Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-04-Speech-3-220"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2000-10-04"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Arms trade code of conduct2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20001004.9.3-220"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2000-10-04-Speech-3-2212
lpv:speaker	lp:Herman Schmid2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; Vänsterpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; EMPL (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; ECON (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Delegation for relations with the United States (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; EUL/NGL (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, where Mr Titley’s report in general is concerned, I basically share the points of view presented by Mrs Morgantini and others. I shall here simply discuss a quite special issue concerning the draft resolution. Recital R of the report talks about the … ‘development of a common defence policy in the context of the CFSP and the establishment of a European Security and Defence Identity within NATO’, and paragraph 1 e talks about the EU’s weapons policy’s having to ‘contribute to the development of a Common Defence Policy’. Mr President, these are wordings which have to be totally unacceptable to those Member States which are non-aligned and which want to remain so. That applies to my own country, Sweden, and I accept that it also applies to other non-aligned States within the EU. Sweden does not believe that activity within CFSP can be described as a defence policy because it does not involve any common defence obligation corresponding to NATO’s paragraph 5. CFSP covers crisis management activity outside the EU’s borders and nothing which can be described as a common defence policy. Sweden participates actively, too actively I am inclined to say, in the development of a common weapons policy, but that is something different. The situation is not improved by Mr Titley’s writing about a common defence identity within NATO. As is well-known, Sweden is not a member of NATO. Nor, as far as I know, does it have any intentions of becoming a member. All Swedish Members of the European Parliament obviously have to vote against the two above-mentioned wordings, and I also expect Parliament as a whole to reject them. If that were not to happen, the Swedish Government would, of course, have to lodge a protest against Parliament’s openly repudiating Sweden’s non-aligned status."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph