Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-16-Speech-2-022"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060516.4.2-022"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this is not the first time that this House has debated the future of Europe. The Commission’s contribution to the European Council of June 2006, which is the topic of this morning’s debate, offers little in the way of analysis, unfortunately. I would like to make one observation and three recommendations.
As the Commissioner knows from internal reports, one of the main reasons for the Dutch ‘no’ was the loss of sovereignty. It is perplexing that the Commission should subsequently attempt, through the back door, to extend the European Union’s powers in the areas of freedom, security and justice.
I am all in favour of extending this period of reflection, provided that time is actually spent on reflecting on Europe’s future. We must move away from the text of the constitution, and a reorganisation of existing treaties must lead to a user-friendly institutional framework. This framework – call it a basic treaty if you like – must put concrete policy before the setting up of new institutions, such as an EU foreign affairs minister. This course of action will ultimately benefit the citizen more than a meaningless signature by a prime minister of the kind suggested by Mr Barroso in a declaration of loyalty. This will really not help us any further and will not impress the Dutch voter – something which my Dutch fellow Members do not need to be told."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples