4 Amendments of Laurence J.A.J. STASSEN related to 2013/2170(INI)
Amendment 58 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Draws attention to the approximation that the AMS is likely towill definitely be an extremely costly project and that it is unlikely that it wouldwill undoubtedly not fall within the scope of standard EU financing schemes; underlines, furthermore, that maintenance will increase costs in the long run; notes that the EU is expected tomust on no account be called upon to substantially contribute to the infrastructure, operations and maintenance costs of the AMS;
Amendment 79 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 15
Paragraph 15
15. Stresses that if the fifth phase of the AMS is ever concluded by the European Union, multiple key challenges must be met, considering that construction of the AMS would bring the EU closer to a defence union, therebywhich would changinge its strategic role unacceptably;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 19
Paragraph 19
19. Argues that the EU, in cooperation with NATO and possibly with Russia,NATO is capable of pooling resources and developing the AMS, thereby defending Europe against potential attacks from ‘rogue’ states or other state-like actors; points out that this approach would likely benefit all those involved;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 20
Paragraph 20
20. Argues that European anti-missile defence would require complex institutional arrangements that are currently not in existence; calls for a credible plan for an institutional framework in which the EU, NATO and non-NATO countries and Russia could work togethern immediate end to initiatives which would involve the EU participating in the development of an AMS;