Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-09-24-Speech-3-166"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030924.2.3-166"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The draft constitution, like many national constitutions, is full of fine rhetoric on such things as a high level of environmental protection, with a few points that sound social, and the rejection of capital punishment or discrimination, but this is not why this text was initially conceived. The really tough points are the confirmation of the Council’s power, which hinders parliamentary democracy, the integration of the whole of the EU into NATO and the establishment of the capitalist character of the EU economy. Soon, there will be no more room for a militarily neutral position outside of NATO, as has so far been adopted by Sweden, Finland, Ireland, Austria, Cyprus and Malta. It is not only about defending each other’s territory against outside attackers together, but also about being able to intervene in defence of our own interests outside of NATO’s and the EU’s territories. The constitution also protects freedom of enterprise and ‘free and pure competition’. In neo-liberal Europe, public utility companies in the areas of public transport, postal services, energy and telecommunications are no longer considered to be vital community tasks but are contracted out to profit-seekers. In this way, this constitution will resemble that of Cuba or the former Soviet Union, which also wanted to lay down the form of their economy and protect it from democratic decisions about change. If Europe is to have a constitution, then this is the wrong text. There needs to be a referendum on this subject in every Member State."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples