Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-03-15-Speech-3-040"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-03-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Preparations for the European Council: the Lisbon Strategy (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"da"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060315.3.3-040"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-03-15-Speech-3-0412
lpv:speaker	lp:Jens-Peter Bonde2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; CONT (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; AFCO (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Conference of Presidents (2004-07-20--2006-12-12)3 chair; IND/DEM (2004-12-06--2008-05-08)3 unknown; JuniBevægelsen - Mod Unionen (2004-07-20--2008-05-08)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with Switzerland, Iceland and Norway and to the European Economic Area (EEA) Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-21--2008-05-08)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, following the French and Dutch rejections of the Constitution, the EU summit decided to arrange a break in which to think about Europe’s future. It now appears that this was not a pause for thought but, rather, entailed a change in the order of who is to ratify and when. Since the two ‘no’ votes, the Constitution has been approved in Luxembourg, Cyprus, Malta, Latvia and, most recently, Belgium. The process is under way in Estonia, and Finland will approve the Constitution before it takes over the Presidency on 1 July. A delegation of us from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs visited Helsinki the other day. Just one small party, representing true Finns, will respect the French and Dutch ‘no’ votes. The Constitution proposes that ratifications be allowed to continue until 80% of the countries have approved the Constitution, at which point a special summit would take place. The provisions of the Constitution cannot, however, be the basis for changing the Treaty of Nice, where unanimity is the rule. The Constitution is therefore formally dead following the French and Dutch ‘no’ votes. In the Netherlands the government has stated that it will not ratify the rejected document, and in France the leading politicians say the same thing. It is therefore illegal to continue with the ratifications without a new decision, unless France and the Netherlands are engaging in double-dealing and saying one thing at home and something else in Brussels. I should like to ask the Presidency whether France and the Netherlands have formally agreed that the ratifications can continue without changes to the rejected document. Would it not be better to use the breathing space to think out new ideas and so prepare a document that people can approve in referenda in all the countries on the same day, a document in which the key headings could be transparency, democracy and proximity to the people?"@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph