Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-19-Speech-4-169"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060119.20.4-169"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I support and voted in favour of the report before us. The European Constitution has not ‘died’. The ‘no’ votes in the French and Dutch referendums on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe were not a ‘death certificate’, but merely the adjournment of the ratification process under way at the time.
Nevertheless, in light of the negative results in France and the Netherlands, it does not seem possible to continue to try to ratify the current text without amending it. That being said, the idea of abandoning the draft Constitution is out of the question. A constitutional agreement, as the rapporteurs point out, is essential if the EU is to (re)gain the confidence of European citizens, to maintain the dynamic of European integration and to play a credible role on the international stage.
Against this backdrop, the ‘period of reflection’ should serve to relaunch the draft Constitution, based on wide-ranging public debate on the future of Europe, involving the citizens, civil society, the social partners and national and regional parliaments. The purpose of this debate should be to clarify, deepen and perfect the Constitution, to examine the criticisms levelled at it, to find solutions to the constitutional crisis and to address the concerns of Europe’s citizens."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples