Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-11-18-Speech-4-084"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041118.7.4-084"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I naturally voted in favour of the compromise motion for a resolution, which, with our characteristic sense of responsibility, was the point at which the various political groups that signed up were able to converge.
I also wish to mention, however, the importance of the amendment tabled by the Union for Europe of the Nations Group, which I voted in favour of, calling for the new Commission, which is finally about to get down to work, strictly to observe the principle of subsidiarity.
Compliance with the principle of subsidiarity, quite apart from being a long-standing fundamental requirement and something that merits greater emphasis, is the yardstick by which fervent pro-Europeans can be measured. These are people who are loyal both in rhetoric and in action to the idea and the maxim encapsulated by the draft Constitutional Treaty: ‘United in diversity’.
I am appalled that the Members from the Portuguese left – the Socialist Party, the Communist Party and the Left Block – voted against the proposal to defend and prioritise subsidiarity. With their 15 potential votes it was because of them that it was not adopted.
I should also like to welcome a point raised in the speech by Mr Poettering, the Chairman of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats, that the new Commission must begin its duties and must be able to forge an entirely new approach, in which the national parliaments will be closely involved in the European project, and this will ideally be reflected in an interinstitutional agreement."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples