Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-11-06-Speech-3-056"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20021106.6.3-056"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, at the Brussels European Council, the Chairman of the Convention presented the preparation of what he called a ‘constitutional treaty’. Three days later, however, before the Convention, he presented a preliminary draft entitled the ‘Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe’. There is a very considerable shift between the two meetings and it is a shame that this was not discussed at the Council meeting. The shift is even more marked when compared to the Laeken mandate, which simply raised the question as to whether the simplification of the treaties that it called for might not – and I quote – ‘lead in the long run to the adoption of a constitutional text’. I stress the words ‘in the long run’. And what is more, the Laeken mandate was itself developing in line with the Nice mandate, which did not even mention any possible constitutional element. These successive shifts can be easily explained by the backstage manoeuvring of the federalists and by the lack of any opposition within the Convention, based on the defence of national sovereignty, that is proportionate to its influence on the general public. A lack of realism can thrive when there is no one to question it."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples