Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-09-25-Speech-3-147"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2002-09-25"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:International Criminal Court2
dcterms:Language	"nl"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20020925.6.3-147"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2002-09-25-Speech-3-1482
lpv:speaker	lp:Joost Lagendijk2
lpv:spokenAs	unknown; GroenLinks (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 member; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (2002-01-17--2004-07-19)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 member; G/EFA (2002-01-08--2004-07-19)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3 substitute; ECON (2002-02-26--2004-07-19)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2002-02-07--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, we are in the middle of an extremely unusual debate. With good reason, with very good reason, this Chamber is expressing wide support for the International Criminal Court and widely condemns the stance of the United States, which wants to nip the International Criminal Court in the bud. This was most recently illustrated by the very harsh words in the national security plan that is being presented this week. Unfortunately, as Mr Møller already indicated, this topic is no longer being debated outside of this Chamber. The Council is working on a compromise. The question is no longer exceptions should be made, but they go for the United States. With this, a horrible dilemma is being created for Parliament and for anyone who is kindly disposed towards the International Criminal Court, for the choices are: either no compromise, and this translates into a divided Europe and continuous opposition by the United States, or opting for damage limitation, for example, by restricting the exception to soldiers with peace missions. This would result in a united Europe, an end to US opposition and quite possibly the withdrawal of this diabolical . These are the true choices we are facing, whether we like them or not. This raises the vital question – and I would at the same time make an appeal to Mr Møller, as President-in-Office of the Council – whether this compromise undermines the International Criminal Court permanently and structurally. This is where my group draws the line. And I would urge Mr Möller to draw the line there in respect of the Council's willingness to strike a compromise."@en1
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"The Hague Invasion Act"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph