Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-11-Speech-2-054"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050111.5.2-054"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, there have been times in the course of this debate when one might have been forgiven for thinking that no criticism of the Constitution had ever been voiced. I believe that this will change when the Members of this House return to their countries and encounter diverse and varied criticism of the Constitution from a number of very different quarters. The Union for Europe of the Nations Group, in common with many of the other political groups in this House, is divided on the issue of the Constitution. The members of Law and Justice who constitute the Polish element in this group are opposed to it, not because it would be a bad thing for Poland, but because it would be a bad thing for Europe.
To begin with, the Treaty alters the system according to which votes are counted, to the disadvantage of countries with a particular interest in policies relating to Eastern Europe, cohesion and agriculture. This applies to Poland in all three instances, of course, yet it is not the implications for Poland that are the most significant problem, but the weakening of whole sectors of European policy.
The Treaty strengthens the EU’s powers over economic, employment and social policy within the Union. It does not yet go so far as to grant exclusive competences, of course, and no decisive step has yet been taken. Nevertheless, it substantially strengthens the EU’s powers. Yet it is not harmonisation of economic policy that Europe needs, but systems competition in this field. Harmonisation will consign Europe to the margins of global competition.
The Treaty is a significant step towards use of the Community method in the field of foreign policy. Again, no final decisions have yet been made, but a step has been taken in that direction. It is difficult to say where a line can be drawn between the Community method and the inter-state method in foreign policy, and Mr Rehn, the new Commissioner, admitted as much during his hearing before the Committee on Foreign Affairs. Finally, the Treaty is based on false premises from its very first lines. An example of such falsehood and extreme prejudice is the removal from the preamble of references to Christianity and God, whose presence is still felt in the majority of the European Union’s Member States. These are all reasons why today we must say ‘no’ to the Treaty and ‘no’ to this motion for a resolution in order to say ‘yes’ to Europe."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples