Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-03-14-Speech-3-042"

PredicateValue (sorted: default)
dcterms:Is Part Of
lpv:document identification number
lpv:translated text
"Mr President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, you have already been praised several times during the course of this debate, and rightly so, for your understanding and your sincere appeal for a proper new start in a common Europe. “The future is at stake” is the way you put the objective of the work of the Swedish Presidency into perspective. Unfortunately, you went no further than perspectives in your reference to the objectives of Annex 4 to Nice, in calling for us to be closer to our citizens and in your more than cryptic comment that you see both advantages and disadvantages in the convention method. With all due respect, that does not amount to much. In fact it amounts to far too little if you consider that the Swedish Presidency is already approaching the half-way mark. I would have welcomed at least a few specifics on the crucial core issues addressed by Michel Barnier. Do we want a more or a less political Europe? How exactly do we envisage fundamental reform of the institutions? How should we be organising the process of writing a forward-looking European constitution? I would have listened gladly to at least some sort of attempt to reply to one or other of these questions. Perhaps you will yet do so in your closing address. May I add another question to those already put to you by my fellow Members? What does being closer to our citizens mean from an institutional point of view, i.e. once we get past websites and discussions at the European School? Does it mean depriving the European Parliament of power by setting up a second chamber of national parliaments, over which the Council believes it can exert more influence than it can over the European Parliament? Some answers please."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:


The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph