Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-11-18-Speech-4-176"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991118.7.4-176"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I do not think that the report which has been approved by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and submitted for the approval of this plenary sitting merits a positive response because:
1 – It makes requirements for revision beyond those that are laid down in the Treaty of Amsterdam, in such broad and general terms that it is not clear what a new “full” agenda is. Particularly because it omits points for revision that I consider to be essential and that were agreed on in the opinions of other Parliamentary Committees, such as a revision of own resources, a revision of social cohesion, reform of the CAP, the extension of first Pillar competences in terms of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, reform of the legal system etc…
2 – The revision centres on an agenda that essentially only concerns issues of decision-making power and a corresponding new balance between Member States, which will reduce, in the name of fairness, the weight of economically less developed States in favour of the more economically powerful ones, to which it is being attempted to give the mechanisms for strengthening their influence.
3 – Consequently, it accepts, by giving the Commission
to propose it, a redistribution of the weighting that each State holds in the wake of what can already be seen in the administrative and operational organisation of the Community executive, which threatens the historical and constituent principle of the European project which has always successfully stood firm on there not being proportionality between population and the weighting of votes.
4 – Consistent with the positions that I have always maintained in Parliament, regarding a revision of Maastricht and Amsterdam, with the aim of keeping sacrosanct the founding historical balance between large and small countries, I cannot approve this resolution which will open up a “Pandora’s box” for a Treaty that accepts as fair the supremacy of some States over others in breach of the principle of the equality of all European citizens.
That is why I voted against it!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples