Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-01-19-Speech-4-168"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-01-19"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060119.20.4-168"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-01-19-Speech-4-1692
lpv:speaker	lp:Dorette Corbey2
lpv:spokenAs	member; ENVI (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Partij van de Arbeid (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the People's Republic of China (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 member; PES (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 substitute; PECH (2005-09-08--2007-01-14)3 substitute; ITRE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3
lpv:translated text	". The Duff/Voggenhuber report misjudges the political realities, both in the Netherlands and in France. To call, as it does, for the Constitution’s entry into force in 2009 to be guaranteed is an insult not only to the Dutch voters, but also to the rule of law within the EU. Other passages (paragraphs 1, 5, 7, and 31) also fail to do justice to the unambiguous no vote in the Netherlands. It is for that reason that I find it impossible to vote in favour of the report. I also think that the Netherlands has to make clear precisely what it wants – whether it wants to renegotiate the Constitution, continue on the basis of the Treaty of Nice or begin the whole process anew. If the Netherlands opts for renegotiation, it will have to state clearly what it wants. A clear message to the Netherlands from this House would have been all the more helpful in view of the fact that, in the Netherlands, the debate has been cancelled."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph