Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2013-11-20-Speech-3-694-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2013-11-20"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Implementation of the Common Security and Defence Policy - European defence technological and industrial base (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20131120.68.3-694-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2013-11-20-Speech-3-695-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:Geoffrey Van Orden2
lpv:spoken text	"Madam President, both the reports under consideration are driven by one common motive: to accelerate the pace of European integration and enhance the role of the European Union as a state-like global actor. Actually we do not need such long reports. I think there are some 44 pages in all between the two reports. Both could be reduced to 12 words: just let the European Union run our armed forces and defence industries. You only have to say these words to realise how ridiculous they are. It is rather like having the European Union run our economies. However, hidden amongst all the Euro-federalist stuff, there are one or two quite sensible statements. For example, in Michael Gahler’s report, I agree that our companies must take care when transferring sensitive technologies to third parties. I also agree about the need to invest more in R&D, the need for improved certification, the need to recognise the very specific nature of defence markets, and on the importance of the NATO defence planning process. The trouble is that the premise of both papers is a non-existent European state peopled by people that regard themselves as European citizens. Naturally, therefore, strategic autonomy means the autonomy of the European Union. But for me, I have to say that it means something rather different. By the way, there are plenty of examples of successful collaborative defence projects, but none of these have involved – or indeed need to involve – the European Union, and the fewer the partners, the more efficient the collaboration. I commend the paper produced by our think tank, New Direction, and written by Professor Keith Hartley. It is called ‘White Elephants’ and tells you all you need to know about collaborative defence projects. The EU Defence Council in December is seen as the key opportunity to take forward European defence. I very much hope you will all be disappointed. If I may say, when the NATO Secretary-General spoke in the Foreign Affairs Council earlier this year, he came as close as he could in describing the reality of CSDP without offending his member governments or his largely federalist audience. Talking about NATO and the European Union he said, ‘On operations we manage to get along. On capabilities we must ensure complementarity, not parallel activities and duplication. On consultation the situation is absurd. If the EU contribution is centred on generating new capabilities, then that could be valuable. If it only concerns new bureaucracies or new institutions, then it is just hot air’. I am afraid that CSDP is just hot air, but hot air can be dangerous."@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 two blue-card questions under Rule 149(8))"1 "Geoffrey Van Orden,"1 "on behalf of the ECR Group"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