Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-11-15-Speech-3-286"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2006-11-15"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:The implementation of the European Security Strategy in the context of the ESDP (continuation of debate)2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20061115.21.3-286"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-11-15-Speech-3-2872
lpv:speaker	lp:Geoffrey Van Orden2
lpv:spoken text	"Madam President, I have consistently opposed EU meddling in the defence sphere. European countries are responsible for their security through their own efforts individually and through NATO collectively, and that is how it should remain. The European Union has moved on to defence territory, not because it adds defence capabilities, because it does not, but because there are those who wish to see the EU acquire more State-like attributes and become a global actor, pursuing its own distinct foreign policy objectives. To do this, it wants the full range of foreign policy instruments at its disposal, including armed forces. This report, however, goes well beyond the immediate ambitions of even those who drive ESDP at the moment. It advocates a Security and Defence Union and wants the EU to have its own defence budget. Heaven help us if those responsible for the common agricultural policy, the common fisheries policy and all the interfering and counterproductive over-regulation of our lives were to have a role in organising our defence. These unacceptable proposals for a Security and Defence Union, for an EU defence budget, are enough in themselves to ensure the opposition of the British Conservative delegation, but the international context in which this report is being debated makes it doubly objectionable. NATO is currently engaged in a vital operation in Afghanistan. It is no exaggeration to say that the success of this mission is indispensable to NATO’s future and to our own long-term security. The Alliance has repeatedly called for reinforcement of this Afghanistan mission with combat troops, tactical lift helicopters and indeed with forward civil reconstruction efforts to consolidate the military gains that are made. With some honourable exceptions, the response from European allies has been pitiful. I have no doubt in my own mind that ESDP is a distraction from NATO and is part of the problem. At this time of threat to the democracies, when solidarity is needed, it is disastrous for Europeans and Americans to have competing strategic visions, or indeed to have two defence organisations with overlapping membership, making competing claims on the same limited resources."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of South Asia and the South Asia Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) (2004-09-15--2007-03-13)3 vice-chair; AFET (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with the countries of south-east Europe (2004-09-28--2007-03-13)3 member; EPP-ED (2005-03-09--2009-07-13)3 member; SEDE (2004-07-21--2007-01-14)3 member; Delegation to the EU-Turkey Joint Parliamentary Committee (2004-09-15--2009-07-13)3 substitute; TRAN (2004-07-22--2007-01-14)3 unknown; Conservative and Unionist Party (2004-07-20--2009-07-13)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE ). –"1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph