Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2013-10-23-Speech-3-215-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2013-10-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Main aspects and basic choices of the common foreign and security policy and the common security and defence policy (Article 36 TEU) - Annual report from the Council to the European Parliament on the common foreign and security policy in 2012 (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20131023.32.3-215-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2013-10-23-Speech-3-216-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Geoffrey Van Orden2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, I would like to address Baroness Ashton. In your introduction to your final progress report on CSDP a week ago, you were very clear about the primary reason for CSDP, and I quote: ‘it is political and it concerns fulfilling Europe’s ambitions on the world stage’. In other words, it is all about European integration. There are, of course, others, who cherished the naive hope that support for CSDP will encourage reluctant states to contribute more, militarily, and use it. I fear that they will be disappointed. You spoke earlier of the EU’s operational expertise; this is truly smoke and mirrors. Any military assets and expertise that you draw on come from our nations; the EU adds nothing. It does not matter how you dress it up: no CSDP activities bear critical scrutiny. Two thirds of the 7 000 personnel deployed on so-called EU CSDP missions are civilians, and 23 of the 30 missions are civilian. It is not even true to say that the EU’s maritime operation has drastically reduced the scourge of piracy off the coast of Somalia, as you said. For the most part, Atalanta merely drew on the same small pool of national naval forces already providing ships for NATO’s ocean shield. In reality, of course, the main factor in reducing pirate attacks in the Red Sea/Indian Ocean area was the introduction of on-board private armed security teams. If I thought for a moment that CSDP was designed to help the European nations become more effective and capable defence contributors and alliance partners, then there might be some merit. But the EU has no military requirements different to those of NATO. It may make sense for less-capable countries to get together to improve capabilities, provided they have the will to use them, but there is absolutely no need for the EU to be involved in any of this."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; TRAN (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 vice-chair; PECH (2011-12-13--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with India (2010-07-07--2014-06-30)3 member; SEDE (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Conservative Party (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation for relations with Iran (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 member; AFET (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))"1 "Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR ). -"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph