Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-05-Speech-3-095"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
rdf:type
dcterms:Date
dcterms:Is Part Of
dcterms:Language
lpv:document identification number
"en.20031105.7.3-095"2
lpv:hasSubsequent
lpv:speaker
lpv:spokenAs
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, the President-in-Office of the Council began his speech just now by saying that the Convention’s proposals must not be weakened by the IGC, because they had been achieved by a democratic method. I do not know what kind of democracy that could be, because the Convention did not have a democratic mandate to draft a Constitution, it was not representative of the various shades of public opinion and, what is more, it did not hold any votes. It must be a new kind of democracy served up in a European sauce. In actual fact, the latest meetings of the IGC have shown that a certain number of national delegations are starting to ask themselves some legitimate questions. First of all, the extension of majority voting to cover essential matters such as border controls, taxation, financial perspectives, criminal law, services of general economic interest etc. ought not to be possible, or at least should only be possible in exchange for a safety net, for example a right of veto for each national democracy, exercised by its national parliament or by a referendum. I am talking here about a feasible right of veto, and not a disproportionate right, such as the right to secede, which is obviously not feasible in the day-to-day debates of the Union. Moreover, we cannot allow, as they stand, bridging clauses which make it possible to turn procedures requiring a unanimous decision into procedures requiring a majority decision without going through the process of an official revision, in other words without the need to ask for solemn ratification at national level. That sort of provision is tailor-made to encourage the introduction of a Europe governed by self-styled elites who grow fat on the backs of the nations. If these bridging clauses were to be adopted – and there are a great many of them in the draft Convention – then the next revision of the Treaties would probably be the last. After that the only thing that would be needed would be the opinion of the European Council, and not the opinion of the nations. That is definitely unacceptable."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

1http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/English.ttl.gz
2http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/Events_and_structure.ttl.gz
3http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/rdf/spokenAs.ttl.gz

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph