Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-16-Speech-4-119"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20061116.17.4-119"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The report on which we are voting today is a wish list for advocates of a militarised EU state. Fortunately, it is only an own-initiative report, but, all the same, it is a clear signal to the other institutions of the EU of the direction that Parliament’s majority wants the EU to take.
The establishment of a standing naval force in the Mediterranean is one of the most preposterous ideas put forward. What is more, the majority of the committee advocates the creation of a separate budget heading for military operations, and attempts are also being made to revive the dead draft Constitution. As always when the European Parliament gets the chance to give its opinion, there is a desire to give more power to the Members of this House. We have also adopted a position on the amendment calling for a coastguard under the aegis of the EU.
The development described in the report is very disturbing and should be a wake-up call, even for the most inveterate advocates of an EU state. In view of the insecure situation with which we are faced nowadays, as a result of the numerous conflicts that are going on around the world, we should instead be asking ourselves whether the establishment of an EU army is the right way to address these problems. Whether or not a nation state is to send in troops is something that must always be decided by the national parliaments, and never by a United States of Europe formed from the EU.
We have therefore voted against this report and most of the amendments to it that have been tabled."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples