Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-01-29-Speech-4-014"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20040129.1.4-014"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it can be assumed that the Laschet report was driven by good intentions: to reinforce the role of the United Nations and increase Europe’s influence in it. It has to be recognised, however, that the proposed method runs counter to these two objectives. Articles 10 and 12, the core of the resolution, propose to expand the Security Council and to weaken the current veto system by replacing it with a requirement for a double veto, when the subject is the fundamental issue of threats to peace, chapter 7. This challenges the two fundamental rules governing the effectiveness of the system: the limited number of members and the veto incentive available to each permanent member.
As regards Europe’s influence, it is difficult to see how halving the number of permanent members in the Security Council could strengthen it. This, however, is what is implied by the proposal to make the European Union a permanent member, ‘as soon as its legal personality is recognised’. This seat, of which there could only ever be one, would be occupied by the infamous European Minister for Foreign Affairs who would, incidentally, no longer have, on his own, the right of veto.
Complicating and weakening the current system seem, therefore, to be the dual characteristics of the proposal put to us. It is the Community method applied to the United Nations. We cannot, therefore, support it. We will instead vote in favour of Amendment No 1, a common sense amendment proposed by our British friends."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples