Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-18-Speech-3-247"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-01-18"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:The period of reflection: structure, subjects and context for an assessment of the debate on the EU2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060118.20.3-247"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-01-18-Speech-3-2482
lpv:speaker	lp:Francis Wurtz2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Conference of Presidents (2004-07-20--2006-12-12)3 member; AFET (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2007-03-14)3 substitute; BUDG (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 chair; EUL/NGL (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Parti communiste français (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the United States (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, the period of reflection decreed by the European Council following the victory of the 'no' camp in France and the Netherlands has achieved its first result: it has improved people's manners. For example, the two co-rapporteurs of the resolution we are now debating did not consider it appropriate this time to describe the majority of the electorate in France and the Netherlands with the unkind epithets that some levelled at them a few months ago. I would therefore like to thank Mr Voggenhuber and Mr Duff for emphasising here, at least in their resolution, that the citizens have in fact, and I quote, 'expressed concerns and worries which need to be taken into account', and that we need to respect their decision and 'to analyse carefully the reasons for the negative results'. That is a step forward. This would be even clearer if the report stated that the draft treaty is now dead and that the debate now centres on what should replace it. My group is prepared to take an active part in the debate on the future of the Union with our fellow citizens. As regards the topics put forward for those discussions, we agree with them in essence. The question that arises is this: what will be the political result of this debate? How far are you prepared to go in transforming the policies and structures of the EU as it is, in order to meet the demands being made by most of Europe's societies, which were demonstrated most spectacularly by the rejection of the constitutional treaty? That is where the problem lies. The report now before us proposes only, and I quote, 'to reassure … public opinion', given that, and again I quote, 'in any case … the Constitution enters into force during 2009'. In that case, it is no longer a debate, but a communication campaign. It would be a shame if we followed that route. It would be a missed opportunity. That is why my group, almost without exception, will not go down that path."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph