Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-31-Speech-3-063"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-05-31"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Debate on the future of Europe with the participation of the Belgian Prime Minister, Member of the European Council (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060531.9.3-063"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-05-31-Speech-3-0642
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, Mr De Gaulle said one should, and I quote, ‘go to the complex Orient with simple ideas’. I suggest that you apply this formula to the Constitution. I am French and I start from a premise that is probably obvious: The French will not vote again on the same text. Let us start from there. Let us go even to the end of the ratifications. Personally, I want that, it is a right for nations and it is a duty for leaders. It will probably result in a few more rejections but we shall take it to the end. That means that, whatever happens, some new thing will be needed – I say ‘thing’ to avoid words that cause annoyance. We go, therefore, to the end with as many ratification procedures as there are countries, that is to say not 25 but 27 with the Romanians and the Bulgarians, whom we are always forgetting because their accession is as good as ratified, as it is included in the Treaty. We go round all the countries, therefore, but that could begin all over again endlessly. Here, then, I agree with your idea: we have to scrap unanimity. We have to break down the barriers and to do that we have to rewrite Declaration 30 differently. In this way, if, when the time comes, for example, 22 out of 27 countries say ‘yes’ and 5 say ‘no’, the 5 who say ‘no’ either accept the majority rule or they stand down. Otherwise, we shall go round and round in circles, and from postponement to postponement and from reflection to reflection. Whatever happens, it will not be the same text and another ratification process will be needed, otherwise I wager we shall find ourselves here in the same situation year after year."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph