Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-12-Speech-3-100"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050112.6.3-100"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"We have voted against this report. Our definitions of ‘subsidiarity’ and ‘superstate’ clearly differ from those of the rapporteurs. We define subsidiarity in terms of political decisions having to be taken as close to the people as possible and in terms of its being the national parliaments and not the EU institutions that determine which issues are to be decided upon at which level.
Our definition of a superstate is an EU state in which the Council as a rule takes decisions on a qualified majority basis, in which not all the Member States are represented in the Commission and in which the European Parliament has the right of codecision on all issues. The EU is thus no longer a federation of states, which is what we believe it should be, but a federal state.
A common foreign and asylum policy, a rapid reaction force designed to intervene elsewhere in the world and an EU budget increased through the EU’s being given the right of taxation are among the factors that extend the exercise of political power by this ‘superstate’.
This draft Constitution should be replaced by a new draft intergovernmental Treaty that gives central place to the national parliaments’ political responsibility. Religious issues must not be among those dealt with in texts of EU treaties.
We protest about the fact that, in connection with the reading of this report, the majority in the European Parliament is to invest EUR 340 000 of taxpayers’ money in a spectacle to launch the ‘yes’ campaign for the adoption of the ‘EU Constitution’ by the Member States."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples