehr Befugnissen für die nicht gewählte Kommission und den expansionistischen Gerichtshof sowie die Forderung nach einer Ausweitung der Kompetenzen der EU im Bericht von Herrn Stubb ab. Für die Erweiterung selbst ist nichts davon erforderlich, aber proeuropäische Fanatiker wie unsere beiden Berichterstatter, denen es an überzeugenden Argumenten mangelt, mit denen sie der weit verbreiteten Ablehnung gegenüber der Verfassung entgegentreten könnten, haben diese falsche Behauptung in die Welt gesetzt, dass ohne eine Verfassung keine Erweiterung möglich ist. Ich sage, dass weder diese EU, noch eine durch die törichte Aufnahme der Türkei aufgeblähte EU eine Verfassung braucht. Das wäre eine schöne Bescherung, die die Herren Laurel Brok und Hardy Stubb mit ihren Vorschlägen anrichten würden! Und dabei wird nicht ein einziger Gedanke daran verschwendet, wer das alles bezahlen soll. Wie immer scheint man darauf zu vertrauen, dass Länder wie das Vereinigte Königreich diesen völlig außer Kontrolle geratenen Wahnsinn schon weiter finanzieren werden. Die EU kostet mein Land jedes Jahr bereits 4 Milliarden Pfund netto und deshalb muss ich Ihnen sagen, dass wir uns einfach keine weiteren Wohltaten für andere mehr leisten können."@de⁹ "Κύριε Πρόεδρε, έχω πεισθεί ότι οι υποστηρικτές του απορριφθέντος Συντάγματος αντιμετωπίζουν τη διεύρυνση ως όχημα διασφάλισης της εφαρμογής τμημάτων αυτού του Συντάγματος. Σε αυτό οφείλεται το γεγονός ότι στην έκθεση Stubb προβάλλεται η ανεπαρκώς τεκμηριωμένη αλλά έντονη απαίτηση για περαιτέρω υποβάθμιση του εθνικού δικαιώματος αρνησικυρίας, η απαίτηση για τη δημιουργία θέσης υπουργού Εξωτερικών, καθώς και η απαίτηση να δοθούν περισσότερες εξουσίες στη μη εκλεγμένη Επιτροπή και στο επεκτατικό Δικαστήριο των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων και να δοθούν επίσης περισσότερες αρμοδιότητες στην ΕΕ. Η ίδια η διεύρυνση δεν προϋποθέτει τίποτε από όλα αυτά, αλλά οι φανατικοί ευρωπαϊστές, όπως οι δύο εισηγητές μας, καθώς δεν διαθέτουν ουσιαστικά επιχειρήματα για να παρακάμψουν τη λαϊκή αντίθεση στο Σύνταγμα, κατέφυγαν σε αυτό το αβάσιμο εφεύρημα ότι για τη διεύρυνση απαιτείται η ύπαρξη συντάγματος. Δεν χρειάζεται σύνταγμα ούτε αυτή η ΕΕ ούτε η ανόητα διογκωμένη Ένωση που θα προκύψει με την ένταξη της Τουρκίας. Σε τι μπελάδες μας έχουν βάλει ο Laurel Brok και ο Hardy Stubb! Και όλα αυτά χωρίς καμία σκέψη για το ποιος θα κληθεί να καταβάλει το κόστος. Όπως και στο παρελθόν, φαίνεται να υπάρχει η προσδοκία ότι χώρες όπως το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο θα συνεχίσουν ευχαρίστως να χρηματοδοτούν αυτήν την ανεξέλεγκτη τρέλα. Καθώς η ΕΕ κοστίζει ήδη στη χώρα μου 4 δισ. βρετανικές λίρες ετησίως, οφείλω να σας πω ότι δεν έχουμε περιθώρια για περαιτέρω ελεημοσύνες."@el¹⁰ "Señor Presidente, está claro que los que propusieron la Constitución rechazada ven la ampliación como una tendencia de moda para asegurar la aplicación de partes de esa Constitución. De ahí que el informe Stubb suponga un nuevo ataque a los vetos nacionales, mal argumentado pero vehementemente exigido, recoja la exigencia de un Ministro de Asuntos Exteriores, más competencias para una Comisión que no es elegida y el expansionismo del Tribunal de Justicia, y más competencias para la UE. La propia ampliación no necesita nada de esto, pero los fanáticos eurófilos, como nuestros dos ponentes, desprovistos de argumentos sólidos para superar la oposición popular a la Constitución, han ideado esta historia espuria de que la ampliación necesita una constitución. Yo digo que esta UE, ni una Unión ampliada por la insensatez de incluir a Turquía, no necesitan una constitución. ¡En menudo lío nos van a meter Laurel Brok y Hardy Stubb! Y todo esto sin pensar ni siquiera quién pagará. Como en el pasado, parece que países como el Reino Unido seguirán financiando alegremente esta locura desbocada. Señorías, la UE ya cuesta a mi país 4 000 millones de libras esterlinas al año, por lo que yo digo que no podemos permitirnos más caridad."@es²⁰ "Mr President, it is clear to me that proponents of the rejected Constitution see enlargement as a bandwagon to secure implementation of parts of that Constitution. Hence, in the Stubb report, the ill-argued but vehemently demanded further assault on national vetoes, the requirement for a minister of foreign affairs, the demand for more powers for the unelected Commission and the expansionist Court of Justice and more competences for the EU. Enlargement itself requires none of this, but Europhile fanatics like our two rapporteurs, devoid of sustainable arguments to overcome popular opposition to the Constitution, have come up with this spurious spin that enlargement demands a constitution. I say neither this EU, nor one bloated by foolishly encompassing Turkey, needs a constitution. What a fine mess Laurel Brok and Hardy Stubb would get us into! And all this with no thought of who would pay. As in the past, the expectation seems to be that countries like the United Kingdom will happily continue to bankroll this runaway madness. With the EU already costing my country GBP 4 billion net per annum, I have to say to you that we simply cannot afford any more charity."@et⁵ "Arvoisa puhemies, minusta on selvää, että hylätyn perustuslain kannattajat pitävät laajentumista voittona, jonka avulla varmistetaan perustuslain joidenkin osien täytäntöönpano. Tämän vuoksi Stubbin mietinnössä on esitetty huonosti perusteltu mutta kiivaasti vaadittu uusi hyökkäys kansallista veto-oikeutta kohtaan, ulkoasianministerin perustamista koskeva vaatimus, vaalein valitsemattoman komission vallan lisäämistä koskeva vaatimus sekä ekspansiivista yhteisöjen tuomioistuinta ja EU:n toimivaltuuksien lisäämistä koskeva vaatimus. Laajentuminen ei sinänsä edellytä mitään näistä, mutta esittelijöiden kaltaiset eurofanaatikot, joilla ei ole esittää pitäviä väitteitä perustuslain yleisen vastustuksen voittamiseksi, ovat keksineet tämän valheellisen väitteen, jonka mukaan laajentuminen edellyttää perustuslakia. Sanon, ettei tämä EU eikä EU, johon on järjenvastaisesti liitetty myös Turkki, vaadi perustuslakia. Minkälaiseen sekasortoon Laurel Brok ja Hardy Stubb meidät ajaisivatkaan! Lisäksi kaikki tämä tapahtuisi ilman ajatustakaan siitä, ketkä joutuisivat maksajiksi. Kuten aikaisemminkin, oletuksena näyttää olevan, että Yhdistyneen kuningaskunnan kaltaiset maat rahoittavat edelleenkin ilolla tätä hallitsematonta hulluutta. EU:n aiheuttamat nettokustannukset kotimaalleni ovat vuosittain jo 4 miljardia Englannin puntaa, minkä vuoksi joudun toteamaan, ettei meillä todellakaan ole enää varaa lisätä hyväntekeväisyyttä."@fi⁷ "Monsieur le Président, il me semble clair que les partisans de la Constitution rejetée voient l’élargissement comme un moyen de garantir la mise en œuvre de certaines parties de cette Constitution. D’où la présence dans le rapport Stubb d’un nouvel assaut, mal argumenté mais exigé avec véhémence, sur les vetos nationaux, l’exigence d’un ministre des affaires étrangères, la demande d’octroyer plus de pouvoirs à la Commission, qui n’est pas élue, et à l’expansionniste Cour de justice et l’augmentation des compétences de l’UE. L’élargissement en lui-même n’a aucunement besoin de cela, mais les fanatiques europhiles comme nos deux rapporteurs, dépourvus d’arguments valables pour mettre à mal l’opposition populaire à la Constitution, ont inventé ce faux argument selon lequel l’élargissement exige une Constitution. J’affirme que ni cette UE, ni une UE gonflée en englobant stupidement la Turquie, n’a besoin d’une Constitution. Dans quelle belle pagaille Laurel Brok et Hardy Stubb nous mettraient! Et tout cela sans réfléchir à qui paierait la facture. Comme dans le passé, il semble qu’on s’attende à ce que des pays comme le Royaume-Uni continuent gaiement à financer cette folie. L’UE coûtant déjà 4 milliards de livres sterling nets par an à mon pays, je dois vous dire que nous ne pouvons tout simplement plus nous permettre de faire la charité."@fr⁸ "Mr President, it is clear to me that proponents of the rejected Constitution see enlargement as a bandwagon to secure implementation of parts of that Constitution. Hence, in the Stubb report, the ill-argued but vehemently demanded further assault on national vetoes, the requirement for a minister of foreign affairs, the demand for more powers for the unelected Commission and the expansionist Court of Justice and more competences for the EU. Enlargement itself requires none of this, but Europhile fanatics like our two rapporteurs, devoid of sustainable arguments to overcome popular opposition to the Constitution, have come up with this spurious spin that enlargement demands a constitution. I say neither this EU, nor one bloated by foolishly encompassing Turkey, needs a constitution. What a fine mess Laurel Brok and Hardy Stubb would get us into! And all this with no thought of who would pay. As in the past, the expectation seems to be that countries like the United Kingdom will happily continue to bankroll this runaway madness. With the EU already costing my country GBP 4 billion net per annum, I have to say to you that we simply cannot afford any more charity."@hu¹¹ "Signor Presidente, è chiaro che i sostenitori della Costituzione respinta considerano l’allargamento come un carrozzone su cui salire per assicurare l’attuazione di parti di tale Costituzione. Di conseguenza, nella relazione Stubb troviamo il nuovo, male argomentato ma veemente attacco al veto nazionale, la richiesta di un ministro degli Esteri, la richiesta di più poteri per la Commissione non eletta e per la Corte di giustizia espansionistica, nonché di maggiori competenze per l’Unione. L’allargamento di per sé non richiede niente di tutto ciò, ma gli europeisti fanatici come i nostri due relatori, privi di argomenti sostenibili per superare l’opposizione popolare alla Costituzione, hanno prodotto questa distorsione spuria secondo cui l’allargamento richiede una Costituzione. Dico che né questa Unione né un’Unione gonfiata dall’assurda inclusione della Turchia ha bisogno di una Costituzione. In che bel guaio ci metterebbero Laurel Brok e Hardy Stubb! E tutto senza dedicare il benché minimo pensiero a chi pagherebbe. Come in passato, la previsione sembra essere che paesi come il Regno Unito continueranno a foraggiare allegramente questa follia sfrenata. L’Unione costa già al mio paese 4 miliardi di sterline netti all’anno e devo dire che proprio non possiamo permetterci di fare altra carità."@it¹² "Mr President, it is clear to me that proponents of the rejected Constitution see enlargement as a bandwagon to secure implementation of parts of that Constitution. Hence, in the Stubb report, the ill-argued but vehemently demanded further assault on national vetoes, the requirement for a minister of foreign affairs, the demand for more powers for the unelected Commission and the expansionist Court of Justice and more competences for the EU. Enlargement itself requires none of this, but Europhile fanatics like our two rapporteurs, devoid of sustainable arguments to overcome popular opposition to the Constitution, have come up with this spurious spin that enlargement demands a constitution. I say neither this EU, nor one bloated by foolishly encompassing Turkey, needs a constitution. What a fine mess Laurel Brok and Hardy Stubb would get us into! And all this with no thought of who would pay. As in the past, the expectation seems to be that countries like the United Kingdom will happily continue to bankroll this runaway madness. With the EU already costing my country GBP 4 billion net per annum, I have to say to you that we simply cannot afford any more charity."@lt¹⁴ "Mr President, it is clear to me that proponents of the rejected Constitution see enlargement as a bandwagon to secure implementation of parts of that Constitution. Hence, in the Stubb report, the ill-argued but vehemently demanded further assault on national vetoes, the requirement for a minister of foreign affairs, the demand for more powers for the unelected Commission and the expansionist Court of Justice and more competences for the EU. Enlargement itself requires none of this, but Europhile fanatics like our two rapporteurs, devoid of sustainable arguments to overcome popular opposition to the Constitution, have come up with this spurious spin that enlargement demands a constitution. I say neither this EU, nor one bloated by foolishly encompassing Turkey, needs a constitution. What a fine mess Laurel Brok and Hardy Stubb would get us into! And all this with no thought of who would pay. As in the past, the expectation seems to be that countries like the United Kingdom will happily continue to bankroll this runaway madness. With the EU already costing my country GBP 4 billion net per annum, I have to say to you that we simply cannot afford any more charity."@lv¹³ "Mr President, it is clear to me that proponents of the rejected Constitution see enlargement as a bandwagon to secure implementation of parts of that Constitution. Hence, in the Stubb report, the ill-argued but vehemently demanded further assault on national vetoes, the requirement for a minister of foreign affairs, the demand for more powers for the unelected Commission and the expansionist Court of Justice and more competences for the EU. Enlargement itself requires none of this, but Europhile fanatics like our two rapporteurs, devoid of sustainable arguments to overcome popular opposition to the Constitution, have come up with this spurious spin that enlargement demands a constitution. I say neither this EU, nor one bloated by foolishly encompassing Turkey, needs a constitution. What a fine mess Laurel Brok and Hardy Stubb would get us into! And all this with no thought of who would pay. As in the past, the expectation seems to be that countries like the United Kingdom will happily continue to bankroll this runaway madness. With the EU already costing my country GBP 4 billion net per annum, I have to say to you that we simply cannot afford any more charity."@mt¹⁵ "Mijnheer de Voorzitter, voor mij is het duidelijk dat de voorstanders van de afgewezen Grondwet uitbreiding zien als een manier om de uitvoering van delen van die Grondwet alsnog te waarborgen. Vandaar dat we in het verslag van de heer Stubb de slecht beargumenteerde maar veelgevraagde, verdere aantasting van nationale vetorechten, de noodzaak van een minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, de vraag om meer macht voor de niet-gekozen Commissie en het expansionistische Hof van Justitie en meer bevoegdheden voor de EU terugvinden. Voor uitbreiding op zich is dit alles niet nodig, maar Eurofiele fanatici, zoals onze beide rapporteurs - die verstoken zijn van plausibele argumenten om de tegenstand van het volk tegen de Grondwet weg te nemen - hebben nu de onlogische draai bedacht dat voor uitbreiding een grondwet noodzakelijk is. Ik ben van mening dat noch deze EU, noch een opgezwollen EU waarin dwaas genoeg Turkije is opgenomen, een grondwet nodig heeft. Wat zouden we dan mooi in de knoei komen dankzij Laurel Brok en Hardy Stubb! En dit alles zonder ook maar na te denken over wie dit allemaal zou moeten betalen. Net als in het verleden lijkt men te verwachten dat landen als het Verenigd Koninkrijk deze op hol geslagen dwaasheid maar al te graag blijven financieren. Nu de EU mijn land al 4 miljard pond netto per jaar kost, moet ik u melden dat wij ons eenvoudigweg niet meer liefdadigheid kunnen veroorloven."@nl³ "Mr President, it is clear to me that proponents of the rejected Constitution see enlargement as a bandwagon to secure implementation of parts of that Constitution. Hence, in the Stubb report, the ill-argued but vehemently demanded further assault on national vetoes, the requirement for a minister of foreign affairs, the demand for more powers for the unelected Commission and the expansionist Court of Justice and more competences for the EU. Enlargement itself requires none of this, but Europhile fanatics like our two rapporteurs, devoid of sustainable arguments to overcome popular opposition to the Constitution, have come up with this spurious spin that enlargement demands a constitution. I say neither this EU, nor one bloated by foolishly encompassing Turkey, needs a constitution. What a fine mess Laurel Brok and Hardy Stubb would get us into! And all this with no thought of who would pay. As in the past, the expectation seems to be that countries like the United Kingdom will happily continue to bankroll this runaway madness. With the EU already costing my country GBP 4 billion net per annum, I have to say to you that we simply cannot afford any more charity."@pl¹⁶ "Senhor Presidente, está claro para mim que os proponentes da Constituição rejeitada vêem o alargamento como um comboio a não perder a fim de assegurar a aplicação de partes dessa Constituição. É por isso que o relatório Stubb solicita, sem uma justificação válida mas com veemência, mais um ataque aos vetos nacionais, pede a criação do cargo de Ministro dos Negócios Estrangeiros, pede mais poderes para a Comissão não eleita e para o Tribunal de Justiça expansionista e pede mais competências para a UE. O próprio alargamento não requer nada disso, mas os fanáticos eurófilos como os nossos dois relatores, desprovidos de argumentos sustentáveis para ultrapassar a oposição popular à Constituição, vieram com esta ideia falaciosa de que o alargamento exige uma Constituição. Eu digo que nem esta UE, nem uma UE inchada por estupidamente englobar a Turquia, necessita de uma Constituição. Em que bela confusão Laurel Brok e Hardy Stubb nos iriam meter! E tudo isto sem sequer pensarem em quem iria pagar. Tal como no passado, parece que se espera que países como o Reino Unido continuem alegremente a financiar esta loucura monstruosa. Com a UE já a custar ao meu país 4 mil milhões de libras por ano, devo dizer-lhes que simplesmente não podemos praticar mais caridade."@pt¹⁷ "Mr President, it is clear to me that proponents of the rejected Constitution see enlargement as a bandwagon to secure implementation of parts of that Constitution. Hence, in the Stubb report, the ill-argued but vehemently demanded further assault on national vetoes, the requirement for a minister of foreign affairs, the demand for more powers for the unelected Commission and the expansionist Court of Justice and more competences for the EU. Enlargement itself requires none of this, but Europhile fanatics like our two rapporteurs, devoid of sustainable arguments to overcome popular opposition to the Constitution, have come up with this spurious spin that enlargement demands a constitution. I say neither this EU, nor one bloated by foolishly encompassing Turkey, needs a constitution. What a fine mess Laurel Brok and Hardy Stubb would get us into! And all this with no thought of who would pay. As in the past, the expectation seems to be that countries like the United Kingdom will happily continue to bankroll this runaway madness. With the EU already costing my country GBP 4 billion net per annum, I have to say to you that we simply cannot afford any more charity."@sk¹⁸ "Mr President, it is clear to me that proponents of the rejected Constitution see enlargement as a bandwagon to secure implementation of parts of that Constitution. Hence, in the Stubb report, the ill-argued but vehemently demanded further assault on national vetoes, the requirement for a minister of foreign affairs, the demand for more powers for the unelected Commission and the expansionist Court of Justice and more competences for the EU. Enlargement itself requires none of this, but Europhile fanatics like our two rapporteurs, devoid of sustainable arguments to overcome popular opposition to the Constitution, have come up with this spurious spin that enlargement demands a constitution. I say neither this EU, nor one bloated by foolishly encompassing Turkey, needs a constitution. What a fine mess Laurel Brok and Hardy Stubb would get us into! And all this with no thought of who would pay. As in the past, the expectation seems to be that countries like the United Kingdom will happily continue to bankroll this runaway madness. With the EU already costing my country GBP 4 billion net per annum, I have to say to you that we simply cannot afford any more charity."@sl¹⁹ "Herr talman! Jag förstår att förespråkare för den förkastade konstitutionen ser utvidgningen som en genväg till ett säkert genomförande av delar av denna konstitution. Därför finner vi i Alexander Stubbs betänkande det envetna men dåligt underbyggda kravet på ytterligare angrepp på den nationella vetorätten, kravet på en utrikesminister, kravet på större makt för den icke valda kommissionen och den expansionistiska EU-domstolen och större behörighet för EU. För själva utvidgningen krävs inget av detta, men fanatiska EU-vänner som våra två föredragande har, utan att ge några hållbara argument för att övervinna det folkliga motståndet mot konstitutionen, gjort den falska vinklingen att utvidgningen kräver en konstitution. Jag hävdar att varken detta EU, eller ett EU som har blivit uppsvällt genom ett dåraktigt införlivande av Turkiet, behöver en konstitution. Vilken salig röra Helan Brok och Halvan Stubb skulle föra oss in i! Och allt detta utan någon tanke på vem som skulle betala. Liksom tidigare verkar man förvänta sig att länder som Storbritannien glatt kommer att fortsätta att finansiera denna skenande galenskap. Eftersom EU redan kostar mitt land 4 miljarder brittiska pund netto per år, måste jag säga till er att vi helt enkelt inte har råd med någon mer välgörenhet."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"James Hugh Allister (NI ). –"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "ad infinitum"²⁰