Traduction de «Joueur avancé en défense » (Français → Anglais) :

22. Notes that while the growing importance of dual-use technologies offers benefits in terms of synergies between the defence sector and commercial production, it also makes it dependent on civilian supply chains, which often base their production outside Europe; requests information from the Commission and the EDA on the possible risks of growing internationalisation and the possible effects that changes in ownership in the defence sector may have on the security of supply and also the heightened risks for European and national security, including to the EU's digital infrastructure; calls on the Commission to inform Parliament in due ...[+++] time on the status of the Green Paper on the control of defence and sensitive security industrial assets which it had announced for the end of 2014, and requests information on the outcome of the announced stakeholder consultations;

9. Laments cases of corruption and match-fixing in sport, which harm the integrity of sport for fans and threaten the economic contribution from sport; calls, therefore, for the establishment of effective cooperation measures at EU level for the defence of integrity and fair play in sport consistent with Articles 6, 83 and 165 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, between sports event organisers, online betting operators and public authorities, for the purpose of promoting player education and coordinating action against fraud and corruption in sport by sharing information and expertise and by applying a common definit ...[+++]ion of offences and sanctions – including criminal sanctions – for sports fraud;

7. Notes that the absence of a common defence industrial policy has led to considerable fragmentation of the defence market in terms of demand and supply, regulations and standards; recognises that a common defence industrial policy makes sense economically to reinforce the role of the European Union on the global scale and maintain Europe’s technological capacity while still taking into account the specificities of each Member State; believes therefore that European defence industrial policy should promote multidimensional cooperation for the benefit of the EU, outlining the main industrial objectives, mapping the comparative advantag ...[+++]es and strategic industrial sectors and emphasising the role of the European Defence Agency (EDA), one of main actors in defining European industrial policy, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) bodies in supporting cooperation among Member States; further recognises the need for the Defence Industrial Headline Goal 2030 to help coordinate the defence policies of the Member States; notes that cross-border and transatlantic industrial cooperation can facilitate access to new technologies, promote advanced product development and provide an incentive to seek effective measures to reduce costs and shorten the production cycle; notes that due to the financial crisis no EU defence industry can be viable on a national basis and that pursuing consolidation of the EU defence industry will lead to decreasing defence budgets;

We have not made any progress. We have made so little progress that work on one of the key elements of a defence policy, that of creating a European defence industry, has not just stopped, but has gone into reverse. We must be aware that Member States buy around 60% of their arms not from each other, but from the United States.

However much I am of the personal view – which I share with many of you – that we should take things further still, for example that, certainly in the field of European defence, we should have made much more progress by now, I still believe that we should underline this positive development.

The main arguments given against expanding the scope of eligible organisations are the limited funds available under the Action Programme, the few available sources within the Commission for providing financial support to European environmental NGOs, the increasing difficulty European NGOs experience in receiving funds at national and local level, and the fact that other groups (social, development, health, consumer and animal welfare groups, etc) are eligible for funding under other instruments.