Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-12-13-Speech-3-269"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-12-13"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Explanations of vote2
dcterms:Language	"fr"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061213.27.3-269"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-12-13-Speech-3-2702
lpv:speaker	lp:Bruno Gollnisch2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; TRAN (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; ECON (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; NA (2004-07-20--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Front national (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with Japan (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3
lpv:translated text	". No, the adoption of a Constitution and the creation of a centralised European superstate are not, under any circumstances, prerequisites for the enlargement of the European Union. We will therefore obviously vote against Mr Stubb’s report, which attempts to bring back through the window a Constitution that two European nations have thrown out the door. Over and above these so-called ‘institutional’ aspects, which are rather ideological in nature, we must also ask ourselves whether it is not time we took a break. In a very short time, the European Union has gone from having 15 members to having 27, soon to be 28. Aside from the prepared statements, no one, in this Chamber, is able to say today what the advantages and disadvantages of this unprecedented enlargement are either for the EU or for each of our Member States. Enlargement for enlargement’s sake makes no sense at all, except in the case, to which we object, of the nation States being absorbed by the Brussels Leviathan, and of their finally disintegrating. There would be none of these problems if we built a real Europe of sovereign nations, cooperating in their chosen areas, for their mutual benefit."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph