Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-13-Speech-3-373"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20061213.37.3-373"6
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
"I am astonished that several Members have focused on their opposition to the Constitutional treaty in their contribution to this debate, although the matter is not on the agenda of this Council, but of the one to be held in June. Nor is it right for them to say that the issue is dead, having been ‘rejected’. It hasn’t. It has been rejected by 2 countries and accepted by 18, with the remainder waiting to see what happens. What we have is not rejection, but divergence. It is quite right for the European Council to try to overcome that divergence, taking account both of the views of the minority that rejected the treaty and of the majority who support it. To claim that the current treaties should forever remain unamended because of the rejection of this treaty by France and the Netherlands is untenable."@en4
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"I am astonished that several Members have focused on their opposition to the Constitutional treaty in their contribution to this debate, although the matter is not on the agenda of this Council, but of the one to be held in June. Nor is it right  for them to say that the issue is dead, having been ‘rejected’. It hasn’t. It has been rejected by 2 countries and accepted by 18, with the remainder waiting to see what happens. What we have is not rejection, but divergence. It is quite right for the European Council to  try to overcome that divergence, taking account both of the views of the minority that rejected the treaty and of the majority who support it. To claim that the current treaties should forever remain unamended because of the rejection of this treaty by France and the Netherlands is untenable."@cs1
"Jeg er forbavset over, at adskillige medlemmer har fokuseret på deres modstand mod forfatningstraktaten i deres bidrag til denne forhandling, selv om dette spørgsmål ikke er på dagsordenen for dette møde i Det Europæiske Råd, men for det, der skal afholdes i juni. Det er heller ikke korrekt, når de siger, at spørgsmålet er dødt, at det er blevet "forkastet". Det er det ikke. Det er blevet forkastet i to lande og accepteret i 18, mens resten venter og ser, hvad der sker. Det, der er tale om, er ikke forkastelse, men meningsforskelle. Det er helt rigtigt, at Det Europæiske Råd skal forsøge at slå bro over disse meningsforskelle, idet man både tager hensyn til synspunkterne hos det mindretal, der forkastede traktaten, og det flertal, der støtter den. Det er uholdbart at hævde, at de nuværende traktater skal forblive uændrede i al evighed, fordi denne traktat er blevet forkastet i Frankrig og Nederlandene."@da2
"Es überrascht mich, dass mehrere Abgeordnete sich in ihrem Beitrag zur heutigen Aussprache im Wesentlichen auf ihre Ablehnung des Verfassungsvertrags beschränkt haben, obwohl er gar nicht auf der Tagesordnung dieses Rates steht, sondern erst im Juni erörtert werden soll. Diese Abgeordneten haben auch nicht das Recht, zu sagen, dass das Thema gestorben ist, weil die Verfassung „abgelehnt“ wurde. Sie wurde nicht abgelehnt. Lediglich zwei Länder haben sie abgelehnt; 18 befürworten sie und der Rest wartet erst einmal ab. Es liegt also keine Ablehnung vor, sondern eine Meinungsverschiedenheit. Der Europäische Rat hat Recht, wenn er versucht, diese zu beseitigen und sowohl die Haltung der Minderheit, die den Vertrag ablehnte, als auch der Mehrheit, die ihn unterstützt, zu berücksichtigen. Zu behaupten, die derzeitigen Verträge dürfen nie geändert werden, weil Frankreich und die Niederlande diesen Vertrag abgelehnt haben, ist unhaltbar."@de9
"Με εκπλήσσει το γεγονός ότι πολλοί συνάδελφοι, στις παρεμβάσεις τους, εστίασαν την κριτική τους στη Συνταγματική Συνθήκη, παρά το γεγονός ότι το θέμα αυτό δεν περιλαμβάνεται στην ημερήσια διάταξη αυτού του Συμβουλίου, αλλά της διάσκεψης κορυφής που θα πραγματοποιηθεί τον Ιούνιο. Δεν είναι εξάλλου σωστό να δηλώνουν ότι το κείμενο είναι νεκρό επειδή έχει «απορριφθεί». Δεν έχει απορριφθεί. Απορρίφθηκε από 2 χώρες και εγκρίθηκε από 18, ενώ οι υπόλοιπες χώρες βρίσκονται σε κατάσταση αναμονής. Δεν υπάρχει απόρριψη, αλλά διαφωνία. Είναι απολύτως εύλογο να προσπαθεί το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο να ξεπεράσει αυτήν τη διαφωνία, λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τις θέσεις της μειοψηφίας που απέρριψε τη Συνθήκη και της πλειοψηφίας που την στηρίζει. Είναι απαράδεκτο να ισχυριζόμαστε ότι οι ισχύουσες συνθήκες πρέπει να παραμείνουν αμετάβλητες επειδή αυτή η συνθήκη απορρίφθηκε από τη Γαλλία και τις Κάτω Χώρες."@el10
"Me sorprende que varios diputados hayan dedicado su intervención en este debate a su oposición al Tratado Constitucional, a pesar de que este tema no figura en el orden del día de este Consejo, ni en el del Consejo de junio. Tampoco tienen razón cuando afirman que este tema está muerto por haber sido «rechazado». Ha sido rechazado por dos países y aceptado por 18, mientras que el resto está a la espera de ver qué pasa. Lo que hemos presenciado no es un rechazo, sino una divergencia. El Consejo Europeo hará bien intentando superar esta divergencia, teniendo en cuenta las opiniones tanto de la minoría que ha rechazado el Tratado, como las de la mayoría que lo apoya. Afirmar que los Tratados vigentes no deben sufrir enmienda alguna debido a que Francia y los Países Bajos han rechazado este Tratado no se sostiene."@es20
"I am astonished that several Members have focused on their opposition to the Constitutional treaty in their contribution to this debate, although the matter is not on the agenda of this Council, but of the one to be held in June. Nor is it right  for them to say that the issue is dead, having been ‘rejected’. It hasn’t. It has been rejected by 2 countries and accepted by 18, with the remainder waiting to see what happens. What we have is not rejection, but divergence. It is quite right for the European Council to  try to overcome that divergence, taking account both of the views of the minority that rejected the treaty and of the majority who support it. To claim that the current treaties should forever remain unamended because of the rejection of this treaty by France and the Netherlands is untenable."@et5
"Olen yllättynyt siitä, että monet jäsenet ovat keskittyneet tässä keskustelussa vastustamaan puheenvuoroissaan perustuslakia, vaikka asia ei ole tämän Eurooppa-neuvoston, vaan vasta kesäkuussa pidettävän Eurooppa-neuvoston esityslistalla. Ei ole myöskään asianmukaista, että he väittävät perustuslain olevan kuollut vain siksi, että se on "hylätty". Se ei ole kuollut. Sen on hylännyt kaksi maata, kun taas kahdeksantoista maata on hyväksynyt sen. Loput odottavat, mitä tapahtuu. Kyse ei siis ole hylkäämisestä, vaan mielipide-eroista. On hyvä, että Eurooppa-neuvosto pyrkii ratkaisemaan näistä mielipide-eroista johtuvan ongelman ottaen huomioon sekä sopimuksen hylänneen vähemmistön että sitä kannattaneen enemmistön näkemykset. Väite, jonka mukaan nykyiset sopimukset pitäisi pitää ikuisesti ennallaan siksi, että Ranska ja Alankomaat hylkäsivät perustuslakisopimuksen, on kestämätön."@fi7
"Je suis étonné que plusieurs députés aient focalisé leur intervention dans le présent débat sur leur opposition au traité constitutionnel, et ce alors que cette question n’est même pas à l’ordre du jour de ce Conseil, son examen étant prévu à celui de juin prochain. En outre, ils ont tort de déclarer ce chapitre mort et enterré parce qu’il a été rejeté. C’est faux. Le projet a été rejeté par deux pays et accepté par dix-huit autres, les autres attendant de voir comment la situation va évoluer. Rejet n’est pas le terme approprié. Il faudrait plutôt parler de divergence. Le Conseil européen a raison d’essayer de venir à bout de ces différences de vues, en tenant compte aussi bien des avis de la minorité qui a rejeté le Traité que de ceux de la majorité qui le soutient. Prétendre que les Traités actuels devraient rester en l’état ad vitam æternam en raison du non de la France et des Pays-Bas n’est pas défendable."@fr8
"I am astonished that several Members have focused on their opposition to the Constitutional treaty in their contribution to this debate, although the matter is not on the agenda of this Council, but of the one to be held in June. Nor is it right  for them to say that the issue is dead, having been ‘rejected’. It hasn’t. It has been rejected by 2 countries and accepted by 18, with the remainder waiting to see what happens. What we have is not rejection, but divergence. It is quite right for the European Council to  try to overcome that divergence, taking account both of the views of the minority that rejected the treaty and of the majority who support it. To claim that the current treaties should forever remain unamended because of the rejection of this treaty by France and the Netherlands is untenable."@hu11
"Sono sconvolto dal fatto che parecchi deputati abbiano contribuito al dibattito concentrandosi sulla loro opposizione al Trattato costituzionale, sebbene la questione non faccia parte del programma di questo Consiglio, ma di quello che si terrà a giugno. Né è giusto che dicano che la Costituzione è morta perché è stata “respinta”. Non è così. E’ stata bocciata da due paesi e accolta da diciotto, mentre i restanti Stati membri aspettano di vedere i prossimi sviluppi. Non abbiamo un rifiuto, ma una divergenza. E’ giustissimo che il Consiglio europeo tenti di superare tale divergenza, tenendo conto sia dell’opinione della minoranza che ha respinto il Trattato che della maggioranza che lo sostiene. Affermare che gli attuali Trattati debbano rimanere per sempre immutati per via del rifiuto di questo Trattato da parte della Francia e dei Paesi Bassi è un’idea insostenibile."@it12
"I am astonished that several Members have focused on their opposition to the Constitutional treaty in their contribution to this debate, although the matter is not on the agenda of this Council, but of the one to be held in June. Nor is it right  for them to say that the issue is dead, having been ‘rejected’. It hasn’t. It has been rejected by 2 countries and accepted by 18, with the remainder waiting to see what happens. What we have is not rejection, but divergence. It is quite right for the European Council to  try to overcome that divergence, taking account both of the views of the minority that rejected the treaty and of the majority who support it. To claim that the current treaties should forever remain unamended because of the rejection of this treaty by France and the Netherlands is untenable."@lt14
"I am astonished that several Members have focused on their opposition to the Constitutional treaty in their contribution to this debate, although the matter is not on the agenda of this Council, but of the one to be held in June. Nor is it right  for them to say that the issue is dead, having been ‘rejected’. It hasn’t. It has been rejected by 2 countries and accepted by 18, with the remainder waiting to see what happens. What we have is not rejection, but divergence. It is quite right for the European Council to  try to overcome that divergence, taking account both of the views of the minority that rejected the treaty and of the majority who support it. To claim that the current treaties should forever remain unamended because of the rejection of this treaty by France and the Netherlands is untenable."@lv13
"I am astonished that several Members have focused on their opposition to the Constitutional treaty in their contribution to this debate, although the matter is not on the agenda of this Council, but of the one to be held in June. Nor is it right  for them to say that the issue is dead, having been ‘rejected’. It hasn’t. It has been rejected by 2 countries and accepted by 18, with the remainder waiting to see what happens. What we have is not rejection, but divergence. It is quite right for the European Council to  try to overcome that divergence, taking account both of the views of the minority that rejected the treaty and of the majority who support it. To claim that the current treaties should forever remain unamended because of the rejection of this treaty by France and the Netherlands is untenable."@mt15
"Ik ben verbluft dat meerdere afgevaardigden het in hun bijdragen aan dit debat vooral hebben gehad over het verzet tegen de Grondwet, terwijl deze kwestie niet op de agenda van de aanstaande Raad staat, maar op de agenda van de Raad van juni. Tevens is het niet eerlijk wanneer zij zeggen dat deze kwestie niet meer leeft, omdat de Grondwet is afgewezen. Deze kwestie leeft wel. De Grondwet is afgewezen door twee landen en goedgekeurd door achttien landen, en de rest wacht af wat er gebeurt. We hebben trouwens niet te maken met afwijzing maar met verdeeldheid. De Raad moet proberen die verdeeldheid op te lossen en daarbij rekening te houden met zowel de standpunten van de minderheid die het Verdrag heeft afgewezen als van de meerderheid die het heeft gesteund. Het argument dat de huidige Verdragen voor altijd ongewijzigd moeten blijven, omdat Frankrijk en Nederland dit Verdrag hebben afgewezen, is onverdedigbaar."@nl3
"I am astonished that several Members have focused on their opposition to the Constitutional treaty in their contribution to this debate, although the matter is not on the agenda of this Council, but of the one to be held in June. Nor is it right  for them to say that the issue is dead, having been ‘rejected’. It hasn’t. It has been rejected by 2 countries and accepted by 18, with the remainder waiting to see what happens. What we have is not rejection, but divergence. It is quite right for the European Council to  try to overcome that divergence, taking account both of the views of the minority that rejected the treaty and of the majority who support it. To claim that the current treaties should forever remain unamended because of the rejection of this treaty by France and the Netherlands is untenable."@pl16
"Espanta-me que diversos deputados, nos seus contributos para o debate, tenham centrado os seus comentários na oposição que mantêm ao Tratado Constitucional, isto embora o tema não esteja na ordem do dia deste Conselho, mas sim na do que vai ser realizado em Junho. De igual modo, não é correcto da parte deles dizer que o tema está morto, que foi “rejeitado”. Não está, não foi. Foi rejeitado por 2 países e aceite por 18, com os restantes à espera para ver o que acontece. O que nós temos não é rejeição, mas sim divergência. Está perfeitamente certo que o Conselho Europeu tente superar a divergência, tomando em conta quer as opiniões da minoria que rejeitou o Tratado, quer as da maioria que o apoia. É insustentável reivindicar que os actuais Tratados deveriam ficar para sempre inalterados devido a ter havido uma rejeição deste tratado por parte da França e dos Países Baixos."@pt17
"I am astonished that several Members have focused on their opposition to the Constitutional treaty in their contribution to this debate, although the matter is not on the agenda of this Council, but of the one to be held in June. Nor is it right  for them to say that the issue is dead, having been ‘rejected’. It hasn’t. It has been rejected by 2 countries and accepted by 18, with the remainder waiting to see what happens. What we have is not rejection, but divergence. It is quite right for the European Council to  try to overcome that divergence, taking account both of the views of the minority that rejected the treaty and of the majority who support it. To claim that the current treaties should forever remain unamended because of the rejection of this treaty by France and the Netherlands is untenable."@sk18
"I am astonished that several Members have focused on their opposition to the Constitutional treaty in their contribution to this debate, although the matter is not on the agenda of this Council, but of the one to be held in June. Nor is it right  for them to say that the issue is dead, having been ‘rejected’. It hasn’t. It has been rejected by 2 countries and accepted by 18, with the remainder waiting to see what happens. What we have is not rejection, but divergence. It is quite right for the European Council to  try to overcome that divergence, taking account both of the views of the minority that rejected the treaty and of the majority who support it. To claim that the current treaties should forever remain unamended because of the rejection of this treaty by France and the Netherlands is untenable."@sl19
"Jag är förbluffad över att flera ledamöter valt att fokusera på sitt ställningstagande mot konstitutionsfördraget i sitt bidrag till den här debatten, även om frågan inte står på dagordningen för detta rådsmöte, utan för det som kommer att hållas i juni. Det stämmer inte heller när de säger att frågan är död eftersom den blivit ”förkastad”. Den har förkastats av två länder och godkänts av 18, samtidigt som resten väntar och ser vad som händer. Den har inte förkastats, vi har helt enkelt skilda åsikter. Det är helt rätt av rådet att försöka övervinna de skilda åsikterna både från minoriteten som avvisade fördraget och majoriteten som stöder det. Att vidhålla att de nuvarande fördragen för evigt bör vara oförändrade på grund av att det här fördraget förkastades av Frankrike och Holland är ohållbart."@sv21
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata
"Richard Corbett (PSE ). –"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