2020/2080(INI) Recommendation to the Council and the Vice-President of the Commission / High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy concerning the Implementation and governance of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO)
Lead committee dossier:
Progress: Procedure completed
| Role | Committee | Rapporteur | Shadows |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lead | AFET |
SIKORSKI Radosław ( EPP)
|
YONCHEVA Elena ( S&D),
GROOTHUIS Bart ( Renew),
WAITZ Thomas ( Verts/ALE),
BONFRISCO Anna ( ID),
WASZCZYKOWSKI Witold Jan ( ECR),
DEMIREL Özlem ( GUE/NGL)
|
| Committee Opinion | AFCO |
GONZÁLEZ PONS Esteban ( EPP)
|
Brando BENIFEI ( S&D),
Cristian GHINEA ( RE),
Markéta GREGOROVÁ ( Verts/ALE),
Jorge BUXADÉ VILLALBA ( ECR),
Laura HUHTASAARI ( ID)
|
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 118
Legal Basis:
RoP 118Events
2020/10/20
EP - Results of vote in Parliament
Documents
2020/10/20
EP - Decision by Parliament
Details
The European Parliament adopted by 464 votes to 90, with 137 abstentions, a recommendation to the Council and the Vice-President of the European Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy on the implementation and governance of permanent structured cooperation (PESCO).
Towards a common EU defence policy
Parliament considered permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) to be an important step towards achieving the objective of gradually developing a common EU defence policy, leading to the establishment of a common defence. PESCO should be used to put into practice the duty of mutual aid and assistance set out in the EU Treaty, in order to better prepare Member States to show solidarity towards another Member State if that State is the object of armed aggression on its territory.
Members stated that the development of a common EU defence strategy is more necessary than ever in a context of multiple and growing threats where no single Member State can protect itself. The PESCO should enhance the Union's capacity to act as an international security provider in order to contribute effectively and credibly to international, regional and European security.
Recommendations
The report recommended, inter alia, that the Council and the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy should:
- underline the importance of seeking conflict resolution as a priority;
- implement the Union's strategic vision, define common threats and strengthen the operational dimension of PESCO;
- prepare a White Paper on the security and defence of the Union;
- ensure coherence between the different EU defence initiatives and operations;
- encourage participating Member States to move from a strictly national view of defence to a European approach and to make structured efforts to increase the use of the European collaborative approach as a priority, as no individual participating Member States has the potential to address identified capacity shortfalls alone;
- increase the EU’s budgetary ambition for the strengthening of defence capabilities, notably through the sufficient financing of the future EDF and Military Mobility in the upcoming multiannual financial framework (MFF);
- ensure that the PSC is effectively used as an instrument towards a sustainable and effective EU defence cooperation, improvement of defence capabilities and interoperability as a common objective, in line with the ambition of greater strategic autonomy of the Union;
- focus PESCO on constructive projects with a genuine European strategic dimension to strengthen Europe's defence industrial and technological base, while stressing the importance of a small number of strategic projects which should be prioritised as they lay the foundations for a more integrated European defence;
- ensure that key capabilities such as future key land, sea, air, cyber and other platforms for the armed forces of the Member States be brought under PESCO or at least be closely connected to it;
- enhance the coherence of EU defence planning and development tools and initiatives.
Governance
Parliament recommended:
- reaffirming the central role of the PSC secretariat as a single point of contact for all projects;
- clarifying the role of the Political and Security Committee in the PESCO process, which is not provided for in the EU Treaty, and ensure, in this context, the central role played by the European Union Military Committee (EUMC) in the provision of ad hoc military advice;
- examining the creation of a European Defence Council based on the current Foreign Affairs Council in Defence Ministers format, which corresponds to the EDA Ministerial Steering Board and the PESCO format of the EU Defence Ministers.
Strengthening Parliament’s powers
Members recommended that Parliament be consulted on the review of PESCO, and that its views be taken into account to ensure greater accountability, transparency and oversight.
In general, Members believe that deepening defence cooperation between Member States at EU level should go hand in hand with strengthening the powers of scrutiny of Member States' parliaments and the European Parliament. The European Parliament should, together with the Council, exercise legislative and budgetary functions, as well as political scrutiny and consultation as provided for in the Treaties.
Documents
2020/10/20
EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2020/10/19
EP - Debate in Parliament
Documents
2020/09/30
EP - Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
Documents
2020/09/30
EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Documents
2020/09/21
EP - Vote in committee
2020/09/02
EP - Committee opinion
Documents
2020/07/08
EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2020/06/05
EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2020/05/27
EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament
2020/05/26
EP - GONZÁLEZ PONS Esteban (EPP) appointed as rapporteur in AFCO
2020/04/02
EP - SIKORSKI Radosław (EPP) appointed as rapporteur in AFET
Documents
- Results of vote in Parliament: Results of vote in Parliament
- Decision by Parliament: T9-0278/2020
- Debate in Parliament: Debate in Parliament
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A9-0165/2020
- Committee report tabled for plenary: A9-0165/2020
- Committee opinion: PE653.752
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE654.064
- Committee draft report: PE652.499
- Committee draft report: PE652.499
- Amendments tabled in committee: PE654.064
- Committee opinion: PE653.752
- Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading: A9-0165/2020
Activities
- Marcel KOLAJA
Plenary Speeches (2)
- 2020/10/19 Recommendation to the Council and the VPC/HR concerning the Implementation and governance of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) (short presentation)
- 2020/10/19 Recommendation to the Council and the VPC/HR concerning the Implementation and governance of Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) (short presentation)
- Radosław SIKORSKI
Votes
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 21 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 586, +: 63, 0: 40
NI
PPEA9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 22 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 551, +: 108, 0: 30
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 23 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 525, +: 147, 0: 17
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 24 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 576, +: 66, 0: 47
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 25 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 518, 0: 122, +: 49
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 26 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 602, +: 49, 0: 38
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 27 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 588, +: 66, 0: 35
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 28 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 421, 0: 220, +: 48
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 29 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 607, +: 45, 0: 37
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 30/1 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 335, -: 330, 0: 23
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 30/2 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 533, 0: 109, +: 47
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 31 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 592, 0: 52, +: 45
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 32 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 520, 0: 100, +: 69
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 33 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 602, +: 66, 0: 21
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (b) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 578, -: 91, 0: 19
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (c) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 526, -: 86, 0: 77
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (d) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 590, -: 78, 0: 21
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (e) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 419, -: 156, 0: 114
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 38 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 590, +: 57, 0: 39
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (f) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 459, -: 187, 0: 42
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (g) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 525, -: 95, 0: 69
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (h) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 582, -: 88, 0: 19
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (j) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 541, -: 80, 0: 68
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (k) introduction #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 567, -: 93, 0: 29
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (k) (i) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 592, -: 65, 0: 32
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (k) (ii) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 553, -: 85, 0: 51
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (k) (iii) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 562, -: 87, 0: 40
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (l) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 451, -: 147, 0: 91
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (m) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 547, -: 81, 0: 61
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (n) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 496, -: 122, 0: 71
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (o) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 470, 0: 116, -: 103
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (p) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 542, -: 75, 0: 72
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (q) introduction #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 574, -: 99, 0: 16
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (q) (i) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 545, -: 95, 0: 49
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (q) (ii) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 592, -: 82, 0: 15
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (r) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 576, -: 90, 0: 23
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (s) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 582, -: 86, 0: 21
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (t) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 490, 0: 101, -: 98
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (u) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 500, 0: 109, -: 79
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (v) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 541, -: 93, 0: 55
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (w) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 559, -: 93, 0: 37
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (x) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 580, -: 95, 0: 14
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (y) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 564, -: 71, 0: 53
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (z) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 589, -: 83, 0: 17
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (aa) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 587, -: 85, 0: 17
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (ab) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 572, -: 89, 0: 28
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (ac) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 531, -: 134, 0: 24
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (ad) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 563, -: 66, 0: 60
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (ae) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 557, 0: 71, -: 61
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (af) introduction #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 527, -: 147, 0: 15
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (af) (i) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 526, -: 145, 0: 18
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (af) (ii) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 526, -: 150, 0: 13
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (ag) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 518, -: 159, 0: 12
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (ah) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 515, -: 138, 0: 36
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (ai) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 292, -: 290, 0: 107
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (aj) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 521, -: 148, 0: 19
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (ak) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 593, -: 73, 0: 23
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - § 1 (al) #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 380, 0: 174, -: 135
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 1 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 344, -: 284, 0: 61
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 2 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 564, +: 97, 0: 28
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 3 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 502, +: 146, 0: 41
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 4 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 579, +: 96, 0: 14
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant B #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 519, -: 146, 0: 24
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 5 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 620, +: 53, 0: 16
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 35 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 544, 0: 78, +: 64
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 6 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 582, +: 93, 0: 14
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 7 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 591, +: 52, 0: 46
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant E #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 536, -: 88, 0: 65
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant F #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 522, -: 84, 0: 83
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 8 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 571, +: 63, 0: 55
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 36 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 547, +: 90, 0: 50
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 9 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 586, 0: 52, +: 50
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 10 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 525, 0: 104, +: 59
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 11 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 515, +: 133, 0: 39
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 12 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 519, +: 159, 0: 10
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 13 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 568, +: 79, 0: 41
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 14 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 549, 0: 103, +: 36
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 15 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 538, +: 132, 0: 18
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 16 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 465, +: 165, 0: 58
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant K #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 512, 0: 90, -: 86
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant L #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 574, -: 77, 0: 37
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 17 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 540, +: 89, 0: 58
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant Q #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 497, -: 134, 0: 57
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 18 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 624, +: 56, 0: 8
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant S #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 528, -: 129, 0: 31
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant T #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 551, -: 92, 0: 44
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant U #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 582, -: 86, 0: 20
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant V #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 519, -: 153, 0: 16
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant W/1 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 589, -: 84, 0: 15
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant W/2 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 517, -: 96, 0: 75
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant X #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 511, -: 159, 0: 18
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 19 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 600, +: 55, 0: 32
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant AA #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 513, -: 131, 0: 44
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant AB #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 517, -: 93, 0: 78
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant AC #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 558, -: 84, 0: 46
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant AD #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 521, -: 128, 0: 39
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 37 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 500, +: 113, 0: 73
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant AE #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 534, -: 118, 0: 36
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant AF #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 520, -: 125, 0: 43
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant AG #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 563, 0: 65, -: 60
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 34 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 431, -: 242, 0: 15
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Am 20 #
2020/10/20 Outcome: -: 500, +: 174, 0: 13
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant AK #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 552, -: 85, 0: 51
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Considérant AN #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 506, -: 146, 0: 36
A9-0165/2020 - Radosław Sikorski - Résolution #
2020/10/20 Outcome: +: 464, 0: 137, -: 90
| Amendments | Dossier |
| 400 |
2020/2080(INI)
2020/07/08
AFET
351 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 11 a (new) - having regard to the NATO Treaty, and the Defence Investment Pledge made by the Heads of State at the NATO Summit in Wales 2014,
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas according to Article 42(2) of the TEU, the common security and defence policy (CSDP) includes the progressive framing of a common EU defence policy, which
Amendment 100 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. whereas work on the first three waves of PESCO projects has led to the pMS proposing 47 projects; whereas the current list of projects lacks coherence
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. whereas work on the first three waves of PESCO projects has led to the pMS proposing 47 projects; whereas the current list of projects lacks coherence, strategic ambition and does not adequately address priority shortfalls as identified by the pMS; whereas one of these projects has been stopped in order to avoid unnecessary duplication; whereas other projects did not make sufficient progress or are at risk of being stopped, and around 30 projects are still in the ideation and preparatory phase casting serious doubt on the efficacy of this initiative;
Amendment 102 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. whereas work on the first three waves of PESCO projects has led to the pMS proposing 47 projects; whereas the current list of projects lacks coherence, strategic ambition and does not adequately address priority shortfalls as identified by the pMS; whereas one of these projects has been stopped in order to avoid unnecessary duplication; whereas other projects did not make sufficient progress or are at risk of being stopped, and around 30 projects are still in the ideation and preparatory phase; the impact of the PESCO projects is unknown;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. whereas work on the first three waves of PESCO projects has led to the pMS proposing 47 projects; whereas the current list of projects lacks coherence, strategic ambition and does not adequately fully address
Amendment 104 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. whereas work on the first three waves of PESCO projects has led to the pMS
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. whereas work on the first three waves of PESCO projects has led to the pMS proposing 47 projects; whereas the current list of projects lacks coherence
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L a (new) La. whereas the second phase of PESCO is to start in 2021; whereas this second phase shall deliver concrete and significant results which means that a prioritization of projects is necessary;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L a (new) La. whereas there seems to be no overarching common logic between the 47 PESCO projects;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L b (new) Lb. whereas some of the 47 PESCO projects seem to directly contribute to the objective of closing the identified capability gaps for possible future CSDP operations, while others seem to follow a purely industrial or research agenda totally disconnected from gaps identified in the context of CDP, CARD including the High Capability Impact Goals;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L c (new) Lc. whereas the main objective of PESCO should be to raise the operational readiness and effectiveness as regards military CSDP operations;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas according to Article 42(2) of the TEU, the common security and defence policy (CSDP) includes the progressive framing of a common EU defence policy, wh
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M M. whereas
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M M. whereas
Amendment 112 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M M. whereas
Amendment 113 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M M. whereas only some of the most strategic PESCO projects
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M M. whereas
Amendment 115 #
Motion for a resolution Recital M a (new) Ma. whereas there is the need to assess PESCO projects and commitments in light of the many recommendations produced with regards to the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on women and security and to develop a plan on how, in the future, PESCO can contribute in that context;
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N N. whereas major European defence projects such as the Future Air Combat System (FCAS) and the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) currently remain outside the scope of PESCO
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N N. whereas major European defence projects such as the Future Air Combat System (FCAS) and the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) currently remain outside the scope of PESCO;
Amendment 119 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N N. whereas major European defence projects such as the Future Air Combat System (FCAS) and the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) currently remain outside the scope of PESCO;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A a (new) Aa. whereas PESCO should be used to further operationalise and develop the obligation under Article 42(7) TEU of mutual aid and assistance, which was recalled by the 13 November 2017 joint notification letter on PESCO, to improve the readiness of the Member States to provide solidarity to a fellow Member State if it becomes the victim of an armed aggression on its territory;
Amendment 120 #
Motion for a resolution Recital N N. whereas major European defence projects such as the Future Air Combat System (FCAS) and the Main Ground Combat System (MGCS) currently remain outside the scope of PESCO; whereas their integration within the remit of PESCO
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O Amendment 122 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O O. whereas it is crucial to fill the capability gaps identified in the Capability Development Plan (CDP), and by the Coordinated Annual Defence on Review (CARD) with the aim to increase Europe’s strategic autonomy;
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O O. whereas it is crucial to
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution Recital O O. whereas it is crucial to prioritize and fill the capability gaps identified in the Capability Development Plan (CDP), and by the Coordinated Annual Defence on Review (CARD);
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution Recital P Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution Recital P P. whereas only some of the current PESCO projects do sufficiently address the
Amendment 127 #
Motion for a resolution Recital P P. whereas only some of the current PESCO projects do sufficiently address the
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q Amendment 129 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B B. whereas according to Article 1(a) to Protocol (No 10) on permanent structured cooperation established by Article 42 of the TEU, one of the objectives of PESCO is for the Member States to develop their defence capa
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Q Q. whereas the consistency, coherence and mutual reinforcement between PESCO, CARD, national implementation plans (NIPs) and the CDP has to be further improved;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution Recital R Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution Recital R R. whereas the NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP) drives defence national planning processes in most cases; whereas this raises questions about the real diplomatic and military sovereignty of the EU Member States and, by extension, of the EU itself;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution Recital R R. whereas the NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP) drives defence national planning processes in most cases in Member States which are Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization;
Amendment 134 #
Motion for a resolution Recital R R. whereas the NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP) drives defence national planning processes in
Amendment 135 #
Motion for a resolution Recital R R. whereas the NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP)
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution Recital R R. whereas the NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP) drives defence national planning processes in most
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution Recital R R. whereas, regrettably, the NATO Defence Planning Process (NDPP) all too often drives defence national planning processes
Amendment 138 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S S. whereas i
Amendment 14 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B a (new) Ba. whereas Article 41(2) of the TEU prohibits the use of the EU Budget for military or defence operations;
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S S.
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S S. whereas
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S S. whereas interactions between Member States’ national priorities, EU priorities and NATO priorities should be synchronised at the earliest possible convenience; whereas, while recognising the different nature of the two organisations and their respective responsibilities, PESCO can be an effective tool in order to achieve EU and NATO targets simultaneously;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S S. whereas interactions between Member States’ national priorities, EU priorities and NATO priorities should be synchronised at the earliest possible convenience, where appropriate and relevant; whereas PESCO
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S S. whereas interactions between Member States’ national priorities, EU priorities and NATO priorities should be synchronised at the earliest possible convenience; whereas PESCO can be an effective tool in order to
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S S. whereas interactions between Member States’ national priorities, EU priorities and NATO priorities should
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S S. whereas interactions between Member States’ national priorities, EU priorities and NATO priorities should be better synchronised at the earliest possible convenience; whereas PESCO can be an effective tool in order to achieve EU
Amendment 147 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S a (new) Sa. whereas in order to strengthen European defence capabilities, member states need to ensure sufficient national defence spending as well as invest in cooperative programmes; encourages pMS to increase their defence spending to at least 2 % of GDP;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S a (new) Sa. whereas the fact that Turkey, a NATO member country, committed an act of military aggression against an EU Member State, France, confirms that NATO is brain dead;
Amendment 149 #
Motion for a resolution Recital S a (new) Sa. whereas the EU cannot rely on the US nuclear umbrella to keep it secure;
Amendment 15 #
Motion for a resolution Recital B b (new) Bb. whereas PESCO is incompatible with a state policy of neutrality, as in the case of Ireland;
Amendment 150 #
Motion for a resolution Recital T Amendment 151 #
Motion for a resolution Recital T T. whereas in conjunction with the EU Global Strategy, a specific defence and security strategy, such as the EU Security and Defence White Book suggested in numerous Parliament reports,
Amendment 152 #
Motion for a resolution Recital U U. whereas currently, PESCO projects are dependent on the 25 participating Member States’ financial contributions; whereas it is expected that, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, national defence budgets will, rightly, suffer reductions
Amendment 153 #
Motion for a resolution Recital U U. whereas currently, PESCO projects are dependent on the 25 participating Member States’ financial contributions; whereas it is expected that, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, national defence budgets will suffer reductions; whereas paradoxically, several of the currently 47 PESCO projects, if funded accordingly, could strengthen Member States’ preparedness, should another massive public health crisis occur: military mobility – a flagship PESCO project –, the European Medical Command and many other projects in areas related to logistics and transportation, health care, disaster relief and the fight against malicious cyber activities; whereas cutting funding for the strategic capabilities that the EU and its Member States currently lack would also weaken their ability to jointly act against future pandemics and other unpredictable risks with major international impact;
Amendment 154 #
Motion for a resolution Recital U U. whereas currently, PESCO projects are dependent on the 25 participating Member States’ financial contributions; whereas it is expected that, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, national defence
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution Recital U U. whereas currently, PESCO projects are dependent on the 25 participating Member States’ financial contributions; whereas it is expected that, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, national defence budgets will suffer reductions; whereas paradoxically, several of the currently 47 PESCO projects, if funded accordingly, could strengthen Member States’ preparedness, should another massive public health crisis occur: military mobility – a flagship PESCO project –, the European Medical Command and many other projects in areas related to logistics and transportation, health care, disaster relief CBRN preparedness and the fight against malicious cyber activities; whereas cutting funding for the strategic capabilities that the EU and its Member States currently lack would also
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution Recital U U. whereas currently, PESCO projects are dependent on the 25 participating Member States’ financial contributions; whereas it is expected that, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, national defence budgets will suffer reductions; whereas paradoxically, several of the currently 47 PESCO projects, if funded accordingly, could strengthen Member States’ preparedness, should another massive public health crisis occur: military mobility – a flagship PESCO project –, the European Medical Command and many other projects in areas related to logistics and transportation, health care, disaster relief and the fight against malicious cyber activities; whereas cutting funding for the strategic capabilities that the EU and its Member States currently lack would also weaken their ability to jointly act against future pandemics and CBRN threats;
Amendment 157 #
Motion for a resolution Recital U U. whereas currently, PESCO projects are dependent on the 25 participating Member States’ financial contributions; whereas it is expected that, as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, national defence budgets will suffer reductions; whereas paradoxically, several of the currently 47 PESCO projects, if funded accordingly, could strengthen Member States’ preparedness, should another massive public health crisis occur: military mobility
Amendment 158 #
Motion for a resolution Recital U a (new) Ua. whereas funding dual-use transport infrastructure will benefit both civilian and military mobility and by implementing harmonised administrative procedures resources could be moved through proper supply routes across the EU and help in building a common security and defence environment;
Amendment 159 #
Motion for a resolution Recital V V. whereas the prospect of receiving co-
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas Article 1(b) of Protocol 10 states that the Member States are to ‘have the capacity to supply by 2010 at the latest either at national level or as a component of multinational force groups, targeted combat units for the missions planned, structured at a tactical level as a battle group, with support elements including
Amendment 160 #
Motion for a resolution Recital V V. whereas
Amendment 161 #
Motion for a resolution Recital V V. whereas the prospect of co- financing certain PESCO projects via the future European Defence Fund (EDF) has led pMS to multiply their proposals, and
Amendment 162 #
Motion for a resolution Recital V V. whereas the prospect of co- financing certain PESCO projects via the future European Defence Fund (EDF) has led pMS to multiply their proposals, and despite the fact that this has encouraged exchanges and cooperation, not all proposals necessarily have the EU’s best common strategic interest in mind;
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution Recital V V. whereas the prospect of co- financing certain PESCO projects via the future European Defence Fund (EDF) has
Amendment 164 #
Motion for a resolution Recital V a (new) Va. whereas according to the European Court of Auditors Review No 09/2019, without US capabilities, the EU members of NATO would need to spend several hundred billion euros to overcome the capabilities gap;
Amendment 165 #
Motion for a resolution Recital W Amendment 166 #
Motion for a resolution Recital W W. whereas the participation of third countries, which would meet an agreed set of political substantive and legal conditions, in individual PESCO projects might be in the strategic interest of the European Union,
Amendment 167 #
Motion for a resolution Recital W W. whereas the participation of third countries in individual PESCO projects might be in the strategic interest of the European Union, providing added value to certain projects, contributing to strengthening PESCO and the CSDP and meeting more demanding commitments, particularly in case of the United Kingdom;
Amendment 168 #
Motion for a resolution Recital W W. whereas the participation of third countries in individual PESCO projects might be in the strategic interest of the European Union, particularly in case of the United Kingdom and Eastern Partnership partner countries, particularly those that have signed framework participation agreements with the EU;
Amendment 169 #
Motion for a resolution Recital W W. whereas the participation of third countries, such as the UK, in individual PESCO projects might be in the strategic interest of the E
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution Recital C C. whereas Article 1(b) of Protocol 10 states that the Member States are to ‘have the capacity to supply by 2010 at the latest either at national level or as a component of multinational force groups, targeted combat units for the missions planned, structured at a tactical level as a battle group, with support elements including transport and logistics, capable of carrying out the tasks referred to in Article 43 of the Treaty on European Union, within a period of five to 30 days, in particular in response to requests from the United Nations Organisation, and which can be sustained for an initial period of 30 days and be extended up to at least 120 days’; whereas Article 1(b) needs to be revised in order to adequately respond to the challenging geopolitical environment; whereas the Member States
Amendment 170 #
Motion for a resolution Recital W W. whereas the participation of third countries in individual PESCO projects
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution Recital W W. whereas the participation of third countries in individual PESCO projects might be in the strategic interest of the European Union, particularly in case of the United Kingdom, United States of America or other non-EU NATO Member States;
Amendment 172 #
Motion for a resolution Recital W W. whereas the participation of third countries in individual PESCO projects, subject to very strict conditions and on the basis of established and effective reciprocity, might be in the strategic interest of the European Union
Amendment 173 #
Motion for a resolution Recital W W. whereas the participation of third countries in individual PESCO projects might be in the strategic interest of the European Union, particularly in the cases of the United Kingdom, United States and Canada;
Amendment 174 #
Motion for a resolution Recital W W. whereas
Amendment 175 #
Motion for a resolution Recital X Amendment 176 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Y Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Y Amendment 178 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Y Y. whereas the governance of PESCO is led by pMS, a
Amendment 179 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Y Y. whereas the governance of PESCO is led by pMS,
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Y Y. whereas the governance of PESCO is led by pMS, and therefore eventually leads to the insufficient coordination and overall consistency of the projects; whereas this should constitute grounds for
Amendment 181 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Y Y. whereas the governance of PESCO is led by pMS, and therefore eventually leads to the insufficient coordination and overall consistency of the projects; whereas this should constitute grounds for
Amendment 182 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Y Y. whereas the governance of PESCO is led by pMS
Amendment 183 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Z Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Z Z. whereas deepening defence cooperation among Member States at EU level should go hand in hand with the strengthening of Member States Parliaments and European Parliament’s power of scrutiny;
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution Recital Z Z. whereas deepening defence cooperation among Member States at EU level should go hand in hand with
Amendment 186 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AA AA. whereas
Amendment 187 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AA AA. whereas Parliament should
Amendment 188 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AB AB. whereas the Parliament
Amendment 189 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AB a (new) ABa. whereas the combined Research and Development efforts of pMS under PESCO will give way to significant technological breakthroughs, in turn providing the Union with a competitive edge in the areas of modern defence capabilities;
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AB a (new) Amendment 191 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AB b (new) ABb. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic and other health and refugee crises have shown the clear need for the development of real time, rapidly deployable CBRN surveillance capabilities of the Union, which are to increase the preparedness and overall safety of the Member States;
Amendment 192 #
Motion for a resolution Recital AB b (new) ABb. whereas the EU Member States’ lack of solidarity with France in the fight against Islamism in the Sahel deprives rhetoric on the need for convergence of their defence policies of all credibility;
Amendment 193 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – introductory part 1. Recommends that the Council and
Amendment 194 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point a (a) inform and consult Parliament on the review of PESCO, and to ensure that Parliament’s views are duly taken into consideration, in line with Article 36 TEU especially in the context of the current strategic review of the first PESCO phase, which ends in 2020, in order to ensure; reinforced accountability, transparency, and scrutiny;
Amendment 195 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point b Amendment 196 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point b (b) define the Union’s strategic vision, by, inter alia, implementing the level of ambition defined by the 2016 EU Global Strategy in the ongoing work of the Strategic Compass and, strengthen PESCO’s operational dimension to ensure that its outputs are functional and add value to ongoing or future operational readiness;
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point b (b) define the Union’s strategic vision and perception of common threats, by, inter alia, implementing the level of ambition defined by the 2016 EU Global Strategy in the ongoing work of the Strategic Compass and, strengthen PESCO’s operational dimension;
Amendment 198 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point b (b)
Amendment 199 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point c Amendment 2 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 11 b (new) - having regard to the existing commitments of 21 Member States to spend 2% of their GDP on defence and 20% of their defence budget on procurement of new technologies in order to maintain a qualitative edge in Allied military hardware,
Amendment 20 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the three-fold level of ambition under the EU Global Strategy in the field of security and defence covers securing external borders, countering hybrid threats and fighting against terrorism; whereas
Amendment 200 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point c Amendment 201 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point c (c)
Amendment 202 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point c (c) prepare, on the basis of the results of the discussion on the Strategic Compass, a fully-fledged EU Security and Defence White Book; notes that the first results of the Strategic Compass are expected in the first half of 2022;
Amendment 203 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point c (c) prepare as soon as possible, on the basis of the results of the discussion on the Strategic Compass, a fully-fledged EU Security and Defence White Book;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point c a (new) (ca) ensure synergy effects and coherence between different EU defence initiatives and operations;
Amendment 205 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point d Amendment 206 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point d Amendment 207 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point d (d) encourage the pMS to switch from a strictly national focus on defence to a European one and to undertake structured efforts to increase the use of European collaborative approach as a priority, as no individual pMS alone has the potential to address identified capacity shortfalls; encourage pMS and MS more generally not to reduce their defence spending in the coming years, and especially their financial involvement in European cooperative projects in order to avoid being distanced by other global powers;
Amendment 208 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point d (d) encourage the pMS to switch from a strictly national focus on defence to a European one and to undertake structured efforts to increase the use of European collaborative approach as a priority, as no individual pMS alone has the potential to address identified capacity shortfalls and, on the contrary, insisting on bilateral initiatives that exclude EU Member States willing to contribute has the potential to create tensions among Member States thus jeopardizing future defence integration;
Amendment 209 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point d (d) encourage the pMS to switch from a strictly national focus on defence to a European one and to undertake structured efforts to increase the use of European collaborative approach as a priority, as no individual pMS alone has the potential to address identified capacity shortfalls; urges the European Council to move from unanimity to qualified majority voting in the fields of the CSDP and CFSP where the Treaty on European Union allows it;
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the three-fold level of ambition under the EU Global Strategy in the field of security and defence covers securing external borders, countering hybrid threats and fighting against terrorism; whereas no Member State can protect itself alone, since security and defence threats faced by the EU, and which are targeted against its citizens and territory, are a joint threat and cannot be addressed by one single Member State on its own; whereas an effective EU system for addressing burden-sharing would be advantageous for the EU’s overall level of security and defence, whereas increasing efforts for cooperation on cyber defence, such as information sharing, training and operational support are needed in order to better counter hybrid threats;
Amendment 210 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point d (d)
Amendment 211 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point d (d)
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point d (d) encourage the pMS through focused proposals and adequate communication to switch from
Amendment 213 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point d (d) encourage the pMS to switch from a strictly national focus on defence to a more prominent European one and to undertake structured efforts to increase the use of European collaborative approach as a priority, as no individual pMS
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point d (d) encourage the pMS to switch from a strictly national focus on defence to a stronger European one and to undertake structured efforts to increase the use of European collaborative approach as a priority, as no individual pMS alone has the potential to
Amendment 215 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point d (d) encourage the pMS to
Amendment 216 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point d (d) encourage the pMS to
Amendment 217 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point e Amendment 218 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point e Amendment 219 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point e (e) maintain the EU’s budgetary ambition for the strengthening of defence capabilities, notably thought throughout the sufficient financing of EDF in the upcoming MFF
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the
Amendment 220 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point e (e) maintain the EU’s budgetary ambition for the strengthening of defence and strategic capabilities, notably thought the sufficient financing of EDF and military mobility in the upcoming MFF;
Amendment 221 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point e (e)
Amendment 222 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point e (e) maintain the EU’s budgetary ambition for the strengthening of defence
Amendment 223 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point e (e) maintain the EU’s budgetary ambition for the strengthening of defence
Amendment 224 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point e (e) maintain the EU’s budgetary ambition for the strengthening of defence capabilities, notably thought the sufficient financing of the future EDF in the upcoming MFF;
Amendment 225 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point e (e)
Amendment 226 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point f Amendment 227 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point f Amendment 228 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point f Amendment 229 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point f (f) ensure that PESCO is effectively used as an instrument to
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the three-fold level of ambition under the EU Global Strategy in the field of security and defence covers securing external borders, countering hybrid threats and fighting against terrorism; whereas no Member State can protect itself alone, since security and defence threats faced by
Amendment 230 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point f (f) ensure that PESCO is effectively used as an instrument to reach EU defence integration as a common goal, in line with the ambition for greater EU Strategic Autonomy, whilst maintaining close cooperation with NATO and other international partners;
Amendment 231 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point f (f) ensure that PESCO is effectively used as an instrument to reach EU defence integration and overcome shortfalls as a common goal, in line with the ambition for greater EU Strategic Autonomy, and not only to further national objectives;
Amendment 232 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point f (f) ensure that PESCO is effectively used as an instrument to reach deep, sustainable, efficient and permanent EU defence
Amendment 233 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point f (f) ensure that PESCO is effectively used as an instrument to
Amendment 234 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point f (f) ensure that PESCO is effectively used as an instrument to
Amendment 235 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point f (f) ensure that PESCO is effectively used as an instrument to reach a EU
Amendment 236 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point f (f) ensure that PESCO is effectively used as an instrument to reach EU defence integration as a common goal, in line with the ambition for greater EU
Amendment 237 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point g Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point g (g) ensure that the funding of capacities derived from PESCO projects by the EDF is focused on a limited set of strategic key projects, in line with the H
Amendment 239 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point g (g) ensure that the funding of PESCO projects by the EDF is focused on a limited set of strategic key projects, in line with the
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the three-fold level of ambition under the EU Global Strategy in the field of security and defence covers
Amendment 240 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point g (g) ensure that the funding of PESCO projects by the EDF is focused on a
Amendment 241 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point h Amendment 242 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point h Amendment 243 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point h Amendment 244 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point h Amendment 245 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point h Amendment 246 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point h (h) ensure that PESCO is
Amendment 247 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point h (h)
Amendment 248 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point h (h) ensure that PESCO, is
Amendment 249 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point h (h) ensure that PESCO is not treated as a Union institutions sui generis, as is the case
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the three-fold level of ambition under the EU Global Strategy in the field of security and defence covers securing external borders, countering hybrid threats and fighting against terrorism; whereas no Member State can protect itself alone, since security and defence threats faced by the EU Member States, and which are targeted against its citizens and territor
Amendment 250 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point i Amendment 251 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point i Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point i Amendment 253 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point i (i) incorporate directly into the PESCO project cycle
Amendment 254 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point i (i) incorporate directly into the PESCO project cycle the link between PESCO and EDIDP/EDF with the aim to contribute more effectively to the achievement of the Union’s ambitions in the area of security and defence; impose the documentation of each project, before selection on the budgetary side;
Amendment 255 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point j Amendment 256 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point j (j) focus PESCO efforts on projects with a more operational focus, in direct response to the needs of European armed forces engaged in operations, and with a strategic and integrative dimension, such as EUFOR CROC, and link those to
Amendment 257 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point j (j) focus PESCO efforts on projects with a strategic
Amendment 258 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point j (j) focus PESCO efforts on projects with a strategic and integrative dimension, such as EUFOR CROC, and link those to other PESCO projects in order to create additional synergies and effects of scale aiming at systematically strengthening military CSDP;
Amendment 259 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point j (j) focus PESCO efforts on projects with a strategic and integrative dimension, such as EUFOR CROC, Military Mobility, Network of Logistic Hubs or CRRT, and link those to other PESCO projects in order to create additional synergies and effects of scale;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the three-fold level of ambition under the EU Global Strategy in the field of security and defence covers securing external borders, countering hybrid threats and fighting against terrorism; whereas no Member State can protect itself alone, since security and defence threats
Amendment 260 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point j (j) focus PESCO efforts on projects with a strategic and integrative dimension, such as EUFOR CROC, and link those to other PESCO projects in order to create additional synergies and effects of scale where appropriate;
Amendment 261 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point j (j) focus PESCO efforts on projects
Amendment 262 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point j a (new) (ja) underline the importance of a small number of strategic projects, in particular strategic enablers (command&control, transport, intelligence), which should be prioritised as they lay down the foundation of a more integrated defence;
Amendment 263 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point j a (new) (ja) focus PESCO on constructive projects with a genuine European strategic dimension in order to strengthen the industrial and technological base of European defence;
Amendment 264 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point k Amendment 265 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point k (k) ensure that future key land, sea, air and other platforms for the armed forces of the Member States are
Amendment 266 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point k (k) ensure that parts of key capabilities such as future key land, sea, air and other platforms for the armed forces of the Member States are brought under PESCO or are at least closely connected to
Amendment 267 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point k (k) ensure that future key land, sea, air and other platforms for the armed forces of the Member States are brought under PESCO
Amendment 268 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point k (k) ensure the possibility that future key land, sea, air, cyber and other platforms for the armed forces of the Member States
Amendment 269 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point k (k) ensure that future key land, sea, air and other platforms for the armed forces of the Member States
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution Recital D D. whereas the three-fold level of ambition under the EU Global Strategy in the field of security and defence covers securing external borders, countering hybrid threats and fighting against
Amendment 270 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point k (k)
Amendment 271 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point k (k) ensure that future key land, sea, air and other platforms for the armed forces of the Member States are
Amendment 272 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point k (k) en
Amendment 273 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point k a (new) (ka) formulate innovative incentives to improve the interoperability and deployment of CSDP missions and operations;
Amendment 274 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point k a (new) Amendment 275 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point l Amendment 276 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point l Amendment 277 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point l Amendment 278 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point l (l) consider, as part of the reform of the EU Battlegroup system, to bring it under PESCO in order to increase its operational capacity, modularity and agility and to enhance the EU’s ability to conduct crisis management operations, including the most demanding ones such as peacemaking;
Amendment 279 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point l (l) consider, as part of the reform of the EU Battlegroup system, to bring it under PESCO in order to increase its operational capacity, modularity and agility by establishing permanent multinational units dedicated to fulfil Article 43 (1) TEU military tasks;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the main actors of PESCO are the participating Member States (pMS), which provide the capabilities for implementing CSDP (Article 42(1) and Article 42(3) TEU), and which deploy them in EU operations and missions
Amendment 280 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point l (l)
Amendment 281 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point l (l) consider, as part of the reform of the EU Battlegroup system, whether to bring it under PESCO in order to increase its operational capacity, modularity and agility;
Amendment 282 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point l (l) consider, as part of the reform of
Amendment 283 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point m Amendment 284 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point m (m)
Amendment 285 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point m (m) group PESCO projects into capability clusters and make a distinction between strategically relevant and
Amendment 286 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point m (m) where relevant, group PESCO projects into capability clusters
Amendment 287 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point m (m) group PESCO projects into capability clusters and
Amendment 288 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point n Amendment 289 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point n (n) promote compliance with the 20 PESCO commitments by establishing clearer definition of compliance benchmarks, and by ensuring that future project proposals must address a specific CDP priority; ensure that any reviews of project progress should be based on clear and transparent criteria; ensure that such criteria serve as benchmark for all Member States participating in PESCO projects; ensure that the pMS further increase the quality and the granularity of the information provided in their National Implementation Plans, in which they outline how they intend to meet the 20 PESCO commitments;
Amendment 29 #
Motion for a resolution Recital E E. whereas the main actors of PESCO are the participating Member States (pMS), which provide the capabilities for implementing CSDP (Article 42(1) and Article 42(3) TEU), and which deploy them in missions abroad where the Council tasks them to do so (Article 42 (1) (4), and(5), Article 43 and Article 44 TEU), that develop their defence capabilities, inter alia, within the framework of the European Defence Agency (Article 42(3) and Article 45 TEU);
Amendment 290 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point n (n) promote compliance with the 20 PESCO commitments by establishing clearer definition of compliance benchmarks, and by ensuring that future project proposals must address a specific CDP priority; ensure that any reviews of project progress should be based on clear and transparent criteria; ensure that such criteria serve as benchmark for all Member States participating in PESCO projects; whereas PESCO can in this respect contribute to greater coherence, coordination and interoperability in security and defence, and to consolidating solidarity, cohesion and the resilience of the Union;
Amendment 291 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point n (n) promote compliance with the 20 PESCO commitments by establishing clearer definition of compliance benchmarks, and by ensuring that future project proposals must address a specific CDP priority; ensure that any reviews of project progress should be based on clear and transparent criteria, including when co-financed in the framework of EDIDP/future EDF; ensure that such criteria serve as benchmark for all Member States participating in PESCO projects;
Amendment 292 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point n (n) promote compliance with the 20 PESCO commitments by establishing a clear and simple
Amendment 293 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point n (n) promote compliance with the 20 PESCO commitments by establishing clearer definition of compliance
Amendment 294 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point o Amendment 295 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point o (o) use the synergies between the PESCO project cycle and other defence capability processes such as CARD, HLG and EDF in order to enable more mature
Amendment 296 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point o (o) use the synergies between the PESCO project cycle and other defence capability processes such as
Amendment 297 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point o (o)
Amendment 298 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point p Amendment 299 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point p Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 11 c (new) Amendment 30 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas PESCO’s long-term vision is to achieve a coherent full-spectrum force package available to the Member States;
Amendment 300 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point p Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point p (p) consider giving CDP a more binding character, by making sure pMS continue their efforts to enhance interoperability and flexibility of their forces, while making progress in fulfilling the commitments related to bringing their defence systems more in line with each other, with a particular focus on strengthening collaborative capability development and strengthening the availability and deployability of forces, including for military CSDP operations and missions;
Amendment 302 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point p (p)
Amendment 303 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point p (p) consider
Amendment 304 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point p (p) consider giving CDP a
Amendment 305 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point q Amendment 306 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point q (q) define an effective and strong project steering committee, reaffirm the central role of the PESCO secretariat as a single point of contact for all projects and invite the secretariat to carry out regular situation points on the progress of projects for the benefit of all the stakeholders, including Parliament, via information collected Member State(s)
Amendment 307 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point q (q)
Amendment 308 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point q (q) define a framework for an effective and strong project steering committee, reaffirm the central role of the PESCO secretariat as a single point of contact for all projects and invite the secretariat to carry out regular situation points on the progress of projects for the benefit of all the stakeholders, including Parliament, via information collected from Member State(s) in charge of project coordination;
Amendment 309 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point q (q) define an effective and strong project steering committee, reaffirm the central role of the PESCO secretariat as a single point of contact for all projects and invite the secretariat to carry out regular situation points on the progress of projects to the Parliament as well as for the benefit of all the stakeholders,
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas PESCO’s long-term vision is to achieve a coherent full-spectrum force package available to the Member States for military CSDP operations; whereas PESCO should enhance the EU’s capacity to act as an international security provider in order to contribute effectively and credibly to international, regional and European security, also by preventing the import of insecurity and therefore indirectly protect EU citizens and, inter alia, maximise the effectiveness of defence spending; whereas the cost of non-Europe in security and defence is estimated to be more than EUR 100 billion per year;
Amendment 310 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point q (q) define an effective and strong project steering committee, reaffirm the central role of the PESCO secretariat as a single point of contact for all projects and invite the secretariat to carry out regular situation points on the progress of projects for the benefit of all the stakeholders, including Parliament, via information collected from the Member State(s) in charge of project coordination;
Amendment 311 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point q (q) define an effective and strong project steering committee, reaffirm the central role of the PESCO secretariat as a single point of contact for all projects and invite the secretariat to carry out regular situation points on the progress of projects for the benefit of all the stakeholders, including Parliament, via information collected from Member State(s) in charge of project coordination;
Amendment 312 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point q a (new) (qa) call on the pMS to ensure tangible progress in the achievement of the current PESCO projects;
Amendment 313 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point r Amendment 314 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point r (r) clarify the role of the Political and Security Committee in the PESCO process, which is not provided for by the TEU
Amendment 315 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point r (r) clarify the role of the Political and Security Committee in the PESCO process, which is not provided for by the TEU, and ensure, in this context, the
Amendment 316 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point s Amendment 317 #
Amendment 318 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point t Amendment 319 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point t (t)
Amendment 32 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas PESCO’s long-term vision is to
Amendment 320 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point t (t) examine the establishment of an EU Council on Defence based on the existing EDA ministerial Steering Board and the PESCO format of EU Defence Ministers, in order to guarantee the prioritisation of resources, and the effective cooperation and integration among the Member States;
Amendment 321 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point t (t) establish an EU Council on Defence based on the existing
Amendment 322 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point t (t) establish an EU Council on Defence based on the existing EDA ministerial Steering Board and the PESCO format of EU Defence Ministers, in order to guarantee the prioritisation of resources, and the effective cooperation
Amendment 323 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point u Amendment 324 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point u Amendment 325 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point u (u) clarify or define the link between the governance of PESCO and that of the EDF
Amendment 326 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point u (u) clarify or define the link between the governance of PESCO and that of the EDF
Amendment 327 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point u (u) clarify or define the link between the governance of PESCO and that of the EDF and
Amendment 328 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point v Amendment 329 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point w Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas PESCO’s long-term vision is to achieve a coherent full-spectrum force package available to the Member States; whereas PESCO should enhance the EU’s capacity to act as an international security provider in order to protect EU citizens and maximise the effectiveness of defence spending;
Amendment 330 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point w (w) clarify the rules governing third- party participation in PESCO, taking into consideration the importance of EU decision-making autonomy and full reciprocity, with a case-by-case approach considered to be most beneficial for the EU; underlines the need to prepare and adopt a comprehensive and fundamental document, which regulates future cooperation with third-party participation in PESCO projects;
Amendment 331 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point w (w) clarify the rules governing third- party participation in PESCO, taking into consideration the importance of EU decision-making autonomy and full reciprocity, with a case-by-case approach considered to be most beneficial for the EU; the decision-making process regarding the involvement of a third-party should be ensured at the level of each PESCO project, by the Member States involved;
Amendment 332 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point w (w) clarify the rules governing third- party participation in PESCO, taking into consideration the importance of EU decision-making autonomy and full reciprocity, with a case-by-case approach considered to be most beneficial for the EU; to consider the benefits of third-party participation of the United Kingdom after Brexit;
Amendment 333 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point w (w)
Amendment 334 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point w (w) clarify the rules governing third- party participation in PESCO, taking into consideration the
Amendment 335 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point w a (new) (wa) ensure that PESCO projects further develop and increase the industrial capacity of pMS in the fields of nano-technologies, super-computers, AI, drone technology, robotics and others, in turn securing European self-reliance from foreign importers in these areas, as well as facilitate the creation of new jobs;
Amendment 336 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point w a (new) Amendment 337 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point w a (new) (wa) strengthen partnerships with NATO, the UN, the African Union and beyond;
Amendment 338 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point w b (new) (wb) ensure that in all relevant aspects of PESCO projects, involvement and inclusion of SME’s is ensured;
Amendment 339 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 a (new) Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas PESCO’s long-term vision is
Amendment 340 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Rejects the Commission’s proposal of June 2017 to create a European Defence Fund (EDF), which would foster cooperation between Member States and support the European defence industry; notes that this proposal is the first initiative for which Union funds are to be used in direct support of defence projects; rejects, also, the adoption by the Commission in March 2019 of the first European Defence Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP) and the publication of nine calls for proposals for 2019, including for the Eurodrone; rejects also the recent announcement of 16 pan-European defence industrial projects and three disruptive technology projects that will benefit from €205 million financing through the two precursor programmes of a fully-fledged European Defence Fund: the Preparatory Action on Defence Research (PADR) and the European Defence Industrial Development Programme (EDIDP); notes the link between the procurement decisions taken today by the Member States and the prospects for industrial and technological cooperation under the EDF; recalls that the setting-up of the new heading V on Security and Defence, the EU defence research programme, European Defence Fund and Military Mobility clearly violate the provisions laid down in Article 41(2)TEU which states that any expenditure arising from actions having military or defence implications must not be charged to the Union budget; denounces and deeply deplores the unprecedented speed with which the EU is being militarised; emphasises that the evidence is overwhelming that the most effective method of preserving and promoting peace and stability is to focus on poverty eradication, sustainable and fair economic development and an end to the facilitation of tax evasion, corruption and capital flight by the global financial system, peaceful and diplomatic conflict resolution, disarmament, demobilisation of troops and reintegration programmes;
Amendment 341 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 c (new) 1c. Notes the cuts to the European Defence Fund proposed by both the Finnish Presidency of the Council of the EU in December 2019 and in the draft European Council conclusions for the MFF and own resources for the 2021- 2027 period in February 2020; welcomes the proposed cuts in the allocation to the European Defence Fund in the new MFF from €13 billion to €8 billion; calls for the Fund to be abolished;
Amendment 342 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 d (new) 1d. Deplores the PESCO commitment from participating Member States to increase defence spending to 2% of GDP and to earmark 20% of that sum for investment in defence capabilities;
Amendment 343 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 e (new) 1e. Rejects the notion of European strategic autonomy being dependent on the establishment of European defence cooperation in the technological, capability, industrial and operational fields; considers that only practical, flexible, strictly peaceful and civil cooperation based on pragmatic initiatives will make it possible to face common challenges, forge a genuine common strategic culture, and shape common responses tailored to the continent’s main security issues; stresses that strategic autonomy can only be genuinely achieved if Member States demonstrate solidarity with each other; considers that the principle of European strategic autonomy formulated as an ambition to increase military spending and to further the militarisation of the EU is ethically and morally illegitimate;
Amendment 344 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 f (new) 1f. Deeply regrets the recent significant increases in defence budgets across the bloc and the increase in defence expenditure across the EU for the sixth year in a row in 2019; is of the opinion that this should be not be supported or encouraged at Union level; adds that military personnel should be guaranteed a living wage;
Amendment 345 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 g (new) 1g. Regrets the efforts by the European institutions and some Member States, following on from the publication of the EU Global Strategy, to breathe new life into the hitherto virtual instruments of the CSDP and to fully implement the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty; stresses that these ambitions must not be consolidated and followed up with any further practical action;
Amendment 346 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 h (new) 1h. Considers that Europe’s security is best defended by focusing on poverty eradication, sustainable and fair economic development, an end to the facilitation of tax evasion, corruption and capital flight by the global financial system, peaceful and diplomatic conflict resolution, disarmament, demobilisation of troops and reintegration programmes;
Amendment 347 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 i (new) 1i. Notes that the Union currently has a presence on three continents through the deployment of 17 civilian or military missions (11 civilian and six military); recognises that none of these missions have contributed substantially to peace, international security, and stability;
Amendment 348 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 j (new) 1j. Stresses the importance of pursuing conflict resolution as a priority and a decisive shift away from security and defence, and in particular away from security and defence strategies predicated on increased military spending;
Amendment 349 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 k (new) 1k. Considers Union financing for military CSDP missions prohibited in line with Article 41(2) TEU, which outlines that expenditure arising from operations having military or defence implications shall not be funded by the Union budget; regrets, in this regard, the proposal by the VP/HR, backed by the Commission, to create a European Peace Facility, which would finance part of the costs of EU defence activities, including the joint costs of CSDP military operations and weaponry and military equipment; deplores the fact that the EPF will enable the transfer of billions of euro of public money to arms companies to produce arms for export to states in Africa and elsewhere, where they will inevitably perpetuate existing conflicts and almost certainly spark others; recognises that the concept of military peace support operations proposed as part of the Facility is a contradiction in terms; emphasises that the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the most effective method of preserving and promoting peace and stability is to focus on poverty eradication, sustainable and fair economic development and an end to the facilitation of tax evasion, corruption and capital flight by the global financial system, peaceful and diplomatic conflict resolution, disarmament, demobilisation of troops and reintegration programmes;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas PESCO’s long-term vision is to achieve a coherent full-spectrum force package available to the Member States; whereas PESCO should enhance the EU’s capacity to act as an international security provider in order to protect EU citizens
Amendment 350 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 l (new) 1l. Notes the failure of the Union’s Battlegroup project and the fact that Battlegroups have never been deployed, owing in particular to opposition on the part of Member States and the complexity of their implementation and funding, which is at odds with the original objective of speed and efficiency; stresses that the battlegroups must be dismantled immediate effect;
Amendment 351 #
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 m (new) 1m. Opposes the creation of the Military Planning and Conduct Capability (MPCC) for the operational planning and conduct of the EU’s non-executive military missions; rejects any military- civilian operations and any subordination of areas of civilian competence to the military;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas PESCO’s long-term vision is to achieve a coherent full-spectrum force package available to the Member States; whereas PESCO should enhance the EU
Amendment 37 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas PESCO’s long-term vision is to deliver better interoperability and to achieve a coherent full-spectrum force package available to the Member States
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas PESCO’s long-term vision is to achieve a coherent full-spectrum force package available to the Member States; whereas PESCO should enhance the EU’s capacity to act as an international security provider by enhancing interoperability in order to protect EU citizens and maximise the effectiveness of defence spending; whereas the cost of non-Europe in security and defence is estimated to be more than EUR 100 billion per year;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas PESCO’s long-term vision is to achieve a coherent full-spectrum force package available to the Member States; whereas PESCO
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 13 a (new) - having regard to the European Court of Auditors Review No 09/2019: European defence,
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas PESCO’s long-term vision is to achieve a coherent full-spectrum force package available to the Member States, deepening their collaboration on defence; whereas PESCO should enhance the EU’s capacity to act as an international security provider in order to protect EU citizens and maximise the
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution Recital F F. whereas PESCO
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the consequences of the EU not having enough competence when it comes to health care; whereas the pandemic has demonstrated the need to develop EU military mobility, as important element in support for management of major civilian crises; whereas by developing capabilities under PESCO this experience and lessons identified should be taken into account; whereas, by the same analogy, it would make sense to establish an EU common defence strategy in order to be able to respond to an attack on the EU’s borders and territories; whereas PESCO constitutes an important step towards achieving the objective of a common defence;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G.
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G.
Amendment 46 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the consequences of the EU
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the consequences of the EU not having enough competence when it comes to health care
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution Citation 13 b (new) - having regard to Article 2(4) of the UN Charter,
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the
Amendment 51 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas
Amendment 52 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the consequences of the EU not having enough competence when it comes to health care; whereas, by the same analogy, it would make sense to establish an EU common defence strategy in order to be able to respond to an attack on the EU’s borders and territories; whereas PESCO constitutes an important step towards achieving the
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the consequences of the EU not having enough competence when it comes to health care; whereas, by the same analogy, it would make sense to establish an EU common defence strategy in order to be able to respond to an attack on the EU’s democratic model, borders and territories; whereas PESCO
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has shown how challenging the geopolitical environmental is, as well as the consequences of the EU not having enough competence when it comes to health care; whereas, by the same analogy, it would make sense to establish an EU common defence strategy in order to be able to respond to an attack on the EU’s borders and territories; whereas PESCO constitutes an important step towards achieving the objective of a common defence;
Amendment 56 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the consequences of austerity policies and of the EU not having enough competence when it comes to health care; whereas, by the same analogy, it would make sense to establish an EU common defence strategy in order to
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the consequences of the EU not having enough competence when it comes to health care; whereas, by the same analogy, it would make sense to e
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the consequences of the EU not having enough competence when it comes to health care; whereas, by
Amendment 59 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G G. whereas the COVID-19 pandemic has
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) Ga. whereas the Commission established the Group of Personalities on Defence Research in 2015 as an advisory body to set out the agenda for an EU military research programme; whereas the group was heavily dominated by the arms industry and included the CEOs of arms companies MBDA, Indra, Saab Airbus, BAE Systems, Leonardo S.p.A (formerly Finmeccanica), and the Chair of ASD, the European arms industry lobbying group; whereas the Commission’s directorate for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW) had 37 meetings between 2013 and 2016 with the arms industry to discuss the Preparatory Action on Defence Research; and whereas the Commission proposes to mobilise tens of billions from the EU budget and Member State contributions through the European Defence Fund for the research and development of weapons and military equipment;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G a (new) Ga. whereas, the establishment of an EU common defence strategy is more than ever needed in the context of growing multiple threats;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution Recital G b (new) Gb. whereas the European Defence Fund creates a self-fulfilling and continuous loop between supply and demand for security and defence hardware, funded with public money; and whereas this creates the spectre of a permanent European war economy and entrenched military industrial complex;
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas according to Council decision 2017/2315, establishing PESCO enhanced defence capabilities of the Member States will also benefit NATO, while strengthening the European pillar within the alliance and responding to repeated calls for
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas according to Council decision 2017/2315, establishing PESCO enhanced defence capabilities of the Member States will also benefit NATO provided that duplication is avoided and interoperability is prioritized, while strengthening the European pillar within the alliance and responding to repeated calls for stronger transatlantic burden- sharing;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas according to Council decision 2017/2315, establishing PESCO enhanced defence capabilities of the Member States will also benefit NATO, while strengthening the European pillar within the alliance and responding to repeated calls for stronger transatlantic burden-sharing; bearing in mind that out of 30 Member countries 22 are EU Member states;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas according to Council decision 2017/2315, establishing PESCO enhanced defence capabilities of the Member States will
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H H. whereas according to Council decision 2017/2315, establishing PESCO enhanced defence capabilities of the Member States will also benefit NATO, following the single set-of-forces principle, while strengthening the European pillar within the alliance and responding to repeated calls for stronger transatlantic burden-sharing;
Amendment 7 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution Recital H a (new) Ha. whereas also civilian CSDP faces multiple capability challenges as regards the availability of sufficient numbers of police, judges, prosecutors, other justice and civilian security sector experts; whereas there is an urgent need to further develop instruments aimed at increasing quantity and quality of capabilities for civilian CSDP, whether in the context of the Civilian Compact or another civilian PESCO-type of format;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas PESCO creates a binding framework between the pMS, which committed themselves to jointly investing, planning, developing and operating defence capabilities within Union framework in a permanent and structured manner by subscribing to 20 binding commitments in five areas set by the TEU; whereas
Amendment 72 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas PESCO creates a binding framework between the pMS, which committed themselves to jointly investing, planning, developing and operating defence capabilities within Union framework in a permanent and structured manner by subscribing to 20 binding commitments in five areas set by the TEU; whereas these commitments should constitute a move from mere defence cooperation towards
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas PESCO creates a binding framework between the pMS, which committed themselves to jointly investing, planning, developing and operating defence capabilities within Union framework in a permanent and structured manner by subscribing to 20 binding commitments in five areas set by the TEU;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas PESCO creates a binding framework between the pMS, which committed themselves to jointly investing, planning, developing and operating defence capabilities within Union
Amendment 75 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas PESCO creates a binding framework between the pMS, which committed themselves to jointly investing, planning, developing and operating defence capabilities within Union framework in a permanent and structured manner by subscribing to 20 binding commitments in five areas set by the TEU; whereas these commitments should constitute a move from mere defence cooperation towards the integration of Member States’ defence forces; whereas
Amendment 76 #
I. whereas PESCO creates a binding framework between the pMS, which committed themselves to jointly investing, planning, developing and operating defence capabilities within Union framework in a permanent and structured manner by subscribing to 20 binding commitments in five areas set by the TEU; whereas these commitments should constitute a move from mere defence cooperation towards the integration of Member States’ defence forces through bilateral mutual beneficial partnerships; whereas despite these binding commitments, no effective compliance mechanism for PESCO is in place;
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas PESCO creates a binding framework between the pMS, which committed themselves to jointly investing, planning, developing and operating defence capabilities within Union framework in a permanent and structured manner by subscribing to 20 binding commitments in five areas set by the TEU; whereas these commitments should constitute a move from mere defence cooperation towards
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas PESCO creates a binding framework between the pMS, which committed themselves to jointly investing, planning, developing and operating defence capabilities within Union framework in a permanent and structured manner by subscribing to 20 binding commitments in five areas set by the TEU; whereas the
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas PESCO creates a binding framework between the pMS, which committed themselves to jointly investing, planning, developing and operating defence capabilities within Union framework in a permanent and structured manner by subscribing to 20 binding
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas according to Article 42(2) of the TEU, the common security and defence policy (CSDP) includes the progressive framing of a common EU defence policy, which could lead to a common defence being put in place; whereas PESCO constitutes an important step towards achieving this objective;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I I. whereas PESCO creates a binding framework between the pMS, which committed themselves to jointly investing, planning, developing and operating defence capabilities within Union framework in a permanent and structured manner by subscribing to 20 binding commitments in five areas set by the TEU; whereas these commitments should constitute a move from mere defence cooperation towards the
Amendment 81 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I a (new) Ia. whereas PESCO is only the most egregious example of a broader strategy to normalise militarism in the EU; whereas militarism that is normalised will be transferred to other domains such as migration or development; whereas this is already happening, in particular at Europe’s borders;
Amendment 82 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I b (new) Ib. whereas militarism reduces the resources available for other public investments like health and social security, hinders the capacity to examine or address the structural causes of insecurity and risk, and in this way produces new insecurities and deepens existing ones;
Amendment 83 #
Motion for a resolution Recital I c (new) Ic. whereas according to the European Court of Auditors Review No 09/2019: European defence, the key PESCO concept of ‘strategic autonomy’ is overly vague and broad, lacks a clear military translation, and is unhelpfully used in various contexts and meanings; whereas the same Review points out that there are clear strategic differences between EU Member States in terms of defence, no common perception of threats nor a common vision of the EU’s role, as well as different rules of engagement and a wide range of views on the use of military force;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J Amendment 85 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J J. whereas the pMS
Amendment 87 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J J. whereas the pMS do not pay enough attention to the 20 binding commitments to which they have subscribed, and not enough progress has been achieved with regard to significantly embedding PESCO into national defence planning processes casting serious doubt over the capacity of pMS to finalize PESCO projects;
Amendment 88 #
Motion for a resolution Recital J J. whereas the pMS
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution Recital K Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution Recital A A. whereas according to Article 42(2) of the TEU, the common security and defence policy (CSDP) includes the progressive framing of a common EU defence policy, which could lead to common defence being put in place, but does not require such a common EU defence policy;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution Recital K K. whereas PESCO was originally conceived as an avant-garde, comprising the Member States willing and able to upgrade their cooperation in defence to a new level of ambition; whereas
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution Recital K K. whereas PESCO was originally conceived as an avant-garde, comprising the Member States willing and able to upgrade their cooperation in defence to a new level of ambition; whereas the fact that there are 25 pMS means that PESCO is at risk of being constrained by the ‘lowest common denominator’ approach; whereas the number of pMS indicates a willingness for closer cooperation in security and defence;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution Recital K K. whereas PESCO was originally conceived as an avant-garde, comprising the Member States willing and able to upgrade their cooperation in defence to a new level of ambition; whereas the fact that there are 25 pMS means that PESCO is at risk of being constrained by the ‘lowest common denominator’ approach amplifying the widespread free rider problem in European defence spending;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution Recital K K. whereas PESCO was originally conceived as an avant-garde, comprising the Member States willing and able to upgrade their cooperation in defence to a new level of ambition; whereas the fact that there are 25 pMS m
Amendment 94 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. whereas work on the first three waves of PESCO projects has led to the pMS
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. whereas work on the first three waves of PESCO projects has led to the pMS proposing 47 projects;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. whereas
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. whereas work on the first three waves of PESCO projects has led to the pMS proposing 47 projects; whereas the current list of projects lacks coherence, strategic ambition and does not adequately address priority shortfalls as identified by the pMS; whereas one of these projects has been stopped in order to avoid unnecessary duplication; whereas other projects did not make sufficient progress or are at risk of being stopped, and around 30 projects are still in the ideation and preparatory phase; whereas the development of ambitious military capacity projects can take up to 10 years;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution Recital L L. whereas work on the first three waves of PESCO projects has led to the pMS proposing 47 projects; whereas the current list of projects lacks coherence, strategic ambition and does not adequately address priority shortfalls as identified by the pMS; whereas one of these projects has been stopped in order to avoid unnecessary duplication; whereas other projects did not make sufficient progress or are at risk of being stopped, and around 30 projects are still in the ideation and preparatory phase; whereas the vast majority of PESCO projects coincide with EDF and NATO shortfalls;
source: 654.064
2020/07/13
AFCO
49 amendments...
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion Paragraph -1 (new) -1. Highlights that permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) significantly contributes to the convergence of Member States' actions in the area of common foreign and security policy and represents an important step towards achieving the Treaty objective of a common defence;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Calls on the Council and the Member States to continue reinforcing coherence between all instruments and initiatives within the framework of common security and defence policy (CSDP) in order to achieve the required level of effectiveness in ensuring s
Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Calls on the Council and the Member States to continue reinforcing coherence between all instruments and initiatives within the framework of common security and defence policy (CSDP) in order to achieve the required level of effectiveness in ensuring strategic autonomy, and of ambition in the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy in line with the Treaty on European Union; considers that PESCO needs ambitious projects, in synergy with CARD, national implementation plans (NIPs) and the CDP to deal with present day threats;
Amendment 12 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Calls on the Council and the Member States to continue reinforcing coherence between all instruments and initiatives within the framework of common security and defence policy (CSDP) in order to achieve the required level of effectiveness in ensuring strategic autonomy, and of ambition in the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy in line with the Treaty on European Union; highlights the strong traditions of military neutrality in several Member States;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 2. Calls on the Council and the Member States to continue reinforcing coherence between all instruments and initiatives within the framework of common security and defence policy (CSDP) in order to achieve the required level of effectiveness in ensuring strategic autonomy, and of ambition in the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy in line with the Treaty on European Union; underlines in this regard the importance of maintaining an adequate level of financing of EDF and Military Mobility;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Calls on the Commission to work on a EU Defence and Security White Book, also with a view to better align PESCO projects’ specific objectives with an updated, coherent and comprehensive EU security and defence strategy; with regard to this, highlights the importance of the PESCO 2020 strategic review and supports likewise the establishment of a European Strategic Compass to improve the ability to coordinate in a more timely and effective manner defence initiatives of the Member States towards the common objectives of the Union;
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 a (new) 2a. Notes the COVID-19 pandemic has shown the Union does not have enough competence when it comes to health care; believes, that in parallel, when it comes to defence, an EU common defence strategy needs to be established to respond in the case of an attack on the EU’s borders and territories, and considers PESCO a positive step towards this objective;
Amendment 16 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 Amendment 17 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3.
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes in this regard the political guidelines of the Commission regarding defence policy, and in particular regarding the need for bold steps towards a
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes in this regard the political guidelines of the Commission regarding defence policy, and in particular regarding the need for bold steps towards a genuine European Defence Union, and for an integrated and comprehensive approach to the EU’s security; hopes that the creation of a new Commission Directorate- General for Defence Industry and Space will serve as a catalyst for enhanced coherence in the creation of defence capabilities; acknowledges that the development of military infrastructure is essential for the EU's industrial autonomy;
Amendment 2 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1.
Amendment 20 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes in this regard the political guidelines of the Commission regarding defence policy, and in particular regarding the need for bold steps towards a genuine European Defence Union, and for an integrated and comprehensive approach to the EU’s security; hopes that the creation of a new Commission Directorate- General for Defence Industry and Space will serve as a catalyst for enhanced coherence, fair cooperation and integrated coordination in the creation of defence capabilities across EU Member States;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 3. Welcomes in this regard the political guidelines of the Commission regarding defence policy, and in particular regarding the need for bold steps towards a genuine European Defence Union, and for an integrated and comprehensive approach to the EU’s security; hopes that the creation of a new Commission Directorate- General for Defence Industry and Space will serve as a catalyst for enhanced coherence in the creation of defence capabilities and to strengthen our industry and internal market in this field;
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 3 a (new) 3a. Recalls its position on the Conference on the Future of Europe as expressed in its resolution of 15 January 2020, whereby among pre-defined but non-exhaustive policy priorities security and the role of the EU in the world should be identified;
Amendment 23 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Considers it necessary to
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4.
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Considers it necessary to step up the actual contribution of PESCO projects to the achievement of the EU’s ambitions in the area of security and defence, by effectively ensuring that the participating Member States strengthen their collaboration in significant and ambitious capability development, and that there is coherence between the EU and NATO
Amendment 26 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Considers it necessary to step up the actual contribution of PESCO projects to the achievement of the EU’s ambitions
Amendment 27 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Considers it necessary to step up the actual contribution of PESCO projects to the achievement of the EU’s ambitions in the area of security and defence, by effectively ensuring that the participating Member States strengthen their collaboration and coordination in significant and ambitious capability development, and that there is coherence between the EU and NATO in terms of priorities;
Amendment 28 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 4. Considers it necessary to step up the actual contribution of PESCO projects to the achievement of the EU’s ambitions in the area of security and defence, by
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Acknowledges the crucial role played by the European armed forces in addressing the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, both in the management of the health emergency as well as in support to civilian missions and operations, also having a cross-border dimension and a solidarity function; highlights the potential benefits of new ambitious PESCO projects for the development of common European capabilities in this field, expanding on the work of previous projects, notably the Deployable Military Disaster Relief Capability Package and the European Medical Command;
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the interest of Member States in permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) following its establishment by Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2315 of 11 December 2017, as shown by the significant number of projects established so far by the Council under PESCO; encourages participating Member States to advance this work and focus on the swift and effective implementation of these projects; reminds nevertheless that PESCO also entails 20 binding commitments that have received far less attention;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 4 a (new) 4a. Welcomes the interaction among different EU defence tools and underlines the need to ensure coherence; stresses the positive effect of EDF foreseeing a special bonus for PESCO projects, thus incentivising cooperation in capabilities development;
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the participating Member States to continue
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the participating Member States to
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the participating Member States to continue making resources available for PESCO projects, while ensuring real ownership of and commitment to PESCO coordinating and pooling processes; stresses, in the context of the MFF negotiations, the need to ensure adequate resources to key programmes such as the European Defence Fund and the Military Mobility Programme, which should receive a level of funding at least at the level proposed by the Commission proposal of 2018; points to the necessity of developing a system of genuine Union own resources as a means to enable the alignment of the strategic objectives of the Union in the field of defence, in particular its own strategic autonomy, with the funding for programmes and operations on the ground, notably PESCO project;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the participating Member States to continue making resources available for PESCO projects, while ensuring real ownership of and commitment to PESCO coordinating and pooling processes; underlines that PESCO should provide a framework to go beyond bilateral cooperation and foster a truly European effort through the meaningful participation of multiple Member States to common projects;
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the participating Member States to continue making resources available for PESCO projects, while ensuring real ownership of and commitment to PESCO coordinating and pooling processes, especially since no effective compliance mechanism for PESCO is in place;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 5. Calls on the participating Member States to continue making resources available for PESCO projects that generate added value, while ensuring real ownership of and commitment to PESCO coordinating and pooling processes;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 5 a (new) 5a. Underlines the importance of a small number of strategic projects, in particular strategic enablers (command and control, transport, intelligence); calls on the Council and the PESCO secretariat to consider a cluster structure for PESCO projects in order to guarantee the maximum level of synergies among different projects;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Council to define strict conditions for the participation of third states in PESCO projects, in accordance with Article 9 of Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2315; considers that any such participation should not deviate PESCO from its fundamental objectives as an instrument of the EU CSDP
Amendment 39 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 6. Calls on the Council to define
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 1. Welcomes the interest of Member States in permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) following its establishment by Council Decision (CFSP) 2017/2315 of 11 December 2017, as shown by the significant number of projects established so far by the Council under PESCO; encourages participating Member States to advance this work and focus on the swift and effective implementation of these projects while ensuring the participation of all Member States;
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Warns however about the risk of foreign interference in the field of the Union’s security and defence, which often take the form of cyber-threats and other forms of hybrid warfare; suggests the newly established Parliament’s special committee on foreign interference in all democratic processes in the European Union to collaborate with Commission and Council in analysing how PESCO projects could strengthen the Union’s resilience against threats of such sort;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Believes that the involvement of the United Kingdom in PESCO projects, where invited and where effective reciprocity is ensured, would be in the strategic interest of the Union; expresses its hope that the area of defence will be covered in the EU-UK negotiations on their future relationship, in line with the Political Declaration.
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 6 a (new) 6a. Stresses that, in line with Article 46 of the Treaty on European Union, all decisions not related to the participation of Member States in PESCO should be adopted unanimously in the Council by the representatives of the participating Member States;
Amendment 43 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Reiterates that Parliament should play a prominent role in the scrutiny and supervision of the implementation and evaluation of the CSDP; expects in this regard that, in line with Article 26 TEU, Parliament will be fully informed and consulted by the Vice-
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7. Reiterates that Parliament should
Amendment 46 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 7.
Amendment 47 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Stresses that security and defence policy remains in the core of the sovereignty of the Member States; reminds that it is impossible to determine a common security and defence policy line for the EU due to diversity of historical backgrounds, geographical positions and geostrategic interests of the Members States; urges the European Parliament to bear in mind lessons of history for limits of European integration drawn by failures of projects even between six founding members of the European integration project, e.g. the collapse of the Fouchet Plan in the 1960s;
Amendment 48 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Calls on the Council and the participating Member States to focus on Cyber Resilience and prepare a collective strategy and procedures to respond to cyber incidents through PESCO projects in order to create a more resilient environment within the Member States;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 7 a (new) 7a. Reiterates the opportunity of the Conference on the Future of Europe to involve citizens in the debate on strengthening the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) as a way of advancing in an autonomous common security and defence policy of our Union.
Amendment 5 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Welcomes the inclusiveness of PESCO towards all Member States as reflected in the high number of participants in projects; is of the opinion that PESCO should favour low entry- criteria and be accessible towards Member States that are smaller and/or have low defence budgets;
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 a (new) 1a. Takes the view that in order to progressively improve the governance and the operational capabilities of PESCO, it would be necessary to assign all non- executive and other executive PESCO missions under direct EUMS responsibility;
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 1 b (new) 1b. Highlights that the creation of PESCO in the framework of the Lisbon Treaty was conceived as the establishment of an avant-garde of Member States willing to pool resources and capabilities towards the achievement of ambitious common objectives in the field of security and defence; considers it necessary for the Union to progressively develop a common framework under the responsibility of the HRVP within which Member States conduct their own national defence policy reviews, share results and pool intelligence, as a means to establish the foundation of a genuine European defence;
Amendment 8 #
Draft opinion Paragraph 2 Amendment 9 #
2. Calls on the Council and the Member States to continue reinforcing coherence between all instruments and initiatives within the framework of common security and defence policy (CSDP) in order to achieve the required level of effectiveness in ensuring strategic autonomy
source: 655.648
|
History
(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)
2023-08-03Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/3 |
|
| events/2/summary |
|
2021-12-18Show (15) Changes | Timetravel
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| docs/0/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE652.499New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFET-PR-652499_EN.html |
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE654.064New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFET-AM-654064_EN.html |
| docs/2/docs/0/url |
Old
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE653.752&secondRef=02New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/AFCO-AD-653752_EN.html |
| docs/3 |
|
| events/0/type |
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single readingNew
Committee referral announced in Parliament |
| events/1/type |
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single readingNew
Vote in committee |
| events/2/type |
Old
Committee report tabled for plenary, single readingNew
Committee report tabled for plenary |
| events/3/docs |
|
| events/4 |
|
| events/4 |
|
| events/5 |
|
| procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
| procedure/Other legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
2020-11-01Show (6) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/3 |
|
| events/3 |
|
| events/4 |
|
| events/5 |
|
| forecasts |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament's voteNew
Procedure completed |
2020-10-17Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| forecasts/1 |
|
2020-10-13Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/3 |
|
| events/2/summary |
|
2020-10-09Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| forecasts/0/title |
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single readingNew
Debate in plenary scheduled |
2020-10-07Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/3 |
|
| events/2/docs |
|
2020-10-06Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| events/2 |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament's vote |
2020-09-29Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| events/2 |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting Parliament's voteNew
Awaiting committee decision |
2020-09-28Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
| events/2 |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Awaiting committee decisionNew
Awaiting Parliament's vote |
2020-09-27Show (4) Changes | Timetravel
| events/1 |
|
| forecasts/0 |
|
| forecasts/0 |
|
| procedure/Modified legal basis |
Rules of Procedure EP 159
|
2020-09-14Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| forecasts |
|
2020-09-08Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| forecasts |
|
2020-09-02Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/2 |
|
2020-07-29Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1/docs/0/url |
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE654.064
|
2020-07-08Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
| docs/1 |
|
2020-06-16Show (7) Changes
| committees/0 |
|
| committees/0 |
|
| docs |
|
| events |
|
| forecasts |
|
| procedure/dossier_of_the_committee |
|
| procedure/stage_reached |
Old
Preparatory phase in ParliamentNew
Awaiting committee decision |