Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-19-Speech-4-177"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060119.20.4-177"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The Constitution, which the voters in the Netherlands and France so overwhelmingly rejected, was a mixed bag. Most of the electorate are all in favour of Council meetings being open to the public, of a subsidiarity test for national parliaments, or the tentative moves towards a citizens’ initiative in Article 47. These things could have been brought in long ago, even without a constitution. Far more contentious were the economic and military policy choices that this text was to set in stone, such as free unhindered competition being one of the EU’s main objectives, the constantly-extended liberalisation of services, or the constant upgrading of the Member States’ weapons systems. The practice of tied sales, which involves good points being taken hostage by bad ones, is one that the two rapporteurs want to adopt, in the belief that approval is only a matter of time. They even want to put a stop to the admission of new Member States until such time as the constitution has been approved.
My party, the Socialist Party, is the largest of the parties that, in the Netherlands, waged a successful campaign against this draft Constitutional Treaty. After it was rejected by the voters, we tabled proposals in the Dutch Parliament for openness, a subsidiarity test and citizens’ initiative, similar to what Mr Brok recommended to this House on behalf of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the very same alternative that I had put forward in Amendment 6, the rejection of which represents a missed opportunity."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples