Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-039"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-09-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:European Constitution and IGC2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030924.1.3-039"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-24-Speech-3-0402
lpv:speaker	lp:Richard Corbett2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, subject to a few amendments, my Group fully supports the motion for a resolution put before us and so ably drafted by the rapporteurs, Mr Tsatsos and Mr Gil-Robles Gil-Delgado. The great challenge facing us now is to get the Constitution through the IGC without it being dismantled bit by bit. That is why we welcome the fact that this motion for a resolution which we will adopt is not calling for significant changes to the draft Constitution. Of course it rightly expresses some criticisms: it highlights shortcomings in the Constitution. However, this is done to show that we too have compromised to achieve this result. The package that has been agreed in the Constitution is, nonetheless, one that takes the European Union forward in a number of ways as regards democracy, efficiency, transparency and understandability of the Union. It therefore deserves to be adopted by the IGC. There are dangers lurking. There are governments – Spain, for instance – which object to the system of double majority in the Council and want to revert to the Nice system, which is complex, not understandable and not a very sensible system. Why should we accept a retrograde move to allow one or more governments to preserve what is, frankly, an unfair system? There are governments that want to reopen the question of the composition of the Commission. I, too, have some doubts about the formula of the Commission. However, I recognise that it is part of a wider compromise that was achieved in the IGC. The key question is: what is the remedy for this? If we move to one Commissioner per Member State and one vote per Commissioner, would we not be turning the Commission into a sort of Coreper, an intergovernmental body? That is not what the role of the Commission should be. I also oppose those who wish to make a reference to religion in the Constitution. We are a Union of diverse religions, of religious pluralism. There are people in our Union who are not religious. We should not impose a particular view on religion in the Constitution. That would be a form of cultural imperialism. Finally, I turn to the issue of a referendum. It is not up to the European Union to tell its Member States what procedure they should use internally to ratify a treaty setting up a constitution. That is a matter for each Member State in accordance with its Constitution and its traditions. Therefore I oppose the position taken by Mr Evans and others that this Parliament should tell Member States what procedure they should use to ratify and we will be seeking to amend that paragraph accordingly."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Labour Party (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees and Delegation for relations with Tadjikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2003-01-16--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Member States of ASEAN, south-east Asia and the Republic of Korea (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Corbett (PSE )."1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph