Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-04-10-Speech-4-106"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030410.4.4-106"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Advocating a common European army, as the report does, is not without its funny side, at a time when the UK army is close behind the US army in a terrible war in Iraq while the other armies, by political choice or lack of capacity, are stating their opposition to the war.
What, therefore, would a united European army have done?
Behind this tragi-comedy, however, is the idea that supra-European militarism should be added to differing national militarisms.
We reject both because these militarisms consist solely of making the people pay, sometimes in blood, but always in taxes, for wars carried out to the benefit of a few large trusts.
Let nobody plead the need to defend their country at national level and continental level! The French army, for example, has not needed to defend its country since 1945. It has, on the other hand, waged numerous colonial wars or participated in armed banditry disguised as war all over the world.
We therefore voted against this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples