Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-12-16-Speech-1-061"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-12-16"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Typology and hierarchy of acts in the European Union2
dcterms:Language	"es"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20021216.5.1-061"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-12-16-Speech-1-0622
lpv:speaker	lp:Manuel Medina Ortega2
lpv:spokenAs	member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Partido Socialista Obrero Español (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs (2002-02-05--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of South America and MERCOSUR (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, it appears that we are currently welcoming the enlargement of the European Union, from 15 to 25 Members from 2004, and possibly, a couple of years later, to 27, and possibly to 28, 30 and so on. If this enlargement is not accompanied by a profound constitutional change, what we are probably celebrating is the death of the European Union. In other words, the current decision-making process, based on constitutional modifications being made unanimously, is a procedure which does not lend itself to the development of an institution such as our Community, which so far at least has been effective. The danger is that we will transform our European Union into a kind of Council of Europe, an ineffective parliamentary forum – the only thing that works is the European Court of Human Rights – a kind of big UN, with the difference that in the UN only five States have a veto, while in the European Union 27 or 28 States would have the right to veto. Therefore, firstly, with regard to the proposals from Mr Bourlanges, I believe it is essential that we replace the current unanimity with a system of majorities, but, of course, the greater the possibility of adopting decisions by majority, the closer we will be to the genuine political community we aspire to be. Secondly, I agree with Mrs Frassoni that the escape route represented by the rule on majority by means of variable geometry could lead us – as Mr Marinho pointed out – to certain States, such as the United Kingdom, escaping through the back door of variable geometry. In other words, giving them options which allow them – as in the case of Schengen or the euro – not to contribute to the European project. This is perhaps the main weakness of Mr Bourlanges’s proposal. But, in conclusion, I would like to say that I agree with the proposals in general and I believe that, in any event, although I do not agree with any proposal by Mr Bourlanges, the adoption of the report would represent great progress in terms of the strengthening of the European institutions."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph