Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-20-Speech-4-120"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031120.4.4-120"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The European Commission and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy largely agree on a greater military role in the world for a united Europe, that is to say, intervention outside its own borders. That role should be backed up by a European arms industry producing standardised products. The Member States should spend more money on it. This report goes that little bit further again by calling for even deeper integration of the EU and NATO, by demanding money from the Structural Funds – which were intended for regional development – to fund arms programmes, and by proposing that the European arms trade no longer be held back by national controls. I note this with horror, partly because the envisaged combination of a strong European arms industry and free-market competition will result in people no longer wanting to remain dependent on European armies’ fluctuating need for new arms. New markets outside the EU will therefore be sought. A recent example of this is Belgian arms exports to Nepal, which enable the Nepalese army to commit preventive murders of poor farmers who might possibly at some stage be in a position to offer armed resistance. Even if employment and economy are allowed to take precedence over everything else, there are better ways to spend our tax revenues."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples