Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-20-Speech-4-124"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031120.4.4-124"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
The Queiró report defends a Europe that is totally at odds with the values I uphold. It ‘insists on the need for the EU to endow itself with military capabilities, so as to ensure the credibility of its foreign and defence policy objectives’, affirming that ‘if this project is to be successful, Member States must make a commitment to military expenditure over a period of time’. It ‘expresses its conviction that NATO remains not only a fundamental guarantee for the stability and security of the Euro-Atlantic area, but also an essential framework for developing joint operations’. It defends ‘the development of a European defence equipment industry which is competitive and viable’ and concludes that it is essential that ‘Community support programmes be set up to review defence equipment’. All of this is a vibrant plea for European militarism, defending the interests of arms dealers. I, myself, refuse to accept military competition, irrespective of the ‘bloc’ in question. I want to promote peace in the world, which leads to better living conditions. Those who justify the increase in defence expenditure are doing nothing to meet social needs; their key concern is the interests of their shareholders. That is why I voted against this report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples