Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-19-Speech-3-280"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031119.10.3-280"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, Mr Queiró's report has to some extent been overtaken by events, in that on Monday the Council took the decision to create an EU Defence Capabilities Agency. I wonder if this might not prove to be a contradiction in terms, as I see little evidence that many European countries have the political will to improve their defence capabilities or to provide the necessary additional financial resources for this.
As so often in Commission communications and reports in this House, the solution that is offered to a particular problem is to extend EU competence. That is our fundamental objection here. The emphasis, as always, is on creating the institutions of an EU defence industrial policy, rather than meeting military equipment needs and industrial requirements.
The consistent failure of many European states to spend more on defence not only undermines the transatlantic alliance, but also damages our defence industries. Our armed forces need the best state-of-the-art interoperable equipment for their difficult tasks. Defence industrial link-ups and collaborations should be with the most advantageous partners, wherever they might be. I am therefore very suspicious of any mention of Community preference when it comes to activities by European countries in this field. There are serious deficiencies in the equipment and organisation of the armed forces in many European countries. The argument that there is duplication of effort among individual European countries and that economies of scale, as well as improved interoperability, would inevitably follow from a more harmonised EU defence procurement system is therefore seductive. But where is the reassurance that this is the motivation for an EU role in defence procurement, rather than - in terms of Western solidarity - a divisive intention that lies at the heart of ESDP?
Given that just six countries in Europe account for more than 90% of Europe's defence industrial capabilities and 98% of all R[amp]D expenditure, it is a peculiar logic to suggest that the representatives of 15 countries - let alone of 25 - should be involved in decision-making and monitoring in this area.
The Queiró report 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. Is this not the true aim of the agency and an EU defence equipment policy, rather than the improvement of European defence industries and the development of our military capabilities?
Heaven forbid that the British armed forces should come to rely on obtaining their vital munitions and combat equipment needs from sources under the direction of Brussels."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples