Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-11-Speech-2-160"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050111.10.2-160"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, in responding to this debate I wish to begin by thanking all those who paid tribute to the work of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the report it produced.
It is clear that this Constitution has very broad support across the political spectrum and across Member States. I am hopeful that in the vote tomorrow there will be at least a two-thirds majority in favour of it, with more than 400 votes in favour in this Parliament, and that will send a powerful signal.
Let me also respond to the criticisms that have been made of the Constitution. They seem to be twofold. Firstly, there are those who say they oppose the Constitution because it does not go far enough. They say it will certainly make the EU more democratic, social and so on, but not enough so. My answer to them is that the choice at the moment is between the new Constitution and the old one – our current Treaties. If the new Constitution contains improvements, then it is better to take the new Constitution rather than carry on living with the old one.
That is an argument I would also put to those who complain that there is no reference to Christianity in the new Constitution. There is no such reference in the current Treaties, although they were drafted by Saint Schuman. However, the new Constitution contains a reference to our religious heritage and other heritages, and its values are Christian values and also the values of many others. They are values that Christians, non-Christians, people of other religions and of no religion share.
Many opponents of this Constitution conjure up fears of a superstate; many are opposed to the very existence of the European Union. That is illustrated by those who oppose the supremacy of Union law over the law of Member States, which is after all the current situation. What is the point of agreeing common laws across Europe if one does not want those laws to be applied across Europe? That is the whole point of agreeing common European legislation in the areas we want it, such as the environment and the common market. There is no point in having that legislation if you are against it in the first place. To those people I would say: be honest and campaign for what you really believe in, which is your country leaving the European Union, and do not hide behind attacking the Constitution. What nonsense to say that this new Constitution will create a centralised superstate! Centralised, the European Union? When it is based on a Constitution that confers powers on the European Union with the agreement of every single Member State on the ratification of treaties? That is the only power the Union has. Even in exercising its powers, the Council – i.e. the Member States – has a central role in taking decisions, while the central administration – the European Commission – has fewer employees than the City of Leeds, in my constituency. Some superstate!
Let me conclude by saying that this debate is partly one of myth against reality. I am sure that by broadcasting the facts and enabling a true analysis of the Treaty we will contribute to an honest debate which will persuade people that this Constitution is worth having."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples