Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-17-Speech-3-054"
Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
---|---|
rdf:type | |
dcterms:Date | |
dcterms:Is Part Of | |
dcterms:Language | |
lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010117.2.3-054"2
|
lpv:hasSubsequent | |
lpv:speaker | |
lpv:spokenAs | |
lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the discussion on the rapid reaction facility is starting to drag. Member States are still not agreed on the nuts and bolts of this mechanism. Apparently, it will also be some time before agreement is reached, and that while the financial implications for the Member States are minimal. There is no need for them to increase their contributions to the Union’s external policy, they only need to grant approval to facilitate the shifting of existing resources. Laborious negotiations have once again shown that ambitious goals regarding one of the Union’s external policies evaporate in practice because of the firm positions held by the national Member States.
Removing the geographical restriction of programmes created by the Union is not a licence for the European Union to intervene anywhere in the world at will. I therefore applaud the specifics which have been added to the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Security and Defence Policy with regard to this proposal. This mechanism specifically focuses on actions within the context of European programmes. This mechanism can provide help where the implementation of those programmes is at risk due to crisis situations.
However, I do not share the conclusions of the report on a different score. Indeed, unlike the rapporteur, I wish to retain the crisis committee from the Commission proposal. In this way, we will prevent a situation from arising where initiatives meet with insufficient backing within Member States. Furthermore, we will lend the Union’s and Member States’ initiatives the necessary coherence. Not insignificant, in the light of all the criticism which the Union’s external action has had to put up with over the years.
I also have my reservations about the suggestions made in the explanatory statement with regard to the amendment of the legal basis of this regulation. Article 308 is the only article on which this proposal can be based. Moreover, I wonder whether the addition of Article 179 will benefit the speed of this mechanism. It appears to me that codecision for Parliament will delay matters unnecessarily. What we do need to be able to do is to call the Commission to account afterwards on the use of this mechanism."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples