Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-11-Speech-2-038"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050111.5.2-038"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, the Laeken Declaration rightly called for the EU institutions to develop in a way which brought them closer to the people. As the ratification process on the Constitution gathers pace, it must be said that those ambitions clearly have not been realised.
As a member of the Convention, I made great efforts to try to persuade my colleagues that the emerging draft was wrong for Europe in principle and wrong for Europe's citizens. I argued throughout that Europe did not need a constitution but a simplifying treaty. That would have been enough to modernise the institutions and the workings of the Union. I even submitted a draft of a possible alternative. Prime Minister Blair agreed with me then; now he embraces the Constitution as it has been drawn up.
There is nothing anti-European in opposing the Constitution. However, British Conservatives and other colleagues in the PPE-DE Group think that it centralises more powers, makes the institutions more remote and reduces the powers of nation-states.
Europe has missed an historic opportunity to modernise its workings to meet the demands of an enlarged and more diverse Union. A simplifying treaty could have tackled the real issues: relative economic decline, fraud and waste, and greater involvement of national parliaments in the decision-making processes.
At a time when the generosity of people across Europe and the world towards the victims of the tsunami disaster is evident to all, it is inexplicable why this Parliament is committing a considerable sum of money to a programme of events and receptions in support of the European Constitution. Those funds would have been better directed to assisting in the disaster relief.
The Constitution is of such far-reaching significance that its rejection in one or more of the Member States in the forthcoming referenda would render it void. However, rather than being totally negative, we should regard that outcome – should it occur – as a fresh opportunity for us all to establish a modern Union that respects and celebrates its diversity and which is accountable by the people and from the people, rather than one which demands too much conformity."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples