Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-27-Speech-4-109"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030327.3.4-109"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The Brussels Council removed from its agenda the speech by Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, President of the Convention, on the basis that the subject of Iraq required more urgent attention. In fact, however, the Council hardly discussed Iraq either, in order to avoid exacerbating the existing division.
We might well ask ourselves whether the postponement of the speech by the President of the Convention could be indicative of deep unrest, for two reasons.
The first, of course, concerns the Iraq crisis, which shows that a unified foreign policy is impossible and which will probably lead to the formation of at least two Europes, with either a vertical or horizontal split. This possibility, however, is not currently part of the Convention’s plans, which are still mainly along the lines of the united model.
The second reason relates to the presence, or absence, of the candidate countries at Council meetings. It is true that they are not yet Members, but is it possible to discuss the Convention without them? If so, should it not be clearly stated that they will be full signatories to the future, so-called ‘constitutional’ Treaty, in other words, that this Treaty can only be concluded after 1 May 2004, when they have become Members? That is our position."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples