Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-16-Speech-2-029"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060516.4.2-029"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I welcome the Commission’s Plan D. We need debates and I know from experience in my country that the more people are informed about the European Union, the more positive they tend to be with regard to it. That is why people like Nigel Farage and UKIP have consistently opposed Plan D, the funding of it and its stimulation of debates about Europe. They want people to rely on their ill-informed prejudices about Europe. We must counter that. We must stimulate the widest possible debate.
I think it is right for the debate on the future of Europe to be prolonged. We need at least another year. We need wider and deeper reflection. It is right to say that so far the reflection has been less about the text and more about the context. However, we also know that we will, in due course, have to address what to do about this text. The debate will need more structuring and more focus, perhaps along the lines on which Mr Méndez de Vigo and Mr Stubb spoke just now. We will have to address this issue.
It is far too simplistic to say, as Mr Farage and Mr Kirkhope did, that the people have spoken and they have spoken against the Constitution. That is simply not true. We have different answers across Europe. A majority supports this Constitution, even in countries which held referendums. If you add all the referendums together, more people voted ‘yes’ than voted ‘no’. Overall, as Commission Wallström said, we will soon have 16 States in favour. In fact, if you add Romania and Bulgaria, 18 ratifications will be in the bag by the end of next month. That is going on. It is a question of divergence, not opposition to the Constitution. When we have divergence in this Union, we talk it through to find a solution to make it acceptable to everyone, recognising the majority trend and trying to find out what adjustments might be necessary to make the minority able to accept it as well. We have a duty to the minority to talk it through and find a compromise, but we cannot ignore the will of the majority either."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples