Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-165"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030924.2.3-165"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
".
I voted for the report on the Constitutional Treaty despite a number of gripes about it, and so I am keen to clarify a number of points. The extension of majority voting to a range of areas is, in an ever-expanding EU, something to be welcomed. I regard the automatic abolition of unanimity – something provided for only in exceptional cases anyway – in order to transform it into a super qualified majority after 2009, as being premature at the present time. Why announce now something that is due to happen in 2009? I am glad that this passage, which was present in the first draft, has now disappeared.
I voted against paragraph 22 of the resolution, as I regard the allocation of Members in the European Parliament, as laid down in the protocol on enlargement appended to the Treaty of Nice, as balanced. It is, however, not acceptable for the number of MEPs from Luxembourg to be cut by one-third.
I agree with Mr Juncker, the Prime Minister of Luxembourg, that the proposals relating to the presidency of the specialised Councils of Ministers are unclear, in other words, that they still need some clarificatory amendments.
Nor is the creation of two classes of Commissioner – with and without voting rights – ideal. Which country is getting a junior Commissioner, and when? These are all questions that remain to be resolved."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples