Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-02-20-Speech-3-170"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080220.10.3-170"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"If there was a competition for the best doctoral thesis on the Treaty of Lisbon, the text of the report by the Committee on Constitutional Affairs would deserve first prize and the highest praise.
The resolution is an excellent analysis and critique of the content of this completely incomprehensible Treaty. Anyone who dreaded the emergence of a centralised, almighty ‘superstate’ should be more than reassured. No substantial advances have been made compared with the contents of the Constitutional Treaty, but many things have been abandoned or withdrawn.
The co-rapporteurs note a lack of vision and ambition shown by national leaders in the European arena, and even downright mistrust of the EU and its institutions.
The eurosceptics should be pleased with the concessions: the delay of its entry into force, the retention of unanimity in 72 cases including taxation and the adoption of the multiannual financial framework, derogations, opt-ins and opt-outs, particularly for the UK, and the possibility of ‘voluntary withdrawal’ from the EU.
Those who deplore the ‘concessions which are difficult for Parliament to accept’ should take comfort on the one hand from the enhancement of the European Parliament’s role as co-legislator and the sharing of its budgetary powers to give parity with the Council, and on the other from the fact that the principle of a double majority will make decision-making in the Council easier."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples