Activities of Sophie MONTEL related to 2015/2343(INI)
Shadow opinions (1)
OPINION on constitutional, legal and institutional implications of a common security and defence policy: possibilities offered by the Lisbon Treaty
Amendments (13)
Amendment 6 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that recent political developments affecting both the EU and NATOthe EU, particularly the terrorist threat, further highlight the utmost urgency of shaping a genuine European Defence Unionadequate defence spending by every State;
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Considers that pooling financial resources is a key factor in incentivising the EU and its Member States to act proportionally to the current challenges in the area of security and defence; points out that the EU’s failure to make full use of the possibilities offered by the Lisbon Treaty means that its action is hindered by complex and unattractive cost-sharing mechanismsdefence policy is clearly a field reserved for the nation state, and that it is inconceivable that a State might surrender its sovereignty in this field to any organisation whatsoever;
Amendment 13 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Recalls that the ‘cost of non- Europe’ in security and defence is estimated to be at least EUR 26 billion annually as a result of duplication, overcapacity and barriers to procurementcannot seriously be measured;
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. Considers that the concept of the ‘cost of non-Europe’ in security and defence is based on the purest ideology and fanaticism;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Strongly believes that the use of Union funds through the EU budget would beconvey a strong expression of cohesion and solidarity and would allow for better and more transparent control of fundingmessage to peoples that they were increasingly rapidly being stripped of the instruments for the assertion of their sovereignty;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – introductory part
Paragraph 5 – introductory part
5. Considers that, in the short term, the following steps are neededwould be useful:
Amendment 31 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 1
Paragraph 5 – indent 1
- Revision and broadening of the Athena mechanism to ensure more collective funding of the EU missionsEncouragement to States to spend 2% of their GDP on defence policy;
Amendment 34 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 2
Paragraph 5 – indent 2
- Setting-up of the permanent structured cooperation (PESCO) and the start-up fund provided for in Article 41(3) TEUEncouragement of a policy of détente with Russia, which is not an enemy;
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 2 a (new)
Paragraph 5 – indent 2 a (new)
- The consequent lifting of economic sanctions against Russia;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 2 b (new)
Paragraph 5 – indent 2 b (new)
- Greater cooperation with Russia in Syria in order, in so far as possible, to tackle the Islamist threat, which is the prime threat to the nations of the EU;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 3
Paragraph 5 – indent 3
- UnfreezingAbolition of the budget of the European Defence Agency;
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 4
Paragraph 5 – indent 4
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Believes that, in the long term, the EU shcould aim at a common budget, financing inter alia the core of the EU integrated military forces, including the command structure, joint operations and equipment, as well as a proper EU programme for CSDP research; looks forward to the presentation of the Commission’s proposal for a European Defence Fund, and stresses that it should be financed by new additional appropriationsgreater defence cooperation between Member States, to the extent that they are willing to engage in it; considers, however, that such cooperation could equally be considered between Member States and non-Member States, one example being military cooperation between France and Britain.