Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-30-Speech-4-112"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001130.2.4-112"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The ‘Other Europe’ delegation of the Union for a Europe of Nations Group resolutely voted against the own-initiative report which was drawn up by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy and presented by Mr Brok.
As every year, this ritual report prepared by the European Parliament, which is in principle devoted to the annual general budget of the CFSP, employs the well-known method of gradual shifts which work on a federalist crevice found in a given area in order to extend this breach with scant regard for the Treaties or the decisions of the European Councils. In this case, it is the area of the Helsinki Council and common foreign policy, a field in which the rapporteur sets himself three main objectives. We have no alternative but to reject these objectives, which are as follows: to reduce European action in the world to that of the European Union as sole actor; to establish a European Ministry of Foreign Affairs intended to absorb the functions of national ministries and, finally, to get rid of the structure of the European Union in terms of pillars by widening the Community method, in particular by placing the High Representative under the responsibility of the Commission.
This action plan, which deals with the structures, leaves out just one albeit decisive element, the definition and content, at an earlier stage, of a European foreign policy. The truth is that, far removed from the virtual visions which hold sway within this Parliament, diplomatic realities are entirely different and the CFSP hardly exists. Glaring proof of this has just been adduced, as if this were necessary, by the recognition of the Republic of North Korea by the United Kingdom and Germany, without waiting for a common position to be adopted. Hence, it is clear that the way to strengthen the weight of European diplomatic action is to seek the harmonisation – where desirable, opportune and effective – of decisions which remain fundamentally the prerogative of the national actor, not through structural constraints which are totally ineffectual.
That is why our group once again voted against the absurd proposals to communitise national diplomatic services included in Articles 74 and 75 of the resolution, to turn European Union delegations into actual European embassies, and to establish a European diplomatic academy. The mind boggles at the proposal to put the entire diplomatic staff of Europe of an estimated 40 000 perfectly real people at the service of a virtual foreign policy. This proposal is both specific and surreal!"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples