Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-03-10-Speech-3-013"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2004-03-10"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Preparation of the European Council (Brussels, 25-26 March 2004) – Follow-up to the IGC2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20040310.1.3-013"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2004-03-10-Speech-3-0142
lpv:speaker	lp:Jens-Peter Bonde2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; JuniBevægelsen (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 chair; EDD (2001-01-30--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Presidents (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; CONT (2003-09-29--2004-07-19)3 member; AFCO (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, my Irish friends, congratulations on your victory over England in the rugby, but remember: EU citizens must not be vanquished; they must decide. Instead of arranging re-matches in Ireland and Denmark when we vote against a new treaty, it would be better if the Presidency were to use the Brussels Summit to say: we shall not sign any new EU Constitution if it has not been voted on in referendums in all the countries. The Group for a Europe of Democracies and Diversities will recommend the voters politely to reject a Constitution that would give the EU legislative power in 15 new areas instead of limiting the EU to cross-border issues; that would abolish the right of veto in approximately 40 areas instead of giving the last word to voters and their elected representatives; and that would demand recognition of the EU Constitution’s priority over the national constitutions instead of respecting the Member States’ constitutions. We would especially warn against the prime ministers being able to alter the constitution without asking the voters. Use the Brussels Summit to decide that the Constitution must be debated and voted on in referendums in all the EU countries before it can come into force. Why not have the draft Constitution subjected to advisory referendums at the same time as the elections to the European Parliament in June? We could then debate our possible common future jointly and choose representatives according to our view of the Constitution. We could then ourselves decide whether we wish to transfer more power from the voters and elected representatives in the Member States to EU officials and ministers. Now, a question: will the Presidency say what is happening regarding the secret negotiations concerning the Constitution? Who is involved; who is being excluded; and who, for example, was present in Berlin? Is the Presidency fully informed? Is there agreement as to a compromise draft that can be presented when Chirac thinks the time is ripe? Finally, a brief question to Mr Watson: if the Treaty of Nice is death for enlargement, why, then, did the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party recommend it?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph