Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-05-31-Speech-4-087"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010531.3.4-087"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
".
The need to provide the EU with instruments that can cope with the challenge of enlargement explains the importance of the institutional reform that should have taken place in Nice, and also the disappointment with the results that were achieved and, above all, with the lack of ambition and political will shown by the Heads of State and Government, who were more concerned with how to block decisions than with finding formulae that would enable us to move forward towards a shared future. It is true that some progress was made, but Nice is very far removed from what was expected and needed from it, as the reform agreed on does not serve to make a more efficient and democratic EU in view of enlargement, as is shown, moreover, by the annex on post-Nice that accompanies the final Treaty.
Therefore, the Méndez de Vigo-Seguro report should have been more emphatic, because it was important for Parliament to highlight the inadequacies of Nice and send a clear signal about this, which is why I also regret that some of the amendments tabled that were going in that direction did not stand. But aside from this, the report contains some aspects, above all regarding the need to use a method similar to the Convention that drew up the Charter of Fundamental Rights and also the need to begin a constitutional process culminating in the adoption of the European Union Constitution, which made me inclined to vote in favour of it, despite my conviction that Nice was a wasted opportunity."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples