Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-28-Speech-3-023"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040128.3.3-023"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, even though we do not yet know where we are with the isolated agreements that were or were not reached at the IGC before the deadlock in December, some people, and in particular the European Parliament, are calling for the negotiations to be speeded up and brought to a close quickly. We reject this idea for two reasons.
First of all, the period gained through the deadlock in the negotiations would be better used for further discussion on this constitution. The deadlock point, which is the formula for the double majority vote, is not an insignificant one. In fact, it was crucial for national sovereignty, as were many other provisions of this draft. The chair of the delegation from the French National Assembly to the European Union, which supports this text, has acknowledged that, with regard to the double majority, and I quote: ‘from a national point of view, nevertheless our country had as much interest in the status quo as Spain and Poland ‘. I think that the negotiators should consider this admission as a warning.
Secondly, we are hearing statements here and there about the negotiations possibly coming to an end just before the European elections. In this respect, I would like to warn those who, once again, wish to catch the citizens off guard. It appears that some people would like there to be an agreement just before the elections in order to shorten the debate and then be able to cite the election result, if it is sufficiently in favour of the federalist parties, in order to avoid a referendum on the constitution. This would be an illegal manoeuvre, as the European elections are meant to elect representatives to the European Parliament to deal with a very wide range of subjects, but not the possible constitution, to which different methods of decision-making would apply.
We will fight any attempt to violate the law. I also hope, Mr President, that this debate will retain a minimum standard of honesty and dignity."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples