Archive: https://ghostarchive.org/archive/zRSLH

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.

  • Micha Dettwiler@swiss.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    @misk
    This law was introduced after a public vote, independent of the war in Ukraine. We were tired of our weapons ending up in the really shady corners of the world, including militant groups that may kill thousands of innocent and unarmed people.

    Selling arms to anyone goes against our neutrality, at least what’s left of it.

    Even if we have an obvious aggressor attacking Ukraine, we can’t start making exceptions, because how can we remain neutral if we start selling arms to one side only?

    • miskOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      deleted by creator

      • Micha Dettwiler@swiss.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        @misk We are still selling arms because once upon a time we were the fourth largest arms exporter per capita, but since then we are already seeing the fruits of that law as our arms industry is in decline despite the current international arms boom. The reason is obvious. What country would want to buy arms and ammunition from a supplier who is obliged by law to stop deliveries if the buyer becomes involved in war?