Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-06-08-Speech-3-026"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2005-06-08"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Preparations for the European Council, including the future of the Union after the referenda on the European constitution (Brussels, 16-17 June 2005)2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20050608.3.3-026"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2005-06-08-Speech-3-0272
lpv:speaker	lp:Erik Meijer2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; AFET (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; DROI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Socialistische Partij (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; EUL/NGL (2004-11-14--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Croatia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; TRAN (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, for two months, I took an active part in the campaign which, in the Netherlands, won 62% backing for a ‘no to the Constitution’. As the largest organisation in the ‘no’ camp, our Socialist party stood up for the right of the electorate to change that text. We were not opposed to the prospect of a European Constitution, or to new or future Member States, or not even, more specifically, to the fact that the Netherlands has now become the highest net contributor in the European Union. It was about the content of the Constitution. That text is far too much a recipe for a Europe in a more American mould, with the emphasis on free, undistorted competition, the liberalisation of services, rearmament, commitment to NATO and the possibility of interventions outside the EU’s territory. Chapter 3 does not belong in a constitution; it should form part of normal legislation, which Parliament should be able to revise with the help of the national parliaments. It would then be for the electorate, through elections, to demand changes, and the man in the street would no longer feel himself unable to help change policies. Moreover, in the proposed text, democracy remains deficient as long as national parliaments can only delay legislation, as long as the collection of a million signatures is not rewarded with policy being adapted or with a referendum, and as long as the Council is the only body that can change this Constitution. With those arguments, we managed to persuade many people to turn out to vote who may well have grumbled about policy and the EU’s interference, but who were inclined to stay at home because they had no hope of any improvement. Instead of the expected low turnout with a majority voting ‘yes’, we had a high turnout with a majority voting ‘no’. This Constitution is now dead. If the voters in other Member States are offered another referendum, though, I also expect the majority to reject this Constitution. That is how peoples obtain the right to amendment ..."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(Applause)"1 "(The President cut off the speaker)"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph