Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-11-Speech-2-045"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050111.5.2-045"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, we hear it said that the EU needs this Constitution if it wants to deepen integration, but, as we have just heard from one of its most forthright advocates, not everything in the draft we are to vote on is ideal. It is, apparently, better than what we had before, so this is progress in any case. That actually sounds pretty feeble. We are also told, though, that this Constitution will in no way facilitate the development of a European superstate; on the contrary, it apparently strengthens the Member States in their identities.
If that is so, then the citizens of Europe’s states should be given a real chance to have the last word in the debate on its ratification, if at all possible by means of referendums. For that, though, they need real information rather than just the one-sided propaganda celebrating the Constitution. The Constitution’s weaknesses, too, need to be discussed without accusations of anti-Europeanism being thrown around: for example, the fact that smaller Member States will have fewer ways to defend their interests; the fact that the European Parliament will continue to be a toothless tiger, particularly in matters affecting foreign and security policy; and also the fact that Europe’s workers are still exposed to the risk of wage and social dumping.
Only a frank and open debate on this Constitution’s flaws and dangers will make it possible for the peoples of Europe and the citizens of the EU to see it as something more than a Basic Law handed down from on high."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples