Close Menu
    Europa

    Ursula von der Leyen afferma che i prestiti di difesa dell’UE € 150 miliardi dovrebbero essere spesi in Europa

    Share.
    View 27 Comments

    27 commenti

    1. ricka_lynx on

      Article text:

      >EU member states will not be able to spend €150bn of new funding for defence on US weapons, as Brussels seeks to rapidly increase the continent’s security while also developing its domestic arms industry.

      >The European Commission has proposed borrowing the €150bn worth of loans against the EU budget for member states to spend on weapons, as part of a push by European capitals to rapidly increase their defence capabilities in response to Donald Trump’s return as US president.

      >“These loans should finance purchases from European producers, to help boost our own defence industry,” commission president Ursula von der Leyen told the European parliament on Tuesday.

      >That means the cash would only be spent on weapons from EU nations and other like-minded European countries such as the UK, Norway and Switzerland, said officials briefed on her thinking.

      >The loans-for-weapons concept was given political backing by EU leaders last week. Von der Leyen has said she will present a full legal proposal before another summit of EU leaders next Thursday.

      >It will require support from a qualified majority of countries — representing 55 per cent of nations in the bloc and 65 per cent of its population — to be implemented.

      >It is unclear how many countries will access the funding, which will benefit member states whose cost of borrowing is higher than the EU’s, if it is agreed.

      >Trump’s threats to end US security protection for European Nato members and his decisions to suspend military aid to Ukraine and rekindle ties with Russia have spooked allies who fear they can no longer depend on Washington.

      >Von der Leyen’s “buy European” qualification comes as France and Germany tussle over how EU budget cash for defence can be spent.

    2. Titanius_Angelsmyth on

      “strategic autonomy” is the goal indeed.

      Everything else is like kicking the can down the road.

    4. Tartan_Smorgasbord on

      Should Turkey be included? I would like to think so, they have invested heavily in their defence manufacturing and companies like Baykar and TAI could fill capability gaps.

    6. Specific-Fig-2351 on

      Does this rule out BAE systems as its a UK company which isn’t in the EU but they have some good kit and they are also in the fight against the protection of Europe, urkaine. UK has alot of other defence companies as well.

    7. SraminiElMejorBeaver on

      Finally a big good step, hopefully contry like Turkey is not included (even tho with their cooperation with leonardo and the purchase of the italian company might lead them to get some).

      Turkey is a rival, not an ally nor an ennemy, like South Korea or USA, we dont have at all the same vision of things as them in a large way and should make our industry able to compete against theirs.

    10. Hikuro93 on

      I mean, yeah. Obviously.

      Sad that she must even clarify that for those thinking of taking the easy path and contributing to the problem by buying from the people we are trying to detach from, and who have several times put restrictions on how we use the equipment we purchase.

      Not only that, the only reason the US insists on defense spending of other nations is because they largely benefit from it as major sellers of defense. While other nations, specially EU and Canada, focus our spending on elevating quality of life, such as better food and living conditions – something the US is known for not doing in many fields.

      No nation is better and superior to all others in every way, priorities and compromises have to be made. And much like the EU chose to spend more on QoL than defense, the US chose to spend more on defense than QoL.

      Starve them of our business and disincentivize them from benefitting from conflicts worldwide. They made their bed, let them lie in it now.

    11. Ok_Sheepherder_9985 on

      I hope to one day see the European Union as a single independent country, with ALL territories (example: Greenland, New Caledonia, French Guiana, among others).

    13. BerpBorpBarp on

      Good decision, buying US weapons systems that contain a kill switch is both making them rich and sabotaging ourselves

    14. Genocode on

      Should’ve excluded Switzerland, they will just block transactions in the name of their fake neutrality.

    17. ProfBerthaJeffers on

      🟦🟦🟦⬜⬜⬜🟥🟥🟥
      🟦🟦🟦⬜⬜⬜🟥🟥🟥
      🟦🟦🟦⬜⬜⬜🟥🟥🟥
      🟦🟦🟦⬜⬜⬜🟥🟥🟥
      Says thank you.

    18. FinancialSurround385 on

      I agree with keeping it in Europe, but do we have enough to offer at this point? What about South Korea for instance..?

    19. ReeeeeDDDDDDDDDD on

      Really hope that the UK is considered as a key recipient of all this defence spending, it would be great for our economy and for local communities.

      If it’s just spent within the EU then we’d be seriously missing out.

    22. Namelis1 on

      F35 death machine disable ejection seat turn off engine fall out of the sky. ☠️😂🙏

      Why yes, I did have a coherent and well reasoned out take on this matter, but why bother? Buy European.

    24. Reasonable-Aerie-590 on

      Are we still having this conversation? Of course it must be spent here

    25. Imaginary_Dingo_ on

      I find it hilarious how UD defense stocks have been going up recently with the news that Europe plans to arms itself, all the while Trump talks about decreasing military spending. It’s like they haven’t clued in that they won’t be benefitting from that increase in spending.

    Leave A Reply