Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
 Index 
 Full text 
Procedure : 2015/2343(INI)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A8-0042/2017

Texts tabled :

A8-0042/2017

Debates :

PV 15/03/2017 - 16
CRE 15/03/2017 - 16

Votes :

PV 16/03/2017 - 6.7

Texts adopted :

P8_TA(2017)0092

Debates
Wednesday, 15 March 2017 - Strasbourg Revised edition

16. Constitutional, legal and institutional implications of a Common Security and Defence Policy: possibilities offered by the Lisbon Treaty (debate)
Video of the speeches
PV
MPphoto
 

  Tamás Meszerics, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group . – Madam President, let me first of all thank all the rapporteurs for the work they put into this report; considerable innovative energy went into this. Sometimes I have the feeling that there is a little too much of this innovative energy.

We, in the Green Group, believe that the report is an important one; the aim of it is a very legitimate and crucial one for the time. Had it been about unleashing the full potential of the Lisbon Treaty in the field of security and defence, we would have been in full support. However, we feel – and I am sorry to say so – that this report is more of a missed opportunity in that regard.

(The President cut off the speaker due to a technical problem with interpretation)

I am sorry to our Italian colleagues for missing the first part. However, the idea that the EDA should be transformed into a sui-generis institution and, as such, be the nucleus of a potential European Minister of Defence is indeed a very controversial one. It would be an agency without transparency, parliamentary oversight, let alone control. We are in full support of centralisation; it makes sense in this field, but not in this way, without any accountability whatsoever. Secondly, we believe that, before committing large amounts of fresh money to defence and security, we should explore the full potential of efficiency gains through cooperation, and only after this should we consider additional funding that might be available through the European Union budget or from Member States. These are the main reasons why our Group is unable to support the report, even though we are committed to a stronger European common defence and security policy and there are many very good ideas in the report in general.

 
Last updated: 27 September 2017Legal notice