Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-07-07-Speech-4-106-500"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110707.4.4-106-500"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"None of Mr Duff’s report, whether it be changes to election dates, the desire for the European Parliament to establish its own national composition, the imposition of quotas for ethnic minorities or other groups, the pointless ‘EU-wide list’, the desire to harmonise EU Member States’ minimum ages for voting and for eligibility to stand as a candidate, or the imposition on Member States of how their electoral districts should be established, is acceptable. Common minimum standards are of course possible as a way of ensuring better representation; I am thinking here of national constituencies, proportional representation, a 3% threshold for the distribution of seats, and so on. Parliament’s national composition must come under the authority of the European Council and maintain equivalent levels of representation between countries of a similar size, and must not be strictly proportional to Member States’ populations. However, above all, whether you like it or not, Members of the ‘European’ Parliament, as they are so called, remain representatives of their country and their country’s people. Also, whether you like it or not, as the French historian and philosopher Marcel Gauchet, who cannot be accused of ‘populism’, rightly said, ‘the national context remains the true political context in which people assert their belonging and their desire to influence a common future’. If citizens are turning their backs on you, it is because you are refusing to accept the inevitably national nature of democracy."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples