BETA

Activities of Ana GOMES related to 2011/2177(INI)

Plenary speeches (1)

Common security and defence policy (Article 36 TEU) - Impact of the financial crisis on the defence sector (debate)
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2011/2177(INI)

Amendments (23)

Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
1. Notes with grave concern the unprecedented cuts in the defence budgets of the majority of EU Member States in the wake of the financial crisis and the potential negative impact of these measures on their military capabilities in view of their ability to meet their national, European and international obligations; underlines that defence constitutes a public good that affects the security of all European citizens and that all Member States need to contribute in a spirit of cooperation and of burden-sharing;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 18 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
2. Deplores the fact that these cuts are too often being implemented in a piecemeal fashion, with even recent national defence reviews becoming obsolete in a matter of months, and with little or no coordination with partners in the EU or NATO; notes in this respect that, for as long as security and defence matters remain a strictly national matter, no progress will be delivered on a capable and successful CSDP;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
3. Warns that uncoordinated defence budget cuts threaten to result in the complete loss of certain military capabilities in Europe, at a time when the intervention in Libya clearlyagain demonstrated that European countries are already lacking a number of capabilities vital to mounting an operation of that kind and could hardly do so without US support;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 33 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
5. Urges all EU Member States to assume fully their part of the responsibility for peace and security in Europe, its neighbourhood and the wider world; reminds them of their repeated commitments, including in the Treaty and European Council conclusions, to improve their military capabilities, namely the Military Headline Goal, in light of the enormous pressure put on Member States' budgets by the crisis, calls on EU Member States to prioritise achieving a strategic level of EU autonomy in the field of capabilities and ensure the meeting of CSDP and NATO commitments;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 43 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
6. Points out that the Member States collectively spend about EUR 200 billion a year on defence, which is only about a third of the US defence budget alone; and that the international financial crisis calls for better and more rational spending of this amount by the Member States, in a European, coordinated fashion; urges therefore EU Member States to take this opportunity by making the most out of the innovations brought about by the Lisbon Treaty, namely by making full use of the European Defence Agency in the definition of capability needs and a European defence market, by affording the EU Commission its legitimate role in the field of procurement rules, technological development and research;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
7. Deplores the way in which most of these fund defence budgets are spcurrent,ly based on national defence planning decisions taken in almost total isolation, resulting not only in persistent capability gaps, but also in wasteful overcapacities and duplications, as well as fragmented industry and markets; recalls that the overall amount spent by EU Member States falls short of equipping the Union with all that it needs to meet its security and defence objectives, mostly because there is a blatant lack of coordination among Member States in the definition of those needs to the expense of a valuable European defence sector, able and prepared to meet commitments, both at the European and at the international level;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 55 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
8. Calls on theUrges Member States to accept that increased cooperation is the only way forward and that, in particular through (A) better coordination of defence planning, which includes harmonisation of military requirements, (B) pooling and sharing of certain functioncapabilities and assets, (C) enhanced cooperation in research and technological development, (D) facilitating industrial collaboration and consolidation, and (E) optimisation of procurement and removing market barriers, the Member States can develop capabilities in a more cost- efficient way, and this without adverse effects for their sovereignty; and that only in this way will they be investing in the creation of sustainable jobs in EU defence industries;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 60 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Takes the view that the points A-E stated in paragraph 8. justify the effective creation of a European Military Operational Headquarters;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
9. Stresses that the EU has at its disposal tools and mechanisms that can assist the Member States in achieving this, as set out below, including through the identification of areas where more funding could be provided at European level (F); notes that these tools and mechanisms are currently not being used to their full extent, which hinders the prospects of a capable EU defence sector ;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 66 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Requires strong political leadership, namely by the HR/VP Catherine Ashton, in CSDP, with obvious implications in the wider CFSP;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13
13. Suggests that theUrges Member States to ask the European Defence Agency (EDA) to examine how to improve coordination of defence planning in Europe; recalls that the Treaty tasks the Agency to evaluate the observance of capability commitments and to promote the harmonisation of operational needs, and calls for better implementation of these tasks; recommends that, as a first step in the exercise, the Member States could submit their draft national security and defence reviews to the EDA for advice, to assess them in particular in the light of the Capability Development Plan, as well as of the plans of the other Member States and of relevant NATO initiatives; believes that, in the very short term, the EDA could also play an important role in defining capability priorities and identifying redundancies in Member States' capabilities;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 14
14. Takes the view that, as the next step, the Member States should go through a process of mutual consultations in order to harmonise their military requirements and examine all options for increasing cost- efficiency through EU-level, regional, bilateral or other arrangements; recalls that the Member States should make use of the potentialities offered by the European Defence Agency as the best placed actor to help in identifying, defining and promoting such a process of EU-level coordination;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
15. Urges the Member States also to address within such a process the existing overcapacities, especially as regards equipment and personnel of lesser priority in operations; in the same sense, calls on the Member States to assess areas where niche capacities might be built or whether they already exist in some countries, so that duplication of capabilities is avoided, and those areas of specialisation already potentially covered by certain Member States;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 123 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 24
24. Recognises bilateral and regional initiatives such as the 2010 UK-French defence agreements and the Nordic Defence Cooperation as important efforts to rationalise the use of resources and fill short-term capability gaps; encourages further progress in promising cooperation projects in other regions, such as among the Visegrád Group countries; takes the view, however, that significant structural gaps remain which need to be addressed in a coordinated fashion at EU level, and that the EDA should be given a role in ensuring overall coherence and ensuring at the same time that such initiatives contribute to the development of CSDP and do not, in any way, run counter to it; encourages further reflection on how the Treaty provisions on the Permanent Structured Cooperation could be used to provide an overall coordination framework, building also on the ‘European semester’ exercise as proposed under (A);
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 25
25. Considers that an EU Operational Headquarters, for which it has repeatedly called, would not only substantially enhance the EU's capacity to support international peace and security, but would in the long run also generate savings for the national budgets in the logic of pooling and sharing; calls on the Vice-President / High Representative to continue work based on the ‘Weimar initiative’ and to investigate legal options for the establishment of permanent EU military planning and conduct capability of this kind; stresses that political guidance by the HR/VP is needed to deliver on the development of this idea and calls therefore on the HR/VP to set out a clear roadmap to achieve this goal;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 155 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35
35. Recalls the need to progress in the consolidation of the European defence technological and industrial base, as, in the face of increasing sophistication of technologies, growing international competition, and decreasing defence budgets, in no EU Member State can the defence industry any longer be sustainable on a strictly national basis; deplores the fact that, while a certain level of concentration has been achieved in the European aerospace industries, the land and naval equipment sectors are still overwhelmingly fragmented along national lines; warns Member States against the possibility that reductions in defence investment will expose European defence industries and technological innovation to the risks of being overtaken by the control of third powers with different strategic interests;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 156 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 35 a (new)
35a. Stresses that a European defence technological and industrial goal can create jobs for European citizens;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 163 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 39
39. Encourages the EDA to further develop a common European view on key industrial capabilities that have to be preserved or developed in Europe; as part of this effort, invites the Agency to analyse dependencies on non-European technologies and sources of supply for European strategic autonomy;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 177 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 46
46. Urges the Member States to set as a top priority the fight against corruption in defence procurement, namely by adequate implementation of the "Defence Package", deploring the devastating effects of corruption especially in terms of inflated costs, acquisition of unnecessary, inadequate or non-optimal equipment, obstruction to joint procurement and collaborative programmes, and hindering market opening and resulting in heavy burden on national budgets; in addition to generalising transparent and competitive public procurement procedures, strongly advises following the recommendations of the NATO/DCAF Building Integrity and Reducing Corruption in Defence compendium of best practices; highlights positive examples such as the concept of ‘defence integrity pacts’ between government and bidders with the participation of independent monitors, or systematic parliamentary oversight of all stages in procurement procedures above a certain ceiling as practised in several Member States;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 180 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 47
47. Stresses that offset practices that may accompany defence procurement not covered under Directive 2009/81/EC, for which the exemption under Article 346 TFEU has been applied, should be consistent with the principles of transparency and non-discrimination, respect Single Market rules and must not cause risks of corruption or disrupt the functioning of the European defence equipment market; recalls the negative examples of defence procurement contracts, such as the acquisition of German submarines by Greece and Portugal, not meeting CSDP or NATO capability needs, operated through contracts marred by suspicion of corruption and fraudulent offsets and causing a disproportionate burden on national budgets and sovereign debt;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 190 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 54 a (new)
54a. Calls on Member States to take concrete steps to sign up to the principle of "European preference" in the purchase of certain military equipment in line with the need to sustain a strategic level of European autonomy and operational sovereignty in the field of capabilities building; recalls in this respect the positive impact such positioning by EU Member States as a whole would cause on the European defence and technological industries;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 212 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62
62. Invites theUrges Member States to consider, as part of the review of the ATHENA mechanism, the possibility of and extending the mechanism to provide also common funding for actions or acquisitions which support the aim of greater cost efficiency in European defence, but cannot be financed from the EU budget;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 62 a (new)
62a. Urges Member States to depart from the "costs lie where they fall" policy, and communitarise the budget of CSDP missions, with a view to encourage Member States with weaker financial capacities to make more substantial contributions for forces generation;
2011/10/24
Committee: AFET