Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-19-Speech-3-279"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031119.10.3-279"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it is clear that if we want to develop credible cooperation in the field of defence in the future
I will not anticipate here the form it will take, its limits or its future legal status
it will be necessary for the States involved to provide each other with mutual support in the field of military equipment. However, the Commission's communication of 11 March 2003 on this subject is disappointing for three main reasons.
Firstly, it deals with the issue of the arms industries essentially from the point of view of the market and competition, because it is obviously in this field that it has a degree of competence. This is, however, an extremely reductionist point of view, because in this area security concerns are and must remain predominant. Lower costs in the acquisition of equipment is an important consideration, certainly, particularly in a period of budget deficit, but it is not the only one, far from it. For the sake of their security, the States must remain the sole masters of their considerations. This has always been recognised within the meaning of Article 296 of the EC Treaty, which is retained in the same form, I would remind you, in Article 342 of the third part of the draft European Constitution.
Secondly, the Commission communication shows an excessive tendency towards communitisation, with codecision, and also by creating a Community framework for defence equipment which would apparently centre on the Arms Agency. Such communitisation is in no way in the interests of cooperation in the field of defence, which requires intergovernmental relations and variable geometries, under the control of national parliaments, so that the Member States are not discouraged from participating in it.
I am pleased, incidentally, that this Arms Agency, which is in the process of being launched, finally, on the basis of Article 17 of the EU Treaty, is of an intergovernmental nature.
Thirdly, I have found in paragraph 6 of the report by Mr Queiró – and I congratulate him very warmly on this – a key notion, which is absent from the Commission communication, and also from the draft European Constitution, which is the notion of Community preference. Frankly, ladies and gentlemen, I do not understand how we can both want a European arms agency, intended in particular to promote and coordinate harmonisation of military equipment, and not at the same time commit the Member States to buying this equipment. This European preference must clearly remain flexible, since high-tech military equipment is not the same as agricultural products and, as I have already said, the States must retain control of their security. Therefore, even if this cannot be laid down in a strictly legal sense, there should at least be a statement of intention to this effect somewhere. I would thank Mr Queiró once again for having stated this clearly."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples