Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-09-08-Speech-3-276"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100908.14.3-276"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, this was a very interesting debate and I would like to come back to two concepts in a little more detail.
First of all, I would like to reframe the concept of responsibility. Article 4(2) of the common position lays down that the decision to transfer or deny the transfer of any military technology or equipment shall remain at the national discretion of each Member State. Consequently, this responsibility rests, first of all, at national level and clearly, the common position does not take this responsibility away from Member States but it does introduce a broad range of provisions to ensure effective coordination and exchange of information between them.
The second concept that I would like to come back to is the concept of transparency. The common position lays down that Member States must draw up an annual report on their arms exports. A European Union report drawn up on the basis of these national reports shall be published annually providing information on the financial value of the licences granted, broken down according to destination and category of military equipment, as well as on the number of licences refused and any subsequent consultations with Member States.
Apart from the European Union’s annual report, the common position requires Member States to publish national reports concerning exports of military technology and equipment. The aim of transparency sought by the common position, therefore, applies both at European Union level and at national level, but it is true that the European Union should set an example in this respect.
I would also like to say that, as several of you have pointed out, the common position represents considerable progress compared with the code of conduct. The common position was adopted in December 2008, that is, less than two years ago. It is reasonable for us to allow the new provisions introduced by the common position time to take effect before embarking on any revision of a new system of this kind, even though, having listened to you and indeed understood what you have been saying, it may seem tempting to make it more restrictive or link it with a system of sanctions.
Finally, to clarify a very specific issue, I would like to say, rest assured, that the common position has been discussed on many occasions at the political level, in the Council in particular, especially in the context of the arms embargo on China."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples