Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-19-Speech-4-165"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060119.20.4-165"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
".
In this report on the period of reflection, Parliament had a unique opportunity to do something useful: it could have been the first European institution to reflect on realistic options for resolving the situation created by the 'no' votes in France and the Netherlands, based around two aspects: a constitutional text refocused on Parts I and II and a revision of Part III on policies. That was what the co-rapporteurs from the Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance and the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, whose ceaseless efforts I welcome, wanted, and I co-signed their amendments advocating a 'constitutional core'.
The Group of the European People's Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats and the Socialist Group in the European Parliament rejected this pragmatic and worthwhile policy, and restated their commitment to the current text of the Constitution. This is the idea that it is still possible to make the French and Dutch vote again on the same text. This denial of the popular vote is futile, whatever the positions of the various parties: that is why I am pleased that the French socialists, with a few exceptions, abstained. In the end, the only useful message to be taken from this report is that the period of reflection will need to continue until June 2007."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples