Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-30-Speech-4-126"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001130.2.4-126"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – The British Conservatives have serious reservations about the whole concept of an EU defence policy autonomous from NATO, and cannot therefore support this report. Furthermore, there are many paragraphs to which we have specific objections, e.g.:
· The suggestion that defence should become a Community responsibility with the Council’s “Mr CFSP” role being taken over by a Commission Vice-President (Paragraphs 4 and 44).
· That military operations should be funded from a Community budget line and that Member States would have to contribute funds to operations even if they did not wish to participate (Paragraphs 49 and 50).
· The proposal for establishment of a centralised European Security College (Paragraph 78).
· The idea that Community funds should be used to finance information initiatives on CESDP both within the Union and in foreign capitals (in particular the USA) (Paragraphs 75 and 79).
· Suggestions for creation of a “European police force” (Paragraph L)
· The contradiction between the idea of the EU guaranteeing the external borders of the Union as an aspect of CFSP
(Paragraph D) and acknowledgement of NATO’s responsibility for collective defence (Paragraph C)."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples