Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-08-Speech-3-023"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-06-08"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Preparations for the European Council, including the future of the Union after the referenda on the European constitution (Brussels, 16-17 June 2005)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050608.3.3-023"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-06-08-Speech-3-0242
lpv:speaker	lp:Bernard Poignant2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Kazakhstan, EU-Kyrgyzstan and EU-Uzbekistan Parliamentary Cooperation Committees, and for relations with Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Mongolia (2004-09-15--2006-06-06)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Parti socialiste (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; REGI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; PECH (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; CONT (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, this is the second time that France has rejected a treaty of political union. In 1954 it was because of fear of German rearmament. In 2005 it is, without doubt, because of fear of global capitalism. We should see it also as an indicator for our own policies. What is to be done? I believe we should be guided by three principles. The first principle is equality between the European nations. Ratification by Parliament is the equivalent of ratification by referendum. I have added together the results of the three referenda. When the Spanish, Dutch and French votes are taken together, the ‘yes’ vote wins by 54.04% of the votes, a figure that is a consolation for me, as a Frenchman. We need equality between the big countries and the small countries, equality for all the people. Nowadays, in 2005, I am not too keen on this word ‘founders’ because you, Mr Barroso, and you, Mr Borell, could not have been among the founders in 1957, because your countries were not members. You were living under dictatorships. Others were living under totalitarian regimes. We, the French and the Dutch, had the good fortune to be free. Consequently, we need now to be careful how we use that term. If a constitution has to be adopted unanimously, then it can only be rejected unanimously. The principle must be equally valid in either case. The second principle is, in the matter of enlargement, keeping one’s promises. I am thinking in particular of Romania and of Bulgaria and of others too, but I shall also add the Balkans. We must give to the Balkan states the prospect of entry into the European Union and we must hold to it. If we block this prospect, we shall be storing up a powder keg. The third principle is that Europe still needs, and will always need, a constitution. I say this in spite of the two ‘no’ votes. In France there is a that can show us the way. It is the of which Philippe de Villiers is President, the . In 1992 the voted ‘no’ to Maastricht, but it voted ‘yes’ to the Constitution. Mr de Villiers is completely at odds with the people of the whom he represents. You know, there is no need to go to Brussels to find a technocrat. A technocrat is merely a technician whom one dislikes, that is all. This shows us the way, so let us have confidence in the people of de Villiers’ ."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1 "Vendée"1 "département"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph