Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-16-Speech-2-012"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060516.4.2-012"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Mrs Wallström, Vice-President of the Commission, my group supported the Commission’s Plan D because it believed, and still believes, that it is a good way of responding to the challenges facing Europe at the moment. We therefore encourage you to keep going.
You said that we were going to move on to the second phase of Plan D; the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats is going to make a proposal to you: we are no longer calling it a discussion, because a discussion that lasts for too long can give the impression that we are having a rest and not doing much more; let us call it an analysis, because I think that what follows an analysis is a proposal, which is what you are referring to with the joint declaration by the three institutions.
I think that this joint declaration by the three institutions is a good idea, Mrs Wallström, firstly because it marks the symbolic anniversary of the Treaties of Rome, which were the starting point for the Community, but also because it means that the Council, the Commission and Parliament want to put forward proposals together for a way out of the situation of the Constitutional Treaty.
You can therefore count on the European Parliament for this institutional declaration, but this means that we want to take part in drawing it up, not just sign it at the end.
I think that the fact that the process of ratifying the Constitution continued in Estonia and that the Finnish Parliament decided to ratify it is good news, which proves that all those who are prophesying that the Constitution is dead are wrong. No one ratifies something that is dead.
I think that the task that we have at the moment – and when I say task, I know that what I am asking is not simple – is to convince European citizens of what we could call ‘the cost of non Constitution’.
Remember many years ago, when the Single European Act was being debated, there was a report called ‘The cost of non Europe’, in other words, what it would cost people if the Single European Act did not come into force and the internal common market was not created.
I believe that what we need to do in this debate on the Constitutional Treaty is something similar: to explain to people, with examples, what would be lacking in their lives if there were no European Constitution. I am certain that this is a good task for the second phase of analysis, because it could produce proposals that will ultimately help to achieve what all of us, the Commission, the Council and Parliament, want: for Europe to add value for people, for Europe to defend our common values and for Europe, ultimately, to make people’s lives more effective, fairer, freer and better supported."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples