Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2007-07-11-Speech-3-167"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20070711.22.3-167"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I have voted against this report because I believe it is completely divorced from reality. The fact is that the populations of France and the Netherlands rejected the draft EU Constitution in referendums. If referendums had also taken place in, for example, Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom, a majority of the voters in these countries too would certainly have rejected it. Now, the summit has removed the symbols and rejected the proposals for an EU anthem and an EU flag. When it comes, however, to the EU’s future legislative powers over the Member States, there is no distinction between the rejected draft Constitution and what is now being proposed.
It is also interesting to note how, in the draft report, the European Parliament’s federalist majority is now trying to get round the rejection of the anthem and flag.
I have voted in favour of extending the mandate of the Intergovernmental Conference so that it is possible to move the seat of the European Parliament from Strasbourg to Brussels.
When it comes to the issue of referendums on the new Treaty, I believe that each country must decide for itself whether or not to organise a referendum. I believe that they should do so, but the European Parliament as an institution must not interfere in the matter."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples