Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-10-Speech-4-112"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030410.4.4-112"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
In reworking the underhand method of imposing European centralism, the rapporteur has chosen
even though he denies this
to disregard the current historical situation, straying from the divergent interests of the Member States with regard to the ESDP and far exceeding commitments given voluntarily, at the Helsinki European Council of 1999 in particular.
The only way we could have an EU with ‘one strong and clear voice’ today would be to force most Member States to keep quiet. This would be unacceptable. In the current context, there are no real grounds for the pressure to justify the trend to communitise the second pillar on the basis of the need to enhance ‘the credibility of its foreign policy objectives’.
The constant comparison with the United States of America, a sovereign State and a two-hundred year old nation, betrays the rapporteur’s preferred direction for the EU to take, which I clearly cannot support.
Apart from being a structural paradox, reconstructing the European institutional architecture, starting at the very top, is the complete opposite of the model advocated by the Founding Fathers, causing one to fear for the solidity and coherence that are gradually being assembled.
I have therefore voted against the report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples