Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-11-30-Speech-4-129"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001130.2.4-129"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"We have voted against the Brok and Lalumière reports for a number of reasons. We do not consider that an arms build-up, with the resultant increased military expenditure, is the answer to the challenges faced by Europe in 2001 and beyond. Now, in the decade following the upheavals in the East, we think that, with these reports, ‘the European peace project’ is sending an unhelpful signal to the applicant States. Secondly, the reports set the stage for a split with the non-aligned countries which, it is proposed, would be involved through their financing of the common European security and defence policy. The talk about being ‘united in diversity’ rings hollow, especially for the non-aligned Member States, if only parts of the content of the reports are put into practice.
The introduction of a new form of territorial defence, which would come under the aegis of a Vice-President of the Commission it has also been proposed, is a point that we cannot support either. A break of that kind with NATO, only to see a new partitioning of Europe, is far from the enigmatic words spoken following the fall of the Berlin Wall. What we definitely do not need is the development of further military structures. However, it would be to the EU’s credit if the priorities of the Petersberg tasks were turned around and the focus placed upon model solutions of a civil and humanitarian nature."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples