Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-01-12-Speech-3-115"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050112.6.3-115"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I have often criticised the break with the EU’s best practice, the source of its success: the ‘small steps policy’ of Schuman and the founding Member States, which is increasingly being trampled underfoot by a ferocious desire to stride forward, regardless of the feelings of the people. I should prefer to go down the European road of genuine unity in diversity, characterised by respect for the national democracies from which that road emerges, than to contribute towards the sham of a proto-continental State which few want to see, which the people did not ask for and which nobody has any real affection for.
I have no qualms about applauding the broad outlook of a European constitutional text. Yet once the people have been consulted, let us draw it up using fully democratic, participatory and representative processes, interacting with the public, in an assembly specifically elected for this purpose, as suggested at the Intergovernmental Conference. I am always dismayed by the climate of concealment and manipulation, the lack of loyalty to the public, the fact that often one thing is said and then something different is done and the blatant way in which the rule of law has been brushed aside – a sure sign that ‘anything goes’, so long as it goes in a particular direction. A glaring indication of this is the pompous declaration that Parliament ‘adopts the Constitutional Treaty’. This does not fall within our competences and to say it does puts us in a legally dubious position.
I had hoped for better.
I voted against the resolution."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples