Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-11-Speech-3-267"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050511.20.3-267"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, as Mr Brok already pointed out, I should like to give testimony as chairman of the Convention’s external relations working party, whose main concern was to avoid the eventual adoption of a double external policy, one derived both from the Council and the Commission. On a positive note, the working party wanted to achieve greater coherence and continuity of policy, as well as to make it possible to deploy all the EU’s resources for common external policy actions.
Although a majority of the Convention’s members were of the opinion that this could be best achieved via the Community method, we were sensible enough to realise that this is at the moment not feasible. That is why this compromise has been worked out between those in favour of an improved status quo and those in favour of communitisation.
The External Affairs Minister would be President of the Council of Ministers, determining its agenda and, as its spokesperson, guaranteeing the coherence and continuity of policy. As Vice-President of the Commission, he would also forge a link with Community policy. In addition, with the Commission’s approval, he would be able to use Community funds to back up his policy. The working party’s position was that, ideally, he should consult the Commission about his initiatives, and get it to support them, from the very outset.
We had even proposed that, in the case of a common initiative of the External Affairs Minister and the Commission, the Council should decide by majority. To most, that appeared to be a bridge too far, but I would nevertheless claim that the success of the External Affairs Minister and the influence he will be able to exert will largely depend on the way in which he fits in with the Commission and works with it.
From the very start, the working party realised that the External Affairs Minister’s logistical support was crucial. We have always argued in favour of changing the delegations into a unified external representation in the form of EU embassies. In Brussels too, the Minister should have a strategic service at his disposal, comprising both Commission and Council officials for the moment and diplomats posted from Member States.
Although this service will need to work for both the Council of Ministers and the Commission, the working party took the view that, in terms of dynamics, it was best if it was brought within the Commission’s scope, even though it has to be at the loyal service of the External Affairs Minister and the Council of Ministers.
It appears to me that setting up a new autonomous administration is miles removed from what we wished for. We wanted to abolish the pillars, yet a super pillar is being created, in the shape of the new service. Similarly, to decommunitise the Commission services also seems to be a step in the wrong direction. The Commission must defend its position to the utmost and find a place for this external affairs administration in its services. The Commission should not forget that it must be in agreement and has the last say, therefore. In the Brok report, we in this House will clearly speak out in favour of these solutions and wholeheartedly support the Commission, but it is up to the Commission to guide the negotiations."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples