Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-042"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-09-24"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:European Constitution and IGC2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20030924.1.3-042"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-09-24-Speech-3-0432
lpv:speaker	lp:Gérard Onesta2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Committee on Culture, Youth, Education, the Media and Sport (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 member; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Delegation to the European Economic Area Joint Parliamentary Committee (EEA) (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Les Verts-Europe-Ecologie (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 vice-president; European Parliament (2002-01-15--2004-07-19)3 vice-president; Parliament's Bureau (2002-01-15--2004-07-19)3 member; G/EFA (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, in the Book of Revelation the number of the beast is 666. The equivalent in our draft Constitution is 473, that is Section 4, Article 7, paragraph 3. This is the revision clause. It could be termed the ‘in perpetuity clause’ as henceforth double unanimity will be needed to dot any I or cross any T. I refer to unanimity at the IGC and at the level of ratification. One might as well say that this is impossibility set in stone. I would also like to highlight that no consensus has been reached on this article, as it was not debated in depth in plenary at the Convention, given the time pressure of the last few days. The question arises as to whether this Convention text is a treaty or a constitution. The terms of a treaty can be amended if there is the unanimous agreement of the contracting parties. The terms of a constitution can be amended by a qualified or overqualified majority. Constitutions are never amended by unanimity, however. If the aim is to create a constitution, an adjustment is certainly called for. A new clause will be needed to facilitate progress. This could be some kind of enabling clause, for example. The draft Constitution already has many such clauses. The report itself is extremely weak on this point. Even so, our rapporteurs themselves state there is a danger of collapse if no changes are made. We have no right over the future of others. Article 4.7.3 must therefore be amended."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph