Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-05-11-Speech-3-449-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110511.28.3-449-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"The report being examined today contains some aspects that are welcome and others that are less so, thus representing in the best (or worst) possible way the typical contradictions that the European Union reveals in its external actions. For example, it hopes for greater integration and common management in crisis situations: recent events in Libya have shown that Europe acts dispersedly, with some Member States directly engaged, others that have wriggled out, and practically only one country – Italy – to manage the direct consequences of the Libyan crisis and the North African crises in general, in other words, a flood of migrants. We therefore need to decide how Europe should behave: should it always be ‘united’ whatever the consequences, or should it always leave the Member States free, in which case the European Union itself must adapt?
I am baffled by the emphasis placed on the need to increase the power and resources of common actions and the European Defence Agency: given the precedents, I would not like that, too, to become a useless bureaucratic machine that is an end in itself, and its actions to become totally ineffective. For the reasons given above, I have decided to abstain, while waiting to see what the European Union will do as a really ‘great’ organisation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples