Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-05-Speech-4-088"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001005.5.4-088"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The world would be a safer place without weapons. I am therefore in favour of a code of conduct which renders it impossible to produce and export arms and which results in arms factories switching over to the production of useful commodities. From this perspective, I have read Mr Titley’s proposals and examined to what extent his text contributes to a world of peace without weapons. In general terms, I endorse the small steps forward, even if they do not, by any means, completely lead to the solutions put forward by myself. It is a different matter if such a small step forward puts a spanner in the works when it comes to reaching real solutions. I believe that the choice today is not between complete freedom in the arms trade and this code of conduct. If these were the two options, I would endorse the code of conduct as the lesser of the two evils, the underlying rationale being that something is better than nothing. However, the real choice is between this code of conduct and a complete ban. The code of conduct is based on the assumption that the arms trade will continue to exist and that European arms production must be promoted. The excrescences are being regulated because it is they that draw attention and instil indignation. The issue of the arms trade itself remains out of range. To me, this is a reason not to support the code of conduct."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples