Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-30-Speech-3-081"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010530.5.3-081"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, when the rapporteur started work on this report, there was a real danger that this Parliament would end up rejecting the Treaty of Nice through an unholy alliance of those who felt it went too far and those who felt it did not go far enough, so it is a tribute to their work that they have steered Parliament to a very sensible analysis of the Treaty and a strategy for moving forward from here.
Some indeed, as we heard just now in the debate, still seem to have the fanciful idea that this Treaty is setting up a centralised superstate: I find it astonishing that they can read the Treaty of Nice and genuinely believe that. Also outside this House, the British Conservative Party is campaigning in the UK election saying it would not ratify the Treaty of Nice if it were to come to power. This is not the case with their Members here, or at least not all of their Members here – I noticed that the two British Conservative Members in the committee voted for the Méndez de Vigo/Seguro report and I pay tribute to them for having done so. Conservatives back home, however, are coming up with this idea that this Treaty sets up a superstate. That really is nonsense and it does not seem to be doing them much good in the opinion polls. The public can see through this particular fanciful idea.
If you were to look behind you, you would see in the bouquet of flags that the Irish Flag has been placed where the European Flag usually is, in the middle of the bouquet, presumably because Ireland is the only Member State holding a referendum on the Treaty of Nice. Why is only Ireland holding a referendum? Why not Denmark and others? Precisely because in this Treaty of Nice there is no further transfer of competence to the European Union. It is not a centralising treaty and the critics, of course, know that.
Others have been disappointed with the Treaty of Nice, because it did not go far enough and because of some of the questionable compromises it contains, such as the voting system in the Council and the extra seats in the European Parliament. As work went on in our committee, however, we realised that Nice also had a lot of positive points. In any case if you feel that it had shortcomings, the best way to improve it is to use the process of 2004. Rejecting Nice would have caused delay and confusion. 2004 offers us opportunities to improve what our President of the Council refers to as the existing European constitution, the Treaties. Yes, it needs improvement, but so does our method for working on it. That needs to start with our preparation for an IGC: Not the usual group of foreign ministry officials, with all due respect to Mr Gunnar Lund, but a wider more representative body. Hence Parliament's demand for a convention of the Council, not just a forum. The forum is the wide debate that is taking place with civil society. We need something to channel that debate into a set of conclusions that the IGC can work on. That is what we need, an IGC at the end remains something that can distil the debate..."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples