Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-11-Speech-2-021"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20050111.5.2-021"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spoken text
". Mr President, I also wish to thank the rapporteurs for undertaking the very difficult task of trying to find some areas of agreement on the Treaty in the very diverse institution and august body that this Parliament is. However, in one sense the debate has moved on, because it is now up to the Member States and the debate on the Treaty-ratification process that takes place in the Member States. It is up to the people to determine what the level of debate and discussion and the final verdict on this Constitutional Treaty will be. Many times when we speak about the issues involved, in spite of our best efforts, some of us would like to see new things added to what has already been agreed. Therefore, we are fighting the next argument rather than dealing with the current debate. In addition, when you listen to some of the debate, it is like going back to the future, because the same issues and points that were raised in opposition to the first treaties in the 1950s, and to the second and subsequent treaties in the 1970s and 1980s, are being rehashed. People are saying that this is the prophet of doom and gloom about to come and join us and take our power away. Let us be realistic about what is in this Treaty and what is good and bad about it. As a basis for the basic law of what the European Union will be in the future, it is a very good document. It ensures there will be proper respect and trust for the Member States and for their roles within it, in particular for the smaller Member States; it clearly sets down in the doctrine of conferral who has the power to do what and where the lines of demarcation are drawn. When the people who oppose this Treaty and have opposed other treaties say that this will override national law, this issue has already been decided. Back in the 1960s in the European Court of Justice, the primacy of European law over national law was brought into being. However, the Treaty clearly defines that and narrows down that role, namely that it only operates for European law. The European institutions and European lawmakers have been given the power by the Member States to make that law. So let us have a real and honest debate. Let us move away from the lies, the fear and scaremongering that takes place. Some people will be justified in opposing this Treaty because of their political beliefs, ideologies or their genuine concerns about what it means for those Member States. But let us ensure that the debate is based on fact, truth and the written text and not on misconceptions."@en1
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph