Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
MEPS WELCOMED NEW European defence spending measures in Strasbourg this morning and many asserted that the plan to boost military capability in member states was only a first step.
During a discussion in the European Parliament, MEPs from across the political spectrum welcomed the EU’s efforts to fill a potential gap in the continent’s defence as the US steps away from its long-held role as a security backstop.
Some MEPs said the European Commission’s €800bn plan did not go far enough and must be seen as the starting point in securing European military autonomy going forward.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said that the “time for illusions” was over, claiming that EU institutions and member states must come to realise that there is a need for a “surge” in defence spending on the continitent.
Von der Leyen last week announced plans to unlock €800bn for defence spending in advance of a gathering of European leaders in Brussels in response to the growing threat from Russia.
European leaders later backed the plan, which controversially included changes to borrowing limits and rules, meaning individual governments can receive loans from the EU’s financial institutions to finance defence spending.
It comes as the US under Donald Trump steps away from its traditional role as Europe’s security backup plan and casts doubt over the future capabilities for the EU to defend itself and support countries like Ukraine against aggression.
Regardless of these changing geopolitical contexts, Ireland must retain and stay committed to its neutrality, said both Fianna Fáil MEP Billy Kelleher and Sinn Féin MEP Kathleen Funchion.
Kelleher throughout his contribution said it was the position of the Irish government to fulfill and carry out the defence plan so that the EU is protected in the years to come, and will support other member states through non-lethal means.
Kelleher said Ireland would do this by supporting the measures included in the plan, but refrain from joining any military alliances or deterrent forces. He repeatedly quoted former Taoiseach Seán Lemass: “If it’s worth building, it’s worth defending.”
Funchion claimed, however, that the government is backsliding on Irish neutrality, and denounced measures to remove the need for a UN mandate from the so-called Triple Lock – the mechanism that is used to deploy Irish troops.
Funchion used her time in the Parliament to call for for a referendum on the matter in Ireland.
Questions still remain for Europe, according to European People’s Party President and German MEP Manfred Weber. He said the plan lacked requirements for European member states to act as one, through joint-purchasing and borrowing.
Weber questioned how the EU can behave as a cohesive entity if a representative has not been chosen to attend Ukraine peace negotiations. He queried just how effective the plan can be if it did not require member states to work together on joint projects.
Weber also demanded that the European Commission detail how much say the Parliament will have in defence decisions in the future, and if the EU will take up the French ‘nuclear shield’ offer.
Because of this, Weber said, the original treaties setting out the framework of the EU in 1952 and leading it to where it is today were more ambitious than what has been proposed by the Commission.
Other members questioned the European Commission’s commitment to the plan, claiming that von der Leyen’s €800bn price tag was overestimated, by a few hundred billion euros, as the EU has only committed €150bn to the pot.
This point was reiterated on a number of occasions during the three-hour debate this morning by different members from opposing political factions.
They questioned if the EU, as a single entity, was truly willing to support Europe’s defence or was it seeking to pass on the cost and effort to individual governments to borrow and make up the remaining €650bn.
Spanish leader of the Socialists and Democrats Iratxe García Pérez echoed these calls, telling the Parliament that while steps need to be taken to further secure and guarantee European defence capabilities, it should not just mean expanding the EU’s purse.
Pérez said spending rule changes should be paired with an increased focus on diplomacy and cooperation between member states and transatlantic partners. Separately, she said, defence spending should not come at the cost of social protection funding.
Patriots of Europe leader and French MEP Jordan Bardella accused von der Leyen and the previous Commission of leading Europe to the point where it had to take these measures, claiming leaders in the EU have not seen the importance of diplomacy.
The far-right politician cast doubt on the effectiveness of the plan, claiming von der Leyen’s political choices have “failed” the EU in the past. Though supporting peace in Ukraine, Bardella, a member of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally, said the EU needs a “clear priority” in relation to the war.
Leader of the European Conservative and Reformists, Italian right-wing MEP Nicola Procaccini, suggested a name change to von der Leyen’s ‘ReArm EU’- echoing the calls of his Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni.
He said the purpose of the EU’s plan was not to create a de-facto arms race or increase military capability, but to instead insure that the continent can defend itself from potential aggressors in the future.
Because of this, he asked von der Leyen to consider Meloni’s suggestion to name the plan ‘Defend EU’ so that the true aim of the plan is reflect, which he said was to preserve and protect peace and democracy within member states.
While political and legislative leaders come and go, he said, the West and the EU must remain a constant.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say