Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-19-Speech-3-283"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031119.10.3-283"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, like my colleague, Mr Van Orden, I am not persuaded of the necessity or the efficacity of European defence. However, we must recognise one fact: sooner or later Joe Public in the United States is going to wake up one morning and ask why it is that 3.2 cents of every dollar he pays to Uncle Sam goes to European defence. It is a good question. If I were an elected representative in Washington I would find it hard to answer.
It seems we are all agreed that we have to take greater responsibility for our defence, whether as independent nation states, or under the banner of Europe, or as partners in NATO - which I favour. Whatever the route, we will have to increase defence spending. If we were to continue procurement as we do now, we would have to increase tax by between 3% and 4%. As an elected politician, I would prefer not to have to tell that to my voters.
It comes down to more bang for our buck. In order to do that we must rationalise our defence spending, as Mr Queiró's report has pointed out. However, we must face two realities: first, the best and biggest bang may involve buying outside the EU. For example, the A 400 military transport may be a worthy successor to the Hercules, with a greater capability, when it flies, but the only long-range heavy lift aircraft in Europe today are the Boeing/McDonnell Douglas C17s leased, not owned, by the Royal Air Force.
I am sure that all the various attack helicopters have their good points, but spending money on developing four of them wholly or in part is folly. And the list goes on: communications equipment, next generation missiles, remotely piloted vehicles, etc. But the worst example of duplication is the next generation fighter.
The Eurofighter Typhoon is a superb aircraft. Millions of euros have been invested by four European countries and the weapons systems built around it. But it is not the only European fighter on offer. Dassault is selling the Rafale. Why am I not surprised that it is the Rafale that meets the requirements of the
? I am sure that it has nothing to do with supplying the many air forces of the world that have purchased Dassault Mirages with the next generation fighter, at a price that would not be so low were it not for the purchase by the French Air Force.
We must be honest. We must have a proper evaluation of the role and requirements of our armed forces before we can develop a capability to meet them. It is only under NATO that this honesty and lack of national partiality can be achieved. Of course cooperation and economics go hand in hand, but we know that for our troops the equipment and the training are what count.
Hard training makes for easy battles. We must give our troops the best, both in equipment and training. We owe them nothing less."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Armée de l'Air"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples