9 Amendments of Jens GEIER related to 2015/2258(INI)
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Notes that the EU and its Member States are by far the main funders of peace operations, while CSDP operations and missions represent only a small part of all funding; regretstakes note of the very modest nature of CSDP interventions, especially the military ones, consisting mainly of low- profile military training missions instead of substantial European contributions to peace-keeping and peace-enforcement;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Notes with concern that despite a combined yearly defence budget of some EUR 190 billion, the Member States are still unable to meet the 1999 Helsinki Headline Goals; recalls the ambitious civilian headline goals set by the EU; calls for the EU to be strengthened as an actor in defence, and regrets the lack of a clear military doctrine which operationalises the tasks listed in Article 43 TEU (the expanded ‘Petersberg tasks’); strongly advocates closer defence coordination and cooperation between Member States and at EU level, in particular pooling and sharing of resources, capabilities and assets;
Amendment 34 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that the level of funding for civilian CSDP missions under the CFSP chapter of the EU budget has declined over the past years and is expected to stay stable as part of the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020; regrets that civilian missions have been affected by the generalised shortfall of payment appropriations, obliging the Commission to delay the payment of EUR 22 million to 2015 as a mitigating measure; welcomes, however, that some EUR 16 million have been identified as possible savings, allowing further missions to be funded should the need arise in the near future; underscores the fact that expanded EU competences and more EU actions cannot be depicted as budget-neutral and that the MFF sets strict limits;
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Subheading 3
Subheading 3
Amendment 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 16
Paragraph 16
16. DeplorNotes, in this context, that the review of the Athena mechanism has not produced tangible results, and calls onthat the Council to deliver quickly on this issueis not encouraging this form of cooperation; supports, in particular, an expansion of the costs eligible under Athena, such as the pre-financing of certain costs or the strategic transport of EU battle groups; expects a final decision; expects progress on these issues at the next European Council on defence;
Amendment 103 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 17
Paragraph 17
17. Supports initiatives to explore the possibility of attracting and managing financial contributions from third countries or international organisations within Athena, but wWarns against any contribution by the EU budget which risks having a detrimental effect on the financing of civilian missions; also supports the option of ‘joint financing’, whereby a smaller number of participating countries would finance some operational costs of the missions, under the condition that their contributions are managed by Athena and supplement rather than replace the common costs;
Amendment 106 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 18
Paragraph 18
18. Recalls that the Lisbon Treaty provides the EU with new CSDP provisions which are yet untapped; encourages the Council to make use of Article 44 TEU, enabling a group of willing Member States to go ahead with the implementation of a CSDP task; takes the view that the ad hoc funding mechanisms for a military operation should cover more than the traditional common costs reimbursed by Athena;
Amendment 109 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
Amendment 117 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Stresses that transparency and accountability are essential requirements not only for democratic scrutiny but also for the adequate functioning, and the credibility, of missions carried out under the EU flag; welcomes the reporting mechanisms provided for by the interinstitutional agreement of 2 December 2013, such as the joint consultation meetings on CFSP and the quarterly reports on the CFSP budget; calls on the Commission to make an extensive interpretation of Article 49 (1) (g) of the Financial Regulation and to propose specific lines for each civilian CSDP mission under the CFSP chapter;