Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-08-Speech-3-056"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-06-08"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Preparations for the European Council, including the future of the Union after the referenda on the European constitution (Brussels, 16-17 June 2005)2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050608.3.3-056"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-06-08-Speech-3-0572
lpv:speaker	lp:Hartmut Nassauer2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 chair; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2004-09-21--2007-03-13)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2004-09-22--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; LIBE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; IMCO (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 member_of_the_bureau; EPP-ED (2004-08-31--2006-11-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Mercosur (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, from a legal point of view, this treaty, as everyone knows, has failed. Politically, the need to bring it into force is even more urgent than ever before. That is why we have to ask ourselves how we can help to advance the ideas outlined in the treaty. From this point of view, I wonder how wise it is now to expose the treaty to a series of public executions in the form of referenda. I think it would be much wiser to take time to reflect, so as to give the treaty a chance. This time should be used to clarify a few questions. Now is not the time or place for answers or magic formulae; now is the time for questions. One question is: have we in Europe perhaps reached the limits of integration? Are we not in the process of transferring more and more competences from the Member States to the Union, only for them to be managed there in procedures that are democratically rather dubious and in any case opaque and highly bureaucratic, to the extent that they are impossible for any citizen to understand? You might go to the Commission, examine all of the draft directives lying around there, and only find one in which a clear distinction is drawn between what needs to be regulated in Europe and what is best left in the hands of the Member States and their regions. I would bet that there is not one single directive in which this kind of subsidiarity culture is fostered. We must turn our attention to these issues. The second question is this: have we perhaps reached the limits of enlargement? No one knows how far the enlarged Union should extend. Ukraine, Belarus, Morocco, Israel – in the past all of these countries have been discussed. This lack of a boundary breeds uncertainty, and uncertainty breeds rejection. That is another reason why the voters said ‘no’. Seen in this light, giving Turkey candidate status was a failure of historic proportions on the part of the Union, and one about which we need to think long and hard."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph