Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-06-14-Speech-3-063"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060614.2.3-063"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, those who claim – on one side of the House, notably – that the French and Dutch have said ‘no’ and that this whole debate must therefore come to an end and we should never again consider changing the treaties are guilty of being far too simplistic and of only wanting to hear one answer. When they say, as one of them did, ‘which part of the word ‘no’ do you not understand owing to the French and Dutch results?’, we could easily turn round and say ‘which part of the word ‘yes’ do
not understand from the 16 to 18 – if you include Romania and Bulgaria – other countries that have said ‘yes’ to this constitution?’
We are not faced with an issue of overwhelming rejection or of overwhelming acceptance, but we are facing a problem of divergence. And what do we do in the Union when there is a problem of divergence? We sit down, talk it through and try to find a solution acceptable to everyone. That is how we make progress. That is why it is right to take the time to have this period of reflection and to prolong it and look at what is possible.
It is also right to address not just the question of the text, but also the context
the Hampton Court agenda, the issues that are close to people – and then, in due course, in a new context, we can decide what to do about the text. Make no mistake about it: we will have to decide what to do about the text. The issues that Treaty was intended to address have not disappeared. They have not vanished overnight and need solving. We will have to return to these issues, and it is quite correct to orient the period of reflection towards them.
It may be that in a year’s time and in a new context it will be possible to retain this text as it stands, or with certain additions clarifying it, or with interpretations, or with additional protocols, or by rewriting Part 3, as some have suggested. It may also be that this is not possible and it has to be broken up. The conclusion may be that we will have to live with the existing Treaties for ever more because it is now impossible to change them. However, all this will emerge in due course. Now is not the time to make that choice. Now is not the time to say that we need to rewrite the text. We will take that decision at the end of the period of reflection, and rightly so."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"l’Europe des projets"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples