Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-05-11-Speech-3-429-500"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110511.28.3-429-500"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"In 2009, the really crucial common foreign and security policy (CFSP) decision was the appointment of the High Representative. One has to admit that it was not the best decision. It is quite clear that Lady Ashton is more gifted at issuing moralising press releases and playing Lady Bountiful than she is cut out for dealing with the diplomatic issues that you want her to tackle on behalf of the 27 Member States. Thanks to the Baroness, the European Union was absent, out of synch or swimming against the tide for all key events. However, as usually happens in times of crisis, a handful of States took the initiative – for better or for worse – got organised and took action. The remainder either tagged along or complained when they were forced to give an opinion.
In reality, the Union’s foreign policy essentially involves distributing funding and engaging in trade, often in ways that are at variance with its professed political principles. This is only logical: diplomacy is a matter of State sovereignty. It is the product of each State’s history, resources and economic or geopolitical interests. The Union’s interests are neither an amalgamation nor an extension of those of the Member States. They are specific to the Union and often at odds with national interests. It is wholly unreasonable that these interests should take precedence over national interests."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples