Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-04-04-Speech-2-298"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060404.23.2-298"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I agree with Mr Rack that we are facing a problem, because there is one Member State that called a referendum, the result was negative and, on the basis of that negative result, it cannot, it does not wish to, or it does not intend to, comply with an obligation that falls to it as a Member State.
We must deal with the issue of how to resolve this question. The Commission felt it prudent not to do so immediately after a referendum. The Commission must fulfil its obligation to comply with the Treaty while at the same time taking account of the opinion expressed by the citizens of that Member State, but I have not forgotten that the Commission must hold talks with Sweden to consider how that country can fulfil its obligations as a member of the European Union in the future.
The same thing is happening in relation to Poland, which had originally proposed a particular year as an objective for its entry into the euro. The new Polish authorities say that they do not accept the objective of their predecessors and that they are not setting a future objective at the present time. And I have had the opportunity to remind the new Polish Government that it will have to do so.
We do not want to apply pressure, but we cannot forget that this is an obligation for the Member States. As I said before, we must combine fulfilling our responsibilities with political prudence, but what I will say — and I have said this publicly on other occasions — is that compliance with an obligation which falls to the 25 countries of the European Union as Member States cannot not be put to a referendum.
In this case there is an exception in place for two countries, the United Kingdom and Denmark, but, the State’s obligations should not be put to a referendum generally, and neither should the 23 States without an opt-out clause do so, because the question of whether or not a Treaty is complied with cannot be put to a vote."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples