Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-19-Speech-3-033"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2003-11-19"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Progress report on the Intergovernmental Conference including budgetary aspects2
dcterms:Language	"it"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20031119.1.3-033"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2003-11-19-Speech-3-0342
lpv:speaker	lp:Giorgio Napolitano2
lpv:spokenAs	chair; AFCO (2002-01-21--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with Israel (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; PES (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Committee Chairs (2002-01-21--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 unknown; Democratici di Sinistra (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, I am addressing the representative of the Presidency, Mr Antonione. Mr Antonione, I do not doubt the sincerity of your intentions but some of the expressions you used – I might almost way which slipped out – concerned me greatly. You said that some Member States, or government representatives, are standing firm on their requests for change for reasons of negotiating tactics. There is a fundamental misunderstanding here: the Intergovernmental Conference was not supposed to be a negotiating forum, governments should not have been allowed to adopt positions already presented in the Convention – as Mr Hänsch and Mr Brok pointed out – positions already rejected by the Convention because more convincing solutions with wider backing had been found. I am not saying that the Intergovernmental Conference should just have blindly approved the Convention’s draft, as, moreover, the Heads of State and Government were wise to do in the case of the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights; I am saying that the Intergovernmental Conference should purely have checked for shortcomings and contradictions in the Convention’s draft, as it should be doing now, and discussed how to overcome them. You also said that the Italian Presidency’s position is clear: it advocates a text which departs from the Convention’s draft as little as possible. However, that concept of ‘as little as possible’ is entirely open to interpretation and discretion. We need to be clear: woe betide the IGC if it meddles with the Convention’s most important innovations: the powers of the European Parliament, particularly in budgetary matters; the double majority system; the Legislative Council; the appointment of the Foreign Minister. Do not put the European Parliament in a position where it has to reject the outcome of the Intergovernmental Conference and call upon the national parliaments not to ratify the Treaty."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph