Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-18-Speech-3-246"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-01-18"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:The period of reflection: structure, subjects and context for an assessment of the debate on the EU2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060118.20.3-246"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-01-18-Speech-3-2472
lpv:speaker	lp:Monica Frassoni2
lpv:spokenAs	co-chair; G/EFA (2005-05-24--2007-07-19)3 substitute; AFCO (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; ITRE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with Mercosur (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; Conference of Presidents (2004-07-20--2006-12-12)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Iran (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; JURI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Federazione dei Verdi (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance supports the Duff-Voggenhuber report. The European Union needs a democratic Constitution and cannot just stumble along with Nice. The debate that must take place on the Constitution has to be a European debate, and the letter sent by the three presidents of national parliaments shows that responsibility for the debate cannot be left at national level, but that there is a need for a truly European body, like this Parliament, to conduct it and – all right, yes, we must say it openly – to steer it as well. Two things are missing in the report, however, and we hope to be able to introduce them with the vote in this House. In fact, Mr Corbett, I do not agree with you: it is absolutely not true that the movement of those who voted ‘yes’ to the Constitution is split between those who now want to get rid of the text and those who want to keep it. It is not like that. The amendment that we shall put to the vote tomorrow explicitly states that one possibility – not a theoretical one, but a practical one – might be to change the text and that, if that were to happen, it would require a new constitutional process, which might also end with a referendum. To think, however, that the only proposal that we, as the European Parliament, should put forward is to maintain the current text and nothing else is false and short-sighted, and it is that attitude that might really divide the pro-European movement, that is to say the movement that obtained broad support for the Constitution in this House, with 500 votes. I therefore believe that the two amendments tabled by the rapporteurs should be supported by a large majority in this Parliament, because they simply state that it is possible to debate various options. Perhaps no option is better than the others, but I believe that they should all be discussed, including the one that right now sounds strangely drastic, which is that we should reopen the debate on the Constitution with the citizens as well."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph