Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-25-Speech-3-147"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-10-25"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001025.6.3-147"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-10-25-Speech-3-1482
lpv:speaker	lp:Astrid Lulling2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South America and MERCOSUR (1999-10-06--2002-01-14)3 member; EPP-ED (1999-09-16--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Parti chrétien social (1999-09-16--2004-07-19)3 substitute; AGRI (1999-10-07--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Women's Rights and Equal Opportunities (1999-10-07--2002-01-14)3 member; ECON (1999-10-07--2002-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". The vote on this report in the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, adopted by 18 votes in favour, 2 against and 6 abstentions, reflects the gulf dividing the Members of the European Parliament on this subject. This own-initiative report by Mr Duhamel can be classed as one that were better not written, especially at this point in time. For as things stand in the various Member States, it risks being rather counterproductive at a time when the top priority is not a very broad debate on a constitution but rather the drafting of a treaty that will allow the European Union to digest enlargement without endangering the Community method, which is the key to the success of European integration. In this ‘constitution versus treaty’ debate, I tend to place more trust in Jacques Delors than in Mr Duhamel and those who supported him in submitting this report. As Jacques Delors rightly pointed out at a meeting of our Committee on Constitutional Affairs scarcely a month ago, the term ‘constitution’ is extremely ambiguous. He told us that he, like the majority of politicians, had been given to believe that we would prefer our relations with other countries to be governed by international treaty. In a framework of that kind – and I am still referring to Jacques Delors’s words – we would agree to exercise joint sovereignty in certain fields. But a constitution is something else entirely. It refers to a single state. A constitution would commit the Member States to venturing onto very dangerous ground, which could lead a constitutional court to gradually deprive the nations of the prerogatives the states intend to continue exercising. A good treaty is worth more than a treaty that can be dubbed a constitution. That is the last of Jacques Delors’s observations. In complete agreement with the common sense of Jacques Delors’s words, I did not vote in favour of Mr Duhamel’s report."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph