Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-10-05-Speech-4-091"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20001005.5.4-091"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
We take the view that the restructuring of the defence industry should not be motivated by the political ambition to create a common defence policy, but by the strategic and industrial requirements of the major companies and Member States involved.
On this basis, link-ups between European and North American companies are as much to be welcomed as between European companies. While we can support a code of conduct which sets out a level playing field with a set of rules to which we can all voluntarily adhere, we do not wish to encumber industry with more unnecessary regulations. In particular, we do not support the proposal, in Paragraph 9 of the resolution, that the code of conduct should be made legally binding.
Our objections to this are four-fold: the possibility of yet another range of activities being justiciable in the European Court of Justice is opened up; the possibility of obtaining agreement by other arms exporting countries outside the EU to an international code of conduct will be that much more difficult and unattractive if it is legally binding; if legal sanctions are involved there is a danger that some of those involved in the arms trade will be less open in their activities; there may be reluctance by some countries to place arms orders with European states which are encumbered by legislation, particularly when a long-term after-sales support relationship may be involved.
While there is much that we can agree with in this resolution there are a number of fundamental flaws and this is why we have abstained in our vote."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples