Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-06-07-Speech-4-037"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2007-06-07"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Preparations for the European Council (21 to 22 June) and the situation with regard to the revision of the Treaties (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20070607.3.4-037"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2007-06-07-Speech-4-0382
lpv:speaker	lp:Sophia in 't Veld2
lpv:spokenAs	member; ECON (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 substitute; FEMM (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Democraten 66 (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member_of_the_bureau; ALDE (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; LIBE (2007-01-31--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the Mashreq countries (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2007-03-14--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, the German Presidency is right to listen to the different opinions that have been expressed in Europe on the Constitution. I do hope, however, that this does not mean it is the saboteurs rather than the pioneers who will determine the pace; that it does not mean our yielding to paralysis rather than opting for progress; that it does not mean our being guided by fear instead of by ambition. I have heard some people say that the Constitution was too ambitious. How could it be too ambitious, though, if you consider the challenges we face in the 21st century? Even if we are ambitious, that does not mean that we are working towards achieving a superstate. I would like us to stop using this terminology once and for all. The term ‘superstate’ is utter nonsense. People talk about a reduced Treaty. Why a reduced Treaty? For a reduced Europe? For a political dwarf? I hope that the German Presidency will try to keep the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Treaty. The fundamental rights are not purely a legal matter; leaving the Charter out of the Treaty also sends a political message, even if the fundamental rights become legally enforceable. I hope that no new paralysing vetoes will be introduced for national parliaments. Finally, a comment that is made frequently is that we listen to what the citizens have said, especially in the Netherlands and in France – the Netherlands being my own country. One of the things the Dutch citizens have said is that they have had enough of decisions being taken behind their backs, over their heads and behind closed doors. Is it not rather odd, therefore, that we should opt for an IGC behind closed doors? For confessional box procedures? For bilateral negotiations? I hope that the Presidency will dare take revolutionary action and will dare suggest that the next IGC will be held out in the open."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph