Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-06-04-Speech-3-042"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-06-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Preparation of the European Council in Thessaloniki on 20 and 21 June 2003, and meeting between the Troika and the countries participating in the Stability Pact for South-Eastern Europe2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030604.2.3-042"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-06-04-Speech-3-0432
lpv:speaker	lp:Per Stenmarck2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Moderata samlingspartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; BUDG (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Estonia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2002-03-08--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Latvia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-03-07--2004-04-30)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, there is a fundamental requirement that should always be made of a constitution, irrespective of whether it is a national constitution or the constitution of the European Union. That requirement is clarity: clarity when it comes both to the distribution of power and to well-defined competences. As a Swede, I have an unhappy experience of the devising of constitutions. When the Swedish constitution – our fundamental law – was adopted, far too many questions were left unanswered. The Swedish Parliament – the Riksdag – was given more or less unlimited power to take decisions on just about every issue on the basis of a simple majority. Thanks to a unique Swedish tradition, freedom of expression and freedom of the press retained their strong position, but the political authorities were given the go-ahead to put their fingers into every pie. This mistake of Sweden’s must not be repeated in a constitution for the European Union. The most important thing must be to devise a clear catalogue of competences explaining which tasks are to be carried out by the EU and which are to be carried out at national, or some other, level. There are proposals to make social issues with shared competence matters for the EU. As I see it, that would be an historic mistake. Such issues are best dealt with by each individual Member State. Moreover, I see no other way of proceeding in an enlarged EU with a huge range of economic conditions from one country to the next. In the same way, all essential aspects of economic policy must remain the responsibility of the Member States. The euro is the Member States’ common responsibility, implying budgetary discipline. Taxes and decisions on expenditure must, however, remain the responsibility of the individual nations. There are large differences between one country and another, and flexibility is required. Low taxes will be the new Member States’ only chance of gradually catching up economically with the current Member States. On the issue of the distribution of power, it is important for us not to provide the EU with several presidents or institutional chairmen. That would scarcely contribute to a more effective EU. The rotating Presidency of the Council is also important if the Member States are to be able to feel they belong together. It is also a unique opportunity for small Member States too to influence the work of the EU. I therefore want to urge the Convention and the forthcoming Intergovernmental Conference to be very careful in establishing the shape of the future EU and the way in which it is to operate."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph