Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-12-16-Speech-2-090"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031216.3.2-090"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The vote on the discharge in respect of the Convention budget provides an opportunity to point out that, despite the praise lavished on it by the federalists, that body was largely responsible for the final deadlock in the Brussels Council on the European Constitution.
First of all, its membership did not at all reflect European public opinion, since the separatists were hardly represented. Gisela Stuart, the British representative who was nevertheless a member of its Praesidium, recently referred to it as a ‘self-selected elite’.
Its conclusions were not inspired by a consensus at all. On the contrary, they were manipulated by the European institutions. Countries or individuals that did not agree were marginalised in accordance with Valéry Giscard d'Estaing’s formula that ‘consensus is less that unanimity but more than the majority’.
In those surroundings, a microclimate developed, a kind of infectious euro-enthusiasm driven by the federalists; it caused many members to lose sight of their national positions and interests and they had their revenge later.
Finally, to completely rewrite the treaties was over-ambitious and at the last moment it became evident that a good number of problems had not been dealt with properly."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples