Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-05-11-Speech-3-264"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20050511.20.3-264"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I have a great many doubts and reservations about the setting up of a European External Action Service, and I should like to draw the House’s attention to three I regard as crucial.
The first relates to the question of whether Community legislation provides a legitimate basis for the European External Action Service. The relevant articles of the Treaty on European Union have admittedly been cited, as well as other pieces of legislation, but the main point of reference for the establishment of this Service is the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe. It follows from this draft Treaty that the setting up of an EU Diplomatic Service is a simple consequence of conducting a common foreign and security policy and appointing an EU Foreign Affairs Minister, as already mentioned by previous speakers. It should be pointed out, however, that the draft Constitutional Treaty has not yet been adopted, and what is more, that there are serious grounds for believing that it will be rejected by the citizens of the Member States. The question is therefore whether we should not acknowledge that any discussion of a European External Action Service would be extremely premature at this point in time. I would also suggest that this is yet another example of the EU’s arrogant attitude towards the citizens of Europe’s sovereign states. Since the EU institutions appear to believe that they have the right to act ahead of time, I would ask whether the Commission has a plan B, in case the Constitutional Treaty is rejected.
Secondly, the governments of the Member States entered into a commitment when they signed the draft Constitutional Treaty in November 2004, and this commitment has questionable consequences. The Member States undertook to refrain from, and I quote: ‘any action that might impede entry into force of the Constitution’. Does this automatically mean that the Member States must engage in mindless propaganda that advocates the adoption of this Treaty? Does this not preclude the provision of reliable and objective information on the contents of the Constitution and the effects it may have on the lives of Europe’s nations?
Finally, my third concern relates to the planned structure of the European External Action Service, as the latter may entail the creation of a new army of officials with unclear, or even only partial, powers. We cannot even be sure that this structure will not involve the same matters being dealt with by the Directorates-General, the External Action Service and the other Commission agencies. The end result of this will be a burgeoning of the EU’s bureaucratic machinery, even though the latter already lacks transparency and merely places an undue burden on taxpayers in the Member States.
What financial impact is the establishment of the European External Action Service expected to have? How will these costs be shared, and who will bear the greatest burden? Furthermore, I should like to ask how many officials currently work in the Commission services responsible for EU external policy, and how many officials are expected to work in the future External Action Service?"@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples