Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-041"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-09-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:European Constitution and IGC2
dcterms:Language	"el"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030924.1.3-041"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-24-Speech-3-0422
lpv:speaker	lp:Mihail Papayannakis2
lpv:spokenAs	chair; Delegation to the EU-Hungary Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-06--2004-04-30)3,3 member_of_the_bureau; EUL/NGL (1999-10-13--2004-07-19)3,3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2002-02-06--2004-04-30)3,3 member; Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 unknown; Synaspismos tis Aristeras kai tis Proodou (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; PETI (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3,3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Cyprus Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-04-30)3,3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I endorse the readings and proposals of our two rapporteurs. As they themselves said, there are negative points and there are obstacles which we shall find in our path towards unification and which we shall have to overcome in order to cast an informed vote. One of these is the reform process. It is impossible for half the Treaty, 150 articles in part three, to have a non-revisable status, because that is where we shall end up with the provisions which we are planning; in other words, policies will be regime. That is impossible. It goes against every political development of Europe in every direction. Secondly, we cannot proceed with the budget as it is being configured today. We are making a clownish trick here of what we teach our first-year economics students. How can we have a budget which says, ‘here is your money, now decide what policies you are going to introduce’, instead of saying what policies we want and then seeing what budget will serve them? Third point: the Convention itself did not accept nor, I imagine, will the Intergovernmental Conference proceed with the concept of the Ministers for Finance. Where is the cohesion of the eurozone, the symmetry between economic and monetary policy, to come from? Where will the real hard core of the European Union come from, if not from here? I think that it is a huge mistake and we shall find that too in our path. The same applies to the timidity on issues of security and defence. My honourable friend Mr Cossutta said as much, I shall not repeat him. Allow me to comment on one last issue, the reference to religions. I fail to understand which religions they wish to cite as being of value. Or why we need to refer to what is indeed the important history of Christianity but not, for example, to the history of free thinking? Or even of anti-clericalism, which inspired the Enlightenment, which inspired revolutions and intellectuals and policies in Europe. Or why we should not refer to the big names? For me, the face of Europe is Aristotle, it is Erasmus, it is Mozart, it is Marx, it is Freud. Are we going to impose them on our citizens? Let us allow our citizens a pluralistic choice for their future lives and careers. Perhaps this pluralism will be the real face of Europe."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph