Seán Crowe (Dublin South West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

115. To ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade if his attention has been drawn to the questioning of the designate EU high representative and vice-president for foreign affairs and security policy Mr. Josep Borrell by the foreign affairs committee of the European Parliament; his views on his comments on the need to reinforce the military capacity of the EU and his desire to conduct overseas military missions by majority and to redivert the €10.5 billion European peace facility to pay for EU battlegroups to go into action; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [41744/19]

Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I look forward to working closely with Mr Borrell when he takes up duty on 1 November. His recent hearing covered a broad range of issues in varying levels of detail and, while interesting as indications of his thinking, can only be properly evaluated within the institutional context in which the EU and its Member States work.

The Treaty on the European Union stipulates that the Council adopts Common Foreign and Security Policy decisions by unanimity. While there are very limited circumstances in which Qualified Majority Voting (QMV) can be used, such as when appointing a Special Representative on the basis of a proposal by the High Representative/Vice President, the Treaty explicitly precludes decisions having military or defence implications from any such derogations. Under the Treaty therefore, EU military crisis management missions can only be approved by a unanimous decision of the Council.

With regard to the security-related aspects of Mr Borrell’s remarks, we understand them to refer in part to the European Defence Fund, but primarily to the proposed European Peace Facility, which remains under discussion at technical working group level in Brussels. Many aspects of the proposal remain unresolved in the technical discussions which are taking place in advance of any political decision on establishment of such a Facility. Such a decision is for the Council to make by unanimity.

One of the specific issues which has not been agreed among Member States is the proposal to expand the share of costs from military CSDP operations which would be funded in common, rather than directly by the troop contributing State. As to the overall level of spending envisaged, the outgoing High Representative/Vice President proposed that the European Peace Facility should have a budget of €10.5 billion over seven years. However, this budget would include all aspects of the proposed new European Peace Facility, including the incorporation into it of other existing EU initiatives which are currently funded through other mechanisms including, for instance, the African Peace Facility which funds important work by the African Union in preventing and resolving conflict on that continent. The proposed figure of €10.5 billion over seven years has not been agreed by Member States. Many Member States, including Ireland, would regard this figure as excessive.