Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-05-16-Speech-4-121"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020516.4.4-121"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Ever hopeful that the scissors of censorship wielded by certain officials on the means available to those elected by universal suffrage to make their positions known to those who democratically elected them to represent them at the European Parliament will not cut this explanation of vote to complete shreds, I should like to point out that the Nicholson report would certainly have gained in credibility had it posed the question of the advisability of maintaining the embargo against Iraq more clearly. Having quite reasonably recommended that most economic and trade restrictions should be lifted but that the arms embargo should be maintained, why not justify this recommendation by making a full appraisal of the failure of this general embargo to achieve the fundamental objective which it was supposed to achieve, i.e. to prevent Iraq from regaining sufficient power to threaten the security of other states? At the same time, why not recognise the various nasty and very serious effects which the embargo has caused and which are likely to foster dangerous frustration, such as the food shortages and health problems among the civil population, the destruction of the economic fabric and infrastructure and the emergence of an unhealthy economy which thrives on circumventing the embargo? This is no longer a policy ..."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"(Explanation of vote cut short pursuant to Rule 137 (1) of the Rules of Procedure)"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples