Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Basics of PESCO
Work is now underway by the participating nations of each individual PESCO project
to define objectives and timelines for each project. An update is expected at the next
meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 19-20 November 2018.
In May 2018 a call for new project proposals was also issued by the PESCO
Secretariat. Following a 6-month period of assessment, the next set of PESCO
projects is expected to be formally adopted by the Council in November 2018.
The conditions under which third party states may be invited to participate in
individual PESCO projects are currently under consideration, with a Decision, in
principle, to be adopted in November and formally agreed at the European Council in
December 2018.
Position of the UK
The UK Government did not sign the Join Notification on 13 November 2017. As such
it will remain outside of PESCO. In doing so the UK will have no decision making
rights over PESCO governance or any veto over the future strategic direction of
PESCO, which has been openly acknowledged as greater EU integration in the field of
defence.
Post-Brexit the Government has indicated its preference for third party participation in
mutually beneficial PESCO projects, determined on a case-by case basis, to remain as
an option. The UK has already expressed an interest in a Dutch-led project on military
mobility, which complements efforts currently underway on this issue within NATO.
However, the terms of third party participation are for the participating PESCO states
to determine, which the UK will have to find acceptable.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/31511/171113-pesco-notification.pdf
Commissioner Rosenworcel’s full dissent to the net neutrality repeal issued the
following statement- “So many people rightfully believe Washington is not listening to
their concerns, fears, 2018-11-15
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1214/DOC-
348261A6.pdf
UK 'keen to support' French plan for European military ... The UK is backing a French plan to create a
European military intervention force separate to the EU's PESCO pact as a way to maintain strong
defense ties with the European Union after Brexit
https://thedefensepost.com/2018/05/05/uk-france-european-military-intervention-support/
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/32000/st14866en17.pdf
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/32020/draft-pesco-
declaration-clean-10122017.pdf
The United States and Europe- Current Issues Security Policy (CFSP)
and Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP).2 Meanwhile, NATO
remains the preeminent security institution of the Euro-Atlantic
community. Given the United States’ leading role in the Atlantic
alliance,
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22163.pdf
Debates - Wednesday, 30 May 2001 - Treaty of Nice and
the ...
Treaty of Nice and the future of the European Union (2001/2022(INI))
Committee on Constitutional Affairs
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?
pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A5-2001-
0168+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN
Madam President, Madam President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, four years ago, when I had the honour of
presenting the statement on the Treaty of Amsterdam to this Parliament, together with my friend Dimitri Tsatsos, I ended that
speech by recalling the words of Miguel de Cervantes who, when old and tired and weary of life, said that there were times
when one had to chose between the road or the inn, between moving forward and staying put, and I said: ‘we must chose the
road, we must move ahead’. Amsterdam is one more step in that direction. I remember that the Commissioner, our good
friend Marcelino Oreja, replied to me with more words from Miguel de Cervantes, telling us of the sorcerers, who can deprive
us of everything, but never of our hope.
Does the Treaty of Nice, therefore, represent that hope which the European Parliament had put its faith in? The answer is
clear: no, it is not what the European Parliament was asking for, because the European Parliament wanted a thoroughgoing
reform of the institutions; because the European Parliament wanted to prepare the Union for enlargement; because the
European Parliament wanted to deal with the problems of concern to the citizens. The truth, however, is that the
governments, which control the agenda at an Intergovernmental Conference, took a different decision and the agenda was,
therefore, not the one the European Parliament wanted.
The Treaty of Nice has not resolved many of these issues. It has only resolved some of them, satisfactorily in some cases
and insufficiently in others. I believe that the merit of this resolution – if it has any – and of this report that Antonio Seguro and
myself are presenting, is that it is a balanced document, which reflects that nature of a Parliament which is no longer merely
there to provide impetus but is now a co-decision maker. A co-decision-making Parliament means a responsible Parliament
and, therefore, a Parliament which has to do things in a balanced way.
I would like to pay tribute to all the members of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs who have worked extremely hard to
reach a consensus, starting with its Chairman, Giorgio Napoletano, and also my good friend, Antonio Seguro, who has not
only been a solid and intelligent contributor, but also an honest one.
We are, therefore, talking about a balanced document, in which we explain what we do not like and what we want to see
modified in the future, because agreements, and the Treaty of Nice is an agreement, do not last forever – forever is no more
than an adverb of time – and are liable to be reformed. The Treaty of Nice itself contains the seed of such a reform. I believe
that this resolution looks to the future, towards that Declaration No 23, which lays down the basis for reform.
In this constructive spirit, we wanted to help the Swedish Presidency, with which we have had much contact over the last few
months, so that this European Council in Gothenburg may show us the future of the European Union through the responses
of its institutions.
Madam President, we want to see national committees set up in all the Member States so that the people may hold a
genuine debate, not a phoney one, and in that way we will discover what the citizens want of Europe in the future.
This Parliament also wishes to see the Intergovernmental Conferences prepared by means of a democratic method. We
believe that the convention that drafted the Charter on Fundamental Rights should provide the model for this democratic
method. Today, when we are seeing so many proposals from different people, all on the convention – which is a positive start
– I would say that what the European Parliament wants is a convention based on the model of the convention which drafted
the Charter of Fundamental Rights: on that one and none other; because that model was shown to be successful and it
brought together various authorities in order to achieve the desired result.
On the basis of the convention model, we want the result of that convention also to be the role played by the governments in
the Intergovernmental Conference. We are going to make constitutional proposals, and we must not be afraid of the term
‘constitutional’ because, when we talk of competences or institutional structure, we are talking about constitutional issues.
The result we are seeking is a European Constitution, and I wish to make this completely clear, a European Constitution
which makes everybody’s competences absolutely clear and, above all, makes it clear what each institution does within the
institutional structure. We want this to be ready before 2004, before the European Parliament elections, so that the political
groups in this House can go into these elections defending our choices.
Madam President, I believe – and I recall my initial comments – that this is a path of hope. We are facing the Europe of the
euro, the Europe of enlargement, and it is up to us whether this is a path of hope or a path which leads us to a situation of
stalemate in the European Union, which none of us want to see. I therefore want this resolution to make a constructive
contribution to this road of hope becoming ever broader and our becoming ever more European.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?
pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20010530+ITEM-
005+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=MT
SAYS ‘ Irish people do not have clear concerns which they want
addressed before any further referendum on the Treaty of Nice. The
majority want assurances that Ireland's traditional military neutrality
will be fully protected BY EU
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?
pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+CRE+20020612+ITEM-
001+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN#top
The deal is part of a push from Germany and France for enhanced
defense cooperation and follows the announcement in June of a €5.5
billion ($6.4 billion) European Defence Fund.
The states participating are: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic,
Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,
Italy, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden.
On November 13, 23 states signed a joint notification on PESCO, while
Ireland and Portugal signalled their intent to join the defense
cooperation pact on December 7, leaving Denmark, Malta and the U.K.
as the only current E.U. members outside the deal.
Ireland’s decision to join PESCO is controversial. Opposition
lawmakers criticised the government, saying the allotted two hours
parliamentary debate on the decision was minimal and warned that
Ireland’s perceived neutral status could be further undermined.
Others argueit is contrary to the Irish Constitution, which says that the
state will not adopt a common E.U. defense where such a defense would
include the participation of the state.
The council decision establishing PESCO sets out a list of commitments
by members, including “regularly increasing defence budgets in real
terms in order to reach agreed objectives,” as well as its governance,
administrative arrangements and a list of 17 proposed initial projects in
training, capability development and operational readiness.
The projects are expected to be adopted by the Council in early 2018,
the release said, and include a network of logistic hubs; military
mobility; a deployable military disaster relief capability; an armoured
infantry fighting vehicle, amphibious assault vehicle and light armoured
vehicle; and indirect fire support (EuroArtillery).
The logistic hubs and military mobility – dubbed the “military
Schengen” – is a long-held goal of NATO and some E.U. member
states. The European Commission on November 10 said that it along
with EU High Representative and Vice President Federica Mogherini
will propose a plan on military mobility in Europe by March 2018.
https://www.kildarestreet.com/committ
ees/?id=2016-11-03a.57
Militarisation of Ireland’s Foreign and
Defence Policy: A Decade of Betrayal,
and the Challenge of Renewal
European Security and Defence Identity which the EU‟s Rapid Reaction Force
is intended to express”.75 During the first attempt to secure a ‗yes‘ vote on
the Nice Treaty in Ireland – in 2001 – attention was focussed by Afri and others on
the militaryimplications of the Treaty
https://www.scribd.com/document/34112893/The-Militarisation-of-Ireland-s-Foreign-and-Defence-
Policy
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/S
ummary/CBP-8149
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-1508_en.htm
https://ec.europa.eu/docsroom/documents/23605
BBC
Copyright: BBC
Asked by BBC News whether the Leave
campaign told lies, former UKIP leader Nigel
Farage said there had been "50 years of lies"
from the EU over it being a common market,
then a political union and then having a
European army.
"We are used to lies," he said.
"What we argued for in the referendum is the
United Kingdom should become an
independent country, and independent
countries make their own laws, control their
own borders and choose their own friends in
the world, and nothing about that has
changed."
He said Brexit "must not be seen to be
tarnished by a prime minister who simply never
believed in it".
"There is only one thing to do with this, the
worst deal in history, and that is to put it in the
bin."
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-
political/files/draft_withdrawal_agreement_0.pdf