VORSITZ: MARTIN SCHULZ
Präsident

(Die Sitzung wird um 9.05 Uhr eröffnet.)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, j'ai régulièrement attiré votre attention sur l'absence des relations politiques que notre Parlement avait avec le président du Conseil européen. J'ai écrit pour suggérer qu'il soit invité à cette réunion préparatoire pour que nous puissions scinder les aspects législatifs avec le Conseil des aspects politiques avec le président du Conseil européen.

Il y a longtemps que le président du Conseil européen ne vient plus rendre compte devant le Parlement européen, en application de l'article 15 du traité, et je le regrette parce que l'exercice que nous avons fait avec le président de la République française, hier, en vérité, c'était avec le président du conseil européen que nous aurions dû le faire. Je regrette qu'il n'ait pas accepté – mais peut-être n'a-t-il pas été invité – de venir débattre à la veille d'un Conseil européen important et qui doit négocier avec notre Parlement des perspectives financières.

Je vous serais très reconnaissant, Monsieur le Président, d'adresser au Président du Conseil européen la requête de venir nouer des relations politiques avec le Parlement européen. J'espère d'ailleurs qu'un jour vous pourrez, vous-même, assister à toutes les réunions du Conseil européen et que le président du Conseil européen vienne assister à nos réunions du Parlement.

  Der Präsident. − Herr Audy, der Präsident des Europäischen Rates – ich nehme an, Sie reden von Herrn Van Rompuy – ist immer eingeladen ins Europäische Parlament. Aber der Präsident des Europäischen Rates ist der Auffassung, dass seine Ansprechpartner die Regierungschefs sind und nicht das Europäische Parlament.

Ich habe ihm mehrfach mitgeteilt, dass wir da entschieden anderer Auffassung sind. Aber ich kenne in Ihrer Fraktion eine Reihe von Leuten, die Herrn Van Rompuy relativ nahestehen. Möglicherweise können Sie da noch einmal etwas den Druck verstärken, beim nächsten Treffen dort zu sagen: „Herman, komm ins Parlament, das ist besser.“ Ich selbst dränge ihn permanent und fordere ihn auch auf. Ich muss Ihnen allerdings auch mitteilen, dass rein rechtlich nicht Herr Van Rompuy der Ansprechpartner des Europäischen Parlaments ist, sondern Premierminister Kenny als amtierender Ratsvorsitzender. Nichtsdestotrotz sind die Regierungschefs aber der Auffassung, Herr Van Rompuy sei ihr Ansprechpartner. Sie sehen, wir haben noch viel Aufklärungsarbeit, auch über den Vertrag, im Europäischen Rat zu leisten.

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Abgesehen davon, dass ich diese Initiative wieder einmal voll unterstütze, heißt das, dass dann die Verhandlungen, die wir über das Budget zu führen haben, mit der irischen Ratspräsidentschaft geführt werden? Wenn Herr Van Rompuy nicht unser Ansprechpartner ist, dann ist eigentlich die irische Präsidentschaft unser Ansprechpartner für das Budget. Darf ich das so daraus schließen?

  Der Präsident. − Herr Swoboda, die Vertragslage ist eindeutig. Der Europäische Rat morgen und am Freitag beschließt eine politische Willensbildung. Die rein formale Beschlussfassung über den mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen erfolgt auf der Grundlage von Artikel 312 des Vertrags im Rat für Allgemeine Angelegenheiten – dessen amtierender Vorsitzender gerade den Saal betritt –, und dann wäre unser Verhandlungspartner Herr Premierminister Kenny. Sie sind darüber informiert, Herr Swoboda, ich habe das auch in der Konferenz der Präsidenten mehrfach gesagt. Ich habe übrigens auch bei den sogenannten Vierertreffen immer wieder darauf hingewiesen, dass der Ansprechpartner des Europäischen Rates eigentlich die irische Präsidentschaft ist. Die Verhandlungen mit den Regierungschefs führt aber Herr Van Rompuy. Das ist sicher eine nicht geklärte vertragliche Situation, über die man reden muss.

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgen die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zur Vorbereitung auf die Tagung des Europäischen Rates am 7. und 8. Februar 2013 (2012/2801(RSP)).

  Lucinda Creighton, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, the European Council which begins tomorrow evening has a very heavy agenda. First and foremost it must reach agreement on the all-important multiannual financial framework or MFF. This is essential if the EU is to have the resources and to provide a solid basis on which to plan and deliver the Union’s programmes. But there are other important issues on the agenda such as trade, the EU’s relations with our Southern Mediterranean partners in the context of the Arab Spring and of course the situation in Mali.

Let me begin with a few words on the MFF. The European Council will pick up the discussions on the future multiannual financial framework where they left off last November. We made good progress then, but not enough to reach a deal. We must reach agreement this week, and that will mean everyone having to make compromises.

A failure would risk undermining the stability of the Union because it would introduce considerable and unnecessary uncertainty with regard to future planning. It would set us back in terms of our capacity to do business at a time when we welcome some return in confidence.

President Van Rompuy has been working since November to see where differences can be bridged and compromises made. He will present the adjustments which he considers necessary to reach a deal. He has the full support of the Irish Presidency in doing so.

This takes place of course against the background of unprecedented circumstances. Europe has been experiencing one of its severest ever crises. We cannot escape the fact that we are trying to reach agreement on a future budget when every line of expenditure, both at European and at national level, is the subject of intense scrutiny. That is the reality facing the European Council.

And it is, of course, not just the European Council which is concerned. The Presidency, as well as the President of the European Council, is fully aware of the critical importance of this Parliament in these negotiations. It is a view which – contrary to what is sometimes claimed – is fully understood by those sitting around the European Council table. This is not just a matter of good institutional cooperation. There are concerns here in this Parliament which will have to be reflected in any agreement, if there is to be an agreement at all.

We know the importance you attach to a number of areas, some of which are factored into the draft currently on the table. Our understanding of the importance of your views is because we have been listening to you. There were regular close contacts with Parliament representatives throughout the Cyprus Presidency, and the Irish Presidency has continued that practice only this week in the margins of the General Affairs Council when the Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore and I met with Parliament’s MFF team on Monday, ahead of the meeting of the Council. In addition there were contacts on Monday at the highest level when President Schulz, Presidents Van Rompuy and Barroso, and the Taoiseach Enda Kenny also met on Monday morning. So no one can claim that we have not been listening.

Even if, as I think we should all want, the European Council reaches an agreement this week, our work of course does not stop there. As Presidency of the Council we will intensify our work with Parliament to try to ensure, in accordance with the Treaty, that the final legislation on the MFF is something to which Parliament is prepared to give its consent. Thereafter, we will be far from finished as we will need to continue our cooperation for the timely adoption of the relevant legislative instruments, in line with the procedures enshrined in the Treaty.

The MFF is probably the most important and urgent issue on this week’s agenda, but the European Council will also be addressing several other key topics, which I would like to mention briefly.

Firstly: trade. If the MFF is ultimately about delivering jobs and competitiveness, so is trade. So we must promote free, fair and open trade whilst at the same time asserting our interests. We need to work with global partners so that in the Round we secure mutual advantage.

An ambitious trade agenda can open up the prospect of a 2 % increase in growth and potentially the creation of over two million jobs in the medium term. Therein lies the obligation to pursue these opportunities.

While we remain committed to the further development of the multilateral trading system, our immediate focus has to be on developing bilateral trade relations. These can – and must – make a positive contribution to the multilateral system. By building on WTO rules and by promoting openness, the EU’s bilateral agreements will help pave the way for further progress at the multilateral level.

Given the need to prioritise those measures which have the potential to provide the most benefit in terms of jobs, the Union’s trade relationship with the United States is towards the top of the Irish Presidency’s agenda. We are eagerly awaiting the final completion of work by the EU-US High Level Group for Jobs and Growth, which is due to issue its recommendations shortly. There are strong expectations that we should aim high and that the level of ambition on both sides should be reflected in a recommendation for a comprehensive trade and investment agreement or FTA. It remains our firm intention to have a negotiating mandate approved by the Council, if possible during the period of our Presidency.

The European Council will also be assessing the momentous events which have taken place in our southern neighbourhood over the last two years. They will be looking at how to enhance EU support for the democratic and economic transition process in the region, and to explore further ways to strengthen the political dialogue with those countries in transition towards democracy. We share so much with our Southern Mediterranean partners. We must use the full range of tools at our disposal to ensure that we work together to establish an area of shared prosperity, based on the adherence to universal values, such as democracy, respect for human rights, the rule of law and gender equality.

In order to sustain our commitment to our Mediterranean partners, it is important that the High Representative and the Commission keep relations with our Southern Neighbourhood under review. The Council is expected to be invited to assess the effectiveness of the EU’s policies and instruments in assisting the political and economic transition of the region, and to report back by June 2013. During that time, we will, of course, continue to take account of the views in this House.

Finally, the European Council will take stock of developments in Mali, in particular the decisive action taken by Malian and African troops, supported by France, to restore the country’s territorial integrity and the authority of the Malian state. With regard to the political process, which is vital to finding a long-term solution to the crisis, the adoption of a roadmap for the transition by the Malian National Assembly is a fundamental and a very encouraging step. It is essential that the roadmap be implemented as quickly as possible.

Any one of these issues would constitute a heavy agenda for the European Council. Together they mean that we begin this year with a meeting which is charged with particularly significant responsibilities, both for the EU internally, its prospects for economic growth and stability, as well as its relationship with the wider world.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, before it was decided to focus this European Council meeting on the multiannual financial framework (MFF), following the failure to reach agreement in November, it was originally intended to be devoted to two issues of strategic importance to the European Union – first, our external trade policy and second, our Southern Neighbourhood.

Trade is making a vital contribution to our economic recovery. In 2012, external demand was the main source of growth for the European economy. It contributed almost an extra 1% of EU GDP, with about 30 million jobs in Europe depending on our exports. We are by far the world’s largest trading power and we use our weight to shape world trade so as to reap the maximum benefits from globalisation, but if we are to benefit as fully as possible we must pursue a strategic, forward-looking approach to our international trade relations. If we are to achieve this, we must be proactive and ambitious. We must preserve and reinforce the multilateral system that has served Europe and the world for 60 years but, as a complement to it, we must also look to deepen our bilateral trade and investment relations.

We have concluded many bilateral agreements and are working towards others. To mention a few: we have already implemented a landmark Free Trade Agreement with Korea; negotiations with Singapore have been completed; and we expect to complete negotiations with Canada in the near future, with, we hope, India to follow. We will shortly start negotiations on a free trade agreement with Japan and we are looking at the possibility of such an agreement with the United States. I have been exploring this directly with President Obama and the United States administration for some time and I am sure that a transatlantic free trade agreement will bring even greater benefits from our single most important economic relationship.

These strategic partnerships are vital to our economic future, but realising the opportunities will require a clear vision of our long-term interests, as well as the capacity to manage complex negotiations, and the necessary trade-offs. All this can be done effectively, but it requires the ability to speak with one voice and to engage our partners constructively.

Of course, while the European Union as a whole is doing well in terms of global trade, some Member States and regions are doing better than others. We need to address these issues in our economic and structural policies, particularly in the framework of the ongoing reforms for competitiveness. We must also ensure that our commitment to open markets will continue to be underpinned by our capacity to act against anti-competitive trade practices via the appropriate trade instruments.

Yesterday we spoke with President Hollande about the situation in Mali. I will not go over that ground today, but I would like to say a few words about our Southern Neighbourhood because delivering on our commitments to our Mediterranean partners remains a top political priority. Let me be very clear: our external credibility will largely be judged by our capacity to act with our partners in the region to jointly shape the common neighbourhood.

The situation on the ground varies. Democracy will not come overnight and the path to achieving it will not be a straight one. The mass movements across the region were about desire for democracy and freedom. We will continue to support these ideals so as to prevent extremist forces hijacking the political transitions that are under way. We will be especially attentive to the observance of fundamental rights, notably the rights of women.

Directly after the outbreak of the uprisings, the European Union adopted a comprehensive and ambitious support package. In the past two years we have mobilised EUR 600 million of fresh funding for programmes in the region. We have enlarged the European Investment Bank mandate and modified that of the EBRD, opening up an additional EUR 2 billion in funding. We have proposed an ambitious trade and mobility agenda and concrete sectoral support.

However, the political uncertainty has limited our partners’ capacity to benefit from the full potential of what we are offering. Tunisia has held elections and approved a new Constitution without major turmoil – the President of Tunisia will be with you in this House later today to discuss the progress his country has made – but in Egypt the process of transition continues to be polarised. In Libya there are still security concerns and, of course, we have the extremely dramatic situation in Syria. Syria remains a stain on the world’s conscience. In response to the humanitarian crisis there, the Commission has increased its support by EUR 100 million, bringing the total to EUR 200 million, but humanitarian aid is not enough. As I have said before, the international community has a responsibility to stop the bloodshed.

In the months to come, the Commission will seek to deepen our economic relations by launching negotiations for a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with Morocco, Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan, and by signing Mobility Partnerships with Morocco, Tunisia and Jordan. We will also draft a roadmap for the establishment of an EU-Southern Mediterranean Energy Community and we will develop projects with the region on transport, environment, water and rural development.

Nor will we neglect civil society. We will intensify our support and extend measures which directly touch people’s lives, for example by doubling the Erasmus Mundus and Tempus scholarships for the countries in transition among our southern Mediterranean partners. This is a joint endeavour that can only be successful if the European institutions – this Parliament and the Commission, together with its European External Action Service – work hand in hand with our Member States.

This is a historic opportunity for democracy and freedom. We can try and fail, but we should not fail to try.

The discussions in the European Council tomorrow and on Friday on the MFF mark an important moment for Europe, but so too does our debate here in Parliament today. The Lisbon Treaty changed the way the MFF is decided, requiring the consent of the European Parliament, given by a majority of its competent Members. This point – the role of the European Parliament – is one which I highlighted at the last European Council discussion on the MFF and also in my bilateral contacts in the run-up to this week’s meeting. Just last Monday, at a meeting I organised in Brussels and to which I invited EP President Schulz, European Council President Van Rompuy and also Taoiseach Enda Kenny, as President-in-Office of the Council, I made this point in a very clear way.

The Commission hopes that the Heads of State and Government will be able to come to a political agreement that will form the basis from which the Council can obtain the consent of the European Parliament. So today, I appeal to all Heads of State and Government to bridge their differences and come to Brussels in a spirit of compromise and European responsibility, so that this political agreement can be found. Further delays will send out a very negative message at this time of fragile economic recovery. The risk is that positions will harden and that the differences will be even more difficult to overcome. That is why we are actively working for an agreement which addresses the needs and priorities of the European Union and ensures that the financial means are made available for it to fulfil its legal obligations.

We must not forget that the European Union budget – despite its relatively small size at around 1% of EU GDP – is the most important instrument at European level for investment, and investment is a vital and integral element of our agenda for growth and competitiveness, notably but not only in the most vulnerable countries and regions. Yes, we need stable public finances and, yes, we need deep structural reform for competitiveness, but European investment is also needed, especially in areas where a euro invested at European level adds more value than a euro invested nationally.

The crisis is far from over and our MFF is also an indispensable part of our response to both the economic and the social crisis. For many of our Member States the support they receive from the Union budget is essential if they are to have a chance of beating the crisis – in other words, it determines whether those countries will have a real opportunity to invest for growth and jobs.

The MFF is also an expression of solidarity. There are Member States that simply do not have the resources to support their local workers when a company decides to move its plant elsewhere. There are some Member States which do not even have the resources to take care of the most deprived. Do you want these people and these societies to turn their backs on Europe?

The same goes for the 25 million young unemployed people in the European Union. I want to make an appeal to the Heads of State and Government not to miss this opportunity of using the European budget to fight youth unemployment. We have a chance to take the right decisions, to offer our young men and women the prospect of a life in dignity. I want us to build on various Commission initiatives to fight youth unemployment: for instance, the orientation and reprogramming of the structural funds in eight Member States most affected by youth unemployment, and also our proposal for a Youth Guarantee. We should use the MFF to support these and similar measures.

Last month, I mentioned this idea in the joint meeting with the European Parliament and national parliaments. I expressed the hope that Member States meeting this week in the European Council could support our ambition to identify tangible measures that can be rapidly implemented and will make a difference. A youth employment initiative would be a powerful signal of solidarity and of value added at European level. It is critically important that such an initiative enters into force as soon as possible.

The MFF is also of vital importance in enabling the European Union to remain one of the most competitive regions in the world by implementing Europe 2020 which – let us not forget – was agreed by all our Member States. For this, we need to provide financial resources for world-class research and innovation, and we need to have in place the most modern infrastructure so as to exploit to the full the potential of our single market.

Most Heads of State and Government will naturally be focusing on their national priorities and on what they see as their national envelopes, and I have to tell you that, in my experience, most of the governments have more to say about their national envelopes than about the European perspective. Since that is the case, I will fight hard to preserve the European dimension of our budget: for instance, Horizon 2020 for research, the Connecting Europe facility, the programme for the Competitiveness of enterprises and SMEs (COSME), and ERASMUS for All. Of course, I will also underline the need for the social dimension, with appropriate funding not only for the European Social Fund and the youth employment initiative but also for the Globalisation Adjustment Fund and the programme of aid for the most deprived.

For all these reasons we believe it is important to have an MFF, but not every agreement is a good agreement. We need a constructive agreement reflecting the commitments that Heads of State and Government have made in the past to growth and investment at European level, to competitiveness and to implementing our agreed Europe 2020 agenda.

At the same time, we need to respect the commitments we have made to strong support for cohesion – territorial, social and economic cohesion – and also to the common agricultural policy.

Last, but certainly not least, for thousands and thousands of people in the poorest parts of the world, the MFF, with its development and humanitarian aid funds, is the difference between life and death. Moreover, our external relations budget goes a long way to determining the leverage the European Union will have in many parts of the world. That is another reason for paying attention to the external relations part of our budget – at least for those who believe that the EU should be present and strong in the world of the 21st century.

Mr President, honourable Members, my position has always been to strike the right balance between ambition and realism: and that is what the original proposal by the Commission stands for. I will do all I can to retain a level of ambition in the final agreement. However, it is clear that any agreement between the Heads of State and Government will, unfortunately, be less than the Commission and this Parliament would hope for.

Under these circumstances it is even more vital that the quality of the budget is ensured. To achieve that, the agreement must address a number of concerns on issues such as flexibility, own resources and a robust review mechanism. I am sure these things are very important in view of the required consent of this Parliament.

Flexibility can apply in many different ways. Most importantly, we need to have the possibility of moving unspent amounts from one year to the next, and also to have flexibility between the various budget headings. Nobody can predict the kind of challenges the European Union will be facing in two, three or four years from now, and for which it might need to mobilise funding.

Moreover, it would be only logical, within a seven-year financial framework, to have a clause in the MFF allowing us to take stock at mid-term and to see whether adjustments are necessary. Finally, I hope – and I will make a strong case for this at the European Council – that the next MFF will pave the way for, and launch the process towards, reform of our own resources system.

Mr President, honourable Members, I have set out the very difficult and challenging environment in which we are discussing the next MFF. I continue to believe that an agreement is possible. I still hope that, with the spirit of European responsibility, it will be possible to have an MFF which responds to the challenges that the European Union faces. Let us work together for this to happen.

  Joseph Daul, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, cher Martin, Madame la Présidente du Conseil, Monsieur le Président de la Commission, hier, lors du débat avec le président Hollande, nous avons dit très clairement ce que nous attendons du Conseil.

Ce que nous voulons, d'abord, c'est un budget réaliste, qui continue d'être un ressort d'investissement et de croissance qui maintienne nos politiques communes. Nous sommes dans une enceinte réaliste, constructive et responsable. Nous avons besoin de la flexibilité entre les années et entre les lignes budgétaires. C'est une approche de bon sens qui doit nous permettre d'utiliser nos ressources financières.

Nous tenons aussi à une clause de révision, qui doit nous permettre de revoir le cadre financier dans deux ou trois ans. Il est très clair que nous n'accepterons jamais un budget d'austérité pour sept ans. Le faire, ce serait baisser les bras et croire à une crise sans fin. Je n'ose croire que les États membres soient pessimistes à ce point.

C'est forts de ce même sens des responsabilités que nous appelons à doter le budget européen de ressources propres. Nous en avons longuement débattu hier. Nous ne pouvons pas continuer à passer d'une mauvaise négociation à une autre. En tant que responsables politiques, nous comprenons et nous vivons les réalités économiques. Mais notre responsabilité, elle est aussi surtout vis-à-vis de nos concitoyens et à l'endroit de nos traités.

Les États membres transfèrent toujours plus de compétences à l'Europe. Dans leurs déclarations, ils sont très ambitieux pour l'Europe et, dans le même débat, ces mêmes États gèlent et diminuent les moyens qui permettent à l'Union européenne d'exercer ses missions. C'est le meilleur moyen de détruire à petit feu l'Union européenne et ça, nos concitoyens ne nous le pardonneraient pas.

Ce Parlement est colégislateur et responsable. Nous n'avons pas uniquement le droit de dire "oui". Nous avons le droit de dire "oui" ou "non" à ce budget. Et si les propositions chiffrées – et je l'ai expliqué dans le détail technique hier – dont nous disposons en ce moment sont celles qui sont adoptées par le Conseil cette semaine, je dirai "non". Non, parce qu'elles sont un mauvais choix pour les Européens. Certes, j'entends déjà ceux qui crieront à l'irresponsabilité. Je leur répondrai simplement que ce qui est irresponsable, justement, c'est de prévoir des crédits de paiement inférieurs aux crédits d'engagement.

Je pense que quand même, là, nous avons vraiment une bonne raison de dire non. Ce schéma nous conduirait à un déficit budgétaire. Nous n'allons tout de même pas demander à l'Union européenne de reproduire les erreurs qui ont plongé nos différents pays dans une crise économique. Ce n'est pas une question de plafonnement. Je crois vraiment que, sur ce sujet, nous avons, dans ce Parlement, le devoir de dire "non".

Mon groupe croit en la méthode communautaire. L'Europe, c'est un projet politique pour plusieurs générations qui, en plus des États, garantit la sécurité. Nous sommes responsables et je voudrais le rappeler. Je ne critique pas les chefs d'État et de gouvernement mais, autour d'eux, leurs services, qui nous traitent d'irresponsables. J'en ai encore eu les preuves hier. Nous sommes aussi responsables que les fonctionnaires qui sont dans les différents gouvernements.

Je voudrais vous dire aussi que le Conseil devra respecter le traité et l'article 310. Ces décisions prises derrière des portes closes, pardon de le dire, me donnent parfois l'impression qu'elles méprisent la valeur ajoutée européenne et le bien commun. Quand j'entends les négociations actuellement en cours, j'ai l'impression d'être au marché. Ma chère Lucinda, tu dois en souffrir fortement. Quand je regarde cela, ce n'est pas une politique ni une vision européenne, c'est un marché où chacun vient chercher sa carotte et son petit pois.

Nous sommes déterminés. Nous sommes des gens responsables et capables de discuter avec vous des enjeux de l'avenir. Nous sommes prêts à la négociation, mais à une véritable négociation. 890 milliards de paiements, ce sont 890 milliards qui sont réellement garantis par les chefs d'État et de gouvernement. Cela ne correspond pas à 960 milliards d'engagements. Avec les 16 milliards qui ne sont pas encore trouvés pour équilibrer 2012, cela fait 86 milliards de déficit sur les sept ans. On est où?

Si c'est la seule chose qui ressort du sommet, ce sont des rabais non négociables et cela non plus, nous ne l'accepterons pas. Ce sont des politiques communes, ce sont des investissements, c'est la sécurité. Là, je répondrai à M. Cameron: chiche! Gardons le budget annuel, mettons tout sur la table et discutons de quelle politique européenne nous voulons pour les cinquante prochaines années. Et pendant un an ou deux, nous allons rediscuter ensemble, entre le Parlement, le Conseil et les États-nations, des politiques et du financement dont nous avons besoin. Je fais ce pari et le Parlement participera.

Comme vous le savez, les États ne peuvent pas tout mais, il y a soixante ans – et c'est pour cela que je me bats –, les pères fondateurs se sont battus pour faire de l'Europe un projet de paix durable. Soyons aussi visionnaires qu'eux et n'hésitons pas, au niveau du Parlement, à relancer ce vrai débat. Nous en avons le pouvoir et nous devons l'exécuter, ce pouvoir, avec le Conseil. La négociation, nous la privilégions d'abord, mais pas en dessous de certaines conditions.

Je vous remercie de votre attention et je crois aussi que les citoyens sont beaucoup plus réalistes que nombre d'entre nous, politiques, et je crois profondément que les citoyens pensent que l'Europe les protège, à la suite de la crise que nous venons de subir.

  Hannes Swoboda, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich kann dem, was Präsident Barroso gesagt hat, zustimmen und auch dem, was Kollege Daul heute und gestern gesagt hat, voll zustimmen. Aber leider, lieber Joseph, gibt es in deiner Fraktion Leute, die immer wieder das Klima vergiften. Wenn ich beispielsweise denke, was Frau Gräßle über die vielen überblähten Beamtenapparate in Brüssel sagt – das ist genau das, was Stimmung macht. Natürlich gefällt das Herrn Cameron und Herrn Callanan, und ich bin Vizepräsident Maroš Šefčovič sehr dankbar, dass er das korrigiert hat. Wir haben hier eine Berichterstatterin. Man kann ja sagen, wir wollen noch mehr haben. Aber die Regierungen, die kritisieren, kommen ja nicht einmal an den Verhandlungstisch, weil sie nicht bereit sind, zu verhandeln. Das ist der Skandal, den man hier bekämpfen muss.

(Beifall)

Weil ich Cameron erwähnt habe:

I shall now switch to English to address perhaps some of the few friends of Mr Cameron who are present here today. Mr Cameron had a vision. The vision was not the same as when the Conservatives were pleading to join the European Union, because at that time it was not the vision merely of a big market. If you only have the vision of a big market you do not need a budget, or only a very small budget. You do not need investment, you do not need to fight unemployment – that is not for the internal market; but we have a vision of solidarity, of a Europe of solidarity, and not everybody in Britain shares Mr Cameron’s vision.

I was in Nottingham where I met young people who have been unemployed. I met 17-year-old Leigh. He has already been in prison, he is from a broken family. How did he get a job? It was through European money, through European support, and he was not the only one, there were many others as well. The Mayor of Dover recently said that we can only get out of the crisis with European money. The British Academy is sending us letters saying, ‘please fight for a budget for research and innovation because we need that also in Britain’.

I was recently in Italy visiting the people in the area of the earthquake. They said ‘thank you’ to Europe for helping them but they knew also about the shameful way in which many Finance Ministers wanted to block the money going to them. I was recently in Craiova in Romania and they told me there that Europe is the only way to get investment in their poor region. This is our Europe. This is another vision of Mr Cameron’s, but this is a vision which is closer to the citizen.

Therefore, we need a budget. It is not a big budget – do not exaggerate, do not be so scandalised, it is a very small budget – but it must be an efficient budget.

I can therefore only agree with what Mr Barroso said. First of all we need adequate financing for the job we have to do, jobs for young people. Yesterday Mr Hollande was here and Mr Barroso made a reference to him. I fully agree that this is the future of our Europe and we are letting them down, we are not giving them the means for jobs, for education and for research. Therefore, we need an adequate budget.

But we need to close the gap between commitments and payments – it is like a game: big commitments and small payments afterwards. Every year, we have to fight for that. We need more flexibility because money which is not spent should not go back home as a surplus for the Finance Minister, but should be used for those important issues we have to do. We want a strong Europe, strong internationally – globally – but we do not provide enough money for a global economy and a global foreign policy.

Finally, we also need own resources. We need some steps towards own resources because this shameful game – country against country, rebate against rebate – this should stop. Therefore I think we need, and this is in the interests of our governments and our citizens too, own resources.

Now how will Parliament react? I want to address the Council and the Minister. Tell your colleagues in the Council that we will react responsibly, but that does not mean we will accept anything that comes. The principle of ‘take it or leave it’? It may be that we will leave it. Therefore it is important to tell the Council that we take this seriously because we are responsible. We will act in a way which is responsible to our citizens. President Hollande and Mrs Merkel are meeting tonight in Paris; I think they will watch the football match. I do not know who will win or should win – Europe will win anyway; this is football, either Germany or France.

But as for the budget, I do not know who will win. For the budget to be agreed in this Parliament, Europe must win in the talks tonight and the talks at the weekend. A responsible Parliament will reject any agreement which does not respond to citizens’ demands and because we are responsible, we will say ‘No’. We can say no and we will say no if we do not get a budget which meets the demands of our citizens. Be sure of this: this is our answer today and will be the answer after the meeting this weekend.

(Applause)

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, Mr Barroso has said that an agreement is possible. Let us be honest, Mr Barroso. An agreement is possible, and I think there will be an agreement, but not on the terms you put in your introduction. You talked about a real mid-term review, flexibility between headings and between years, real own resources and no cuts in spending for the future, and you also agree not to create a big debt or deficit in Europe because of that difference between commitments and payments.

Let us be honest. There will be no real mid-term review in the proposal. There will not be any flexibility between headings. The Member States do not accept flexibility between headings because they say that this is impossible for them. I am afraid that even the Commission’s good proposal will fall on own resources, on the FTT. I hear rumours that Germany does not want it and that, in the final conclusion they do not want this FTT in this budget, as envisaged by the Commission. The same goes for the additional cuts. Where will we see additional cuts? In heading 1A again? The new 25? We have to ask the Irish Presidency about that. We need to know. What will the final proposal be in order to make a deal in the Council? More additional cuts in heading 1A so that in the end we can go back to the 2013 Budget? We would be better off continuing with the 2013 Budget than discussing what to do with this budget – this MFF – for the next year.

So I am afraid that, while we totally agree with the Commission on the next MFF, the reality is that there will be another deal, as there was seven years ago with 42 exceptions, rebates and derogations in the budget. What will happen is that this decision by the European Council will not be a formal decision. It will only be a political decision. A discussion will then start in the General Affairs Council and we will only be consulted here in this Parliament to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’, not next week but in three months time. And in three months time the Presidency and the Member States will try to buy a number of delegations here in the Parliament in order to find a majority for that budget. Exactly the same thing happened seven years ago.

So we have to be very clear. If we say today that our conditions are a mid-term review, flexibility, real own resources, no cuts in spending for the future and no real deficit, as we are creating now with this MFF, we have to continue to stand by that in one month, in two months and in three months’ time when we will have to give a formal ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on this MFF for the coming years. That is the political power play. For me it is not about figures; it is a power play between the Council and Parliament.

Who is in fact the budgetary authority in a democratic system? Is it the Heads of State or Government or is it the European Parliament? That is what it is about. In every democracy it is the parliament which is the budgetary authority and not the Council, not the Head of Government or the Head of State. It is about debts, so it is not only about figures. It is not just about what we will spend in the next seven years, but it is also about the balance of power inside a democratic European Union. Is it Parliament that has the last say, or is it the Council?

My proposal, Mr Barroso, is that in the discussion – and I am also saying this to the Irish Presidency – we talk not only about the mid-term review. My proposal is to have a sunset clause after two or three years. Why not? We are now talking about a budget for seven years. Anything could happen. We could have an enormous crisis in Europe so that this MFF might no longer be applicable, so why not have a sunset clause that, after three years – Mr Daul said after two years and I agree with that, but I think three years is more realistic – obliges us to give a new consent to go further with this budget for the next three or four years.

Finally I think that we need to return to annual budgets. What country sets a budget for seven years and sticks to that? That does not exist anywhere. In fact it lowers the power of Parliament. The only other example that I know of was the Soviet Union. There it was for five years. We do it for seven years. We think that we can we make a plan for longer than that. That is the reason why Mr Farage also agrees with me that we should go back to annual budgets. Thank you, Mr Farage. That is the first sensible and positive reaction that I have had from you in nearly three years. Things are getting better and better with you. You are becoming a normal Member of the European Parliament, which is a good development.

  Rebecca Harms, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Ratspräsidentin, meine Damen und Herren Präsidenten! Ich habe gestern in der Rede von François Hollande die Erinnerung an die Frage von Präsident Mitterand als sehr gut empfunden, nämlich die Frage beziehungsweise die Aufforderung: Was müssen wir und wie müssen wir es tun, damit die Bürgerinnen und Bürger Europas Europa wirklich lieben? In der Antwort unterscheide ich mich ein Stück weit von François Hollande. Ich bin nämlich nach meiner Erfahrung auf vielen Reisen durch Europa davon überzeugt: Die Europäerinnen und Europäer lieben Europa. Aber sie begegnen den europäischen Institutionen und ihren Auseinandersetzungen mit einem wachsenden Unverständnis, mit wachsendem Befremden, und ich finde, es ist wirklich nicht erstaunlich, was da passiert.

Ich glaube auch, dass die Auseinandersetzung um den Haushalt und um den MFR, diese mittelfristige Finanzplanung, schon zeigen kann, warum es schwer ist, in Europa und seine Institutionen Vertrauen zu haben: No deal, good deal, bad deal – worauf sollen sich die Europäer da einlassen? Mit dieser Art der Auseinandersetzung glaube ich, dass wir es unseren Bürgern schwer machen, sich mit diesem großen Projekt der Europäischen Union zu identifizieren.

Der Haushalt, meine Damen und Herren, ist eigentlich der Ausdruck eines gemeinsamen Willens zu einem gemeinsamen politischen Projekt. Wenn ich die letzten Monate Revue passieren lasse, die letzten Gipfel, an denen ich für das Europäische Parlament, für meine Fraktion als Zuschauerin immer wieder einmal beteiligt war, dann kann ich mich an reihenweise Absichtserklärungen der Staats- und Regierungschefs erinnern, die immer wieder bekannt haben, wie wichtig das ist, den Zukunftsherausforderungen nicht nur wegen der Krise des Euros, sondern wegen der Krise des Klimas, wegen der wachsenden globalen Wirtschaftskrise gemeinsam besser zu begegnen. Aber wenn es dann zum Schwur kommt, wenn es ums Geld geht, dann haben wir es im Rat permanent mit Staats- und Regierungschefs zu tun, die dann zu Hause offensichtlich zeigen müssen, dass man an Europa besser spart und dass man außerdem zu Hause immer noch ein Projekt hat, das man selber wichtiger findet als das gemeinsame Fortschreiten, das gemeinsame Arbeiten an einer Zukunft, an einer besseren Zukunft für die Europäische Union.

Alle Kürzungen, über die geredet wird, werden zulasten von Zukunftsbereichen gehen. Alle Kürzungen werden diejenigen treffen, die Innovationen wollen, die nachhaltige Entwicklung wollen, die mehr Forschung, mehr Bildung, mehr Inklusion für arbeitslose Jugendliche wollen. Ist das wirklich zu verantworten? Ist das zu verantworten im Zusammenhang mit einer Agrarreform, der die Mehrheit dieses Hauses zumindest im Ausschuss schon zugestimmt hat? Wollen wir die Agroindustrie päppeln, oder wollen wir eine nachhaltige Entwicklung ländlicher Räume?

Ist es wirklich richtig, solche Prestigeprojekte wie den milliardenschweren ITER, den Fusionsreaktor in Südfrankreich, in einem Erdbebengebiet zu fördern, statt jetzt endlich mal zu sagen, welche Energieforschung und Entwicklung wir brauchen, damit wir zukunftsfähig werden in unserem Energiesektor? Ich könnte diese Liste fortsetzen. Ich glaube, dass in unserem Haus zum Teil dieses Selbstbezogene der Nationalstaaten aufgegriffen wird und nicht genügend kritisiert wird.

Meine Fraktion ist bereit, den harten Auseinandersetzungen mit dem Rat auch beizutreten. Wir haben von Anfang an klar gemacht, dass wir für eine zuverlässige mittelfristige Finanzplanung eintreten. Wir wollen, dass die Mittel, die da verankert werden, unseren Aufgaben und Zielen entsprechen. Wir wollen, dass wir durch eigene Einnahmen aus dieser unwürdigen Auseinandersetzung darüber, wie viel Geld Europa den Staats- und Regierungschefs denn nun wirklich wert ist, herauskommen.

Wir wollen durch diese eigenen Einnahmen tatsächlich auch ein stabiles Europa untermauern. Wir sind für Flexibilität, das haben wir oft deutlich gemacht. Aber tatsächlich: Mir geht es darum, deutlich zu machen, dass diese Europäische Union gegenüber ihren Bürgerinnen und Bürgern nur bestehen kann, wenn die Sonntagsreden, die mit großem Tremolo von Staats- und Regierungschefs aller Orten zu Europa gehalten werden, auch in ein Bekenntnis zu einem guten Haushalt münden.

(Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 149 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Godfrey Bloom (EFD), blue-card question. – Thank you for taking the question. I just thought that as we are talking about waking up and we are talking about climate change, I would draw it to your attention – you keep missing the point I think – that there is no scientific institution now in the world which does not accept that there has been no significance statistical climate change since 1995. I am just wondering when you are going actually to wake up to that fact?

  Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Ich weiß nicht, was in Großbritannien als Fakt anerkannt wird. Ich kenne die wissenschaftlichen Veröffentlichungen des IPCC seit vielen Jahren. Da sind Globalwissenschaftler für die UNO organisiert und beobachten aus unterschiedlichen Perspektiven die negativen Entwicklungen des Klimawandels. Ich empfehle den Briten, die ja gerne sparen wollen, die Auseinandersetzung mit Sir Nicholas Stern, der vor Jahren als Ökonom sehr gut vorgerechnet hat, was Nichthandeln gegen den Klimawandel uns alle kosten wird. Ich glaube, Sie sollten wirklich Herrn Stern konsultieren.

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, this debate has a weary familiarity about it. I think we have been here before. I thank Ms Creighton for coming here, and it is good to hear her contributions, but of course the key player is our old friend Herman who has not bothered to turn up himself and actually inform us what is actually really going on, so I cannot help thinking that this debate is essentially fairly pointless today.

Nevertheless I hope that a deal can be reached on the MFF this week. It seems that one thing is now clear – and to this extent I agree with many of the other speakers – once again the EU is going to miss the opportunity to fundamentally reform its spending. It looks like any agreement, if we get one, will be a fudge, a muddle, a botch as usual: a continuation of funding schemes that belong in another century. The continuation of the principle that first we set the budget and then we find ever more imaginative ways to spend taxpayers’ money and to spend that budget.

Our leaders should, of course, have seized the opportunity to sit down, have a serious discussion about where the EU delivers value, where it spends money badly and where money we all know is being blatantly wasted. The reality is that today’s budget would be remarkably familiar to people like Roy Jenkins, Gaston Thorn and Commissions of the past. If we had asked those presidents where they thought the EU budget would be spent by 2020, would they honestly say that we would still be spending 40% of it on agriculture? I doubt it. The debate around the EU budget is symptomatic of all the things that need to change in the EU, and we need to stop thinking that only a bigger budget will solve the many problems of Europe. Instead we need a better budget, which prioritises our challenges at the expense of the enormous amount of fat that can be very easily trimmed from the budget.

Now many people in this debate this morning have said that this is a growth budget and I suppose it is, provided you are a French cow. That will grow enormously with the European budget and we cannot in all seriousness stand here in Strasbourg – this icon of EU profligacy – and say that there is no money that can be saved in the EU budget. Yet the issue of Strasbourg does not even get raised in the European Council! Yet again I call on our President to raise it in his speech to EU leaders this Thursday, and perhaps with his new best friend, President Hollande.

Of course I know that the costs of coming here and maintaining this building are a drop in the ocean in the context of the total EU budget, but it would do us an enormous amount of credit if we can show that we can really shake off this expensive relic of the past. And that is the crux of the EU’s budget. We are continuing to fund policies that may have made sense in the 20th century, as well as trying to spend money on the problems of the 21st century. If we focus on the problems of today and tomorrow instead, we could freeze the budget and still see significantly better results for our taxpayers.

What could be worse than just maintaining the status quo in spending? It would be to leave the EU spending unreformed and then give ourselves new tax-raising powers and own resources. Thankfully it looks as though that is not going to happen, and we have seen in France – the country we are in now – what happens when politicians think that the best answer to their problems is more state intervention, more government-funded programmes and more government and state administration.

But I fear that whatever is agreed will fail to achieve any kind of meaningful reform. Instead we will probably come away with the result that most of Heads of Government feel that they can sell: most likely with a freeze on payment. That would not be the best outcome, but it would be far better than allowing the kinds of increases that this Parliament wants to see without any reform to our spending priorities.

Now we have heard as usual a lot of vitriol thrown at the Council today, not least by Joseph Daul, who I think, as President Hollande reminded us yesterday, seems to forget that it is many of his own Prime Minsters from the EPP Group that are pushing for reductions in the EU budget. The matriarch of his own political family, Chancellor Merkel, is asking for budgetary restraint. I know it is popular in this place and it gets a cheap laugh to have a go at David Cameron constantly, but he is not the only head of government who is calling for reductions in the EU budget. This kind of war rhetoric really needs to stop, particularly in a time of crisis when we should be working together with our national governments and not throwing bricks at them.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))

  Joseph Daul (PPE), Question "carton bleu". – Monsieur Callanan, je ne suis pas là pour défendre le gouvernement français, vous le savez bien. J'ai simplement une question. Si mes souvenirs sont exacts – je regarde la Commission –, jamais dans cette discussion et négociation, le Royaume-Uni n'a demandé une baisse de son enveloppe dans le cadre de la politique agricole. Jamais!

Alors, ne reprochez pas aux autres de ne pas demander ce que vous ne demandez pas vous-même! Je prends à témoin les personnes présentes à cette table car je suis ces négociations de très près. Pourquoi ne demandez-vous pas une diminution de votre enveloppe? Parce que vous ne le voulez pas! Vous voulez que le budget baisse, que la PAC reste et que le chèque reste! Vous êtes très bons au niveau financier, et je vous félicite, mais jamais, vous n'avez demandé une baisse du budget de la PAC!

(Applaudissements)

  Martin Callanan (ECR), blue-card answer. – Mr President, I think the UK has a long and proud tradition of standing behind those many Member States which believe that we need fundamental reform of the common agricultural policy. That was the reason for the British rebate being established in the first place, and I think everybody accepts that if there is fundamental reform in the system then of course all Member States could do with a reduction. We need to move farming over to a more market-orientated system. That is also the best thing we could do for the Third World. Beyond giving them aid, giving them more subsidies, the best thing we could do would be to reform or scrap the common agricultural policy and allow them to sell their food products in the European market. Do not try and defend the indefensible, Mr Daul.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, the highlight today of this debate was the Liberal leader, Mr Verhofstadt, comparing the seven-year EU economic plan with the Soviet Union’s five-year economic plan – and it was said without any sense of irony at all, which I thought was delicious.

Well, as the leaders meet tomorrow to discuss this budget, what a curious position David Cameron finds himself in. He made the big speech; he talked about a referendum in the future, and yet he has been criticised at home for making us wait for perhaps up to five years before we can have our say. Most people doubt his Eurosceptic sincerity, indeed he emphasised in that speech how pro-European Union he is, and yet here today he is met with a sort of venomous attack as if he is some terrible wrecker. I would have thought his chances of renegotiating very much look pretty limited, so I feel a bit sorry for him. He is like piggy in the middle, and you all remember from childhood what a frustrating and difficult place that is to be.

But he has made the speech, and we are going to have a proper debate in Britain about EU membership; but it is a debate that is changing. You see, the budget is not our top line issue. We pay in GBP 53 million a day. Whether that goes up to GBP 60 million or not, many of us are saying: why pay in a penny piece? Mr Barroso’s idea that a pound or a euro spent at European level is worth more than a pound or euro spent at national level – well, perhaps he has invented nuclear money, I have no idea. What perhaps we should recognise is that unemployment is actually being caused by Europe’s policies, in particular the mistaken euro project.

The debate in Britain has changed and now it is about immigration. People in Britain are shocked at the change in every single city and market town since we opened the doors to eastern Europe in 2004. I have nothing against Bulgarians or Romanians, but it is unacceptable that we should open our doors to them unconditionally from 1 January next year. If Mr Cameron does not get a substantial renegotiation on the free movement of peoples then Britain will leave this Union.

  Gabriele Zimmer, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Wir wissen alle, dass die EU zur Sicherung ihrer Handlungsfähigkeit, also insbesondere mit Blick auf die Erweiterung, die Kohäsionspolitik, den Kampf gegen Armut, soziale Ausgrenzung, aber auch die Frage der internationalen Kooperation und auch mit Blick auf den Kampf gegen den Klimawandel, das sage ich auch noch mal ausdrücklich, und zur Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie, auf der einen Seite ein größeres Budget braucht, aber eben auch eine Reform innerhalb der Struktur des Budgets, sowohl hinsichtlich der Einnahmen als auch der Ausgaben.

Aber schon der Vorschlag, den die Kommission unterbreitet hat, sich darauf zu beziehen, nur 1,05 % des EU-27-BNE als Ausgangspunkt zu nehmen, ist für diese Aufgabenstellung ja schon viel zu gering. Damit hat die Kommission ja von vorneherein schon eingestanden, dass die Eigeninteressen der Mitgliedstaaten inzwischen größer sind als das gemeinsame Interesse an der Entwicklung der Europäischen Union. Und hier liegt die Crux. Das wird sich auch nicht verändern lassen, indem über neue Kompromisse nachgedacht wird und indem nachgedacht wird, wie die unterschiedlichen Gruppierungen bei den Eigeninteressen der Mitgliedstaaten zusammengefasst werden, ausgeglichen werden können und dem einen das gegeben wird und dem anderen jenes.

Um einmal ganz ehrlich zu sein: Mein Eindruck ist, dass genau jene Staaten, die am meisten von Rabatten profitieren und das in ihren eigenen Mitgliedsländern überhaupt nicht erklären, also gar nicht mitteilen, dass zum Beispiel auch Länder wie Deutschland vom Rabattsystem profitieren, dass diese am meisten die öffentliche Auseinandersetzung führen, um den Haushalt der Europäischen Union zu senken. Das halte ich für scheinheilig, das halte ich für falsch, das halte ich für sehr national geprägt, und das ist kontraproduktiv für die Entwicklung der Europäischen Union.

Meine Erwartungshaltung an den bevorstehenden Gipfel, auch an Sie, Herr Präsident Schulz, ist, dass noch einmal klar gesagt wird: Wir bestehen auf der Einhaltung der Verpflichtung, die hier abgegeben worden ist, die Defizite für das laufende Jahr 2013 aus frischen Mitteln zu sichern und diese Defizite zu schließen. Und zweitens, klar und deutlich zu machen, dass es nicht geht, dass wir als Europäische Union für die Ebene der Europäischen Union von vorneherein Defizite einplanen für jedes der kommenden Haushaltsjahre. Das ist ein Bankrott der Europäischen Union, wenn wir das zulassen, auf der einen Seite Druck auf Mitgliedsländer machen, die in Schwierigkeiten geraten, und auf der anderen Seite für die Europäische Union etwas in Anspruch nehmen, was nicht funktionieren kann, was rechtwidrig ist, was Vertragsbruch ist und was letztendlich dazu führt, dass die Menschen nicht mehr verstehen werden, worum es hier überhaupt geht. Das kann nicht funktionieren. Das lehnen wir ab!

Mein Eindruck ist: Die Mitgliedstaaten sind zuerst an den Rückflüssen interessiert, ohne zu erklären, dass sie diese Rückflüsse auch bekommen. Und zweitens, dass Scheinheiligkeit vorherrscht, das sage ich noch einmal, auch mit Blick auf die Diskussion, die vorhin ja auch schon von meinem Kollegen Swoboda angesprochen worden ist, über das, was Die Welt veröffentlich hat. Ich halte das für problematisch. Ich fordere auch die Journalisten auf, sich künftig nicht nur auf die Abgeordneten hier im Europäischen Parlament zu beziehen, die offensichtlich ihre eigene Strategie für ihre Wiederwahl populistisch formulieren, sondern auch zu bedenken, dass es innerhalb des Europäischen Parlaments eine Bandbreite von Positionen gibt, und diese eben auch einmal widerzuspiegeln.

(Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 149 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Charles Tannock (ECR), blue-card question. – The British Prime Minister has put on record that he would like to see cuts, particularly in the 6%, or EUR 6 billion, spent annually on administrative costs paying for extremely large salaries: 2 000 members of the Commission apparently earn larger salaries than the British Prime Minister. I would be interested to know how the GUE/NGL Group can describe cuts as nationalist and wrong, when surely there is room for cuts in the salaries of some of our fat-cat bureaucrats who are earning huge amounts of money. I would like to know why such cuts would be wrong. Why is David Cameron wrong in demanding some cuts in the administrative budgets of the European Union? The 6% that is spent at the moment is far too much. It should come down to 5%.

  Gabriele Zimmer (GUE/NGL), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Es wäre vielleicht gut, wenn Sie sich eben nicht nur auf die Aussagen von einzelnen Abgeordneten, die dann wieder von den Medien aufgegriffen werden, reduzieren würden, sondern wenn Sie sich tatsächlich die Gehalts- und Entlohnungssysteme genauer anschauen würden. Wenn Dinge miteinander verglichen werden, sowohl beispielsweise für die Entlohnung von hohen Beamten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland als auch in der Europäischen Union, werden Sie feststellen, dass hier unfairerweise wichtige Punkte aus diesen Vergleichen herausgelassen worden sind, und zwar immer zugunsten des besseren Dastehens der Beamten in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland oder im Vereinigten Königreich. Ich finde, wenn verglichen wird, dann sollte es sehr konkret und sehr genau sein. Dann sollten alle Leistungen auf den Tisch, auch das, was beispielsweise an Abschlägen, an Beiträgen zu zahlen ist, damit wir hier eine faire Diskussion bekommen.

Im Übrigen bin ich immer dafür, dass – auch was EU-Beamte betrifft – vor allem die Sozialpartner miteinander verhandeln. Ich habe etwas dagegen, wenn per Medien in solche Bereiche eingegriffen wird und einseitig Schuldzuweisungen gegeben werden. Also wenn, dann bitteschön Sachlichkeit, Klarheit, Transparenz! Das ist das, was beispielsweise – auch seitens der EU – nachgeliefert werden könnte. Die Transparenz ist dringend notwendig!

  Der Präsident. − Frau Zimmer, ganz kurz zu Ihrer Bitte. Was mich im Europäischen Rat angeht, will ich – weil ich auch in den letzten Stunden hier hinsichtlich meiner Haltung im Europäischen Rat angesprochen worden bin – hier noch einmal wiederholen: Ich werde keinen Haushalt unterschreiben, der nicht ausgeglichen ist, und auch keinen Nachtragshaushalt, der das 16-Milliarden-Defizit, das wir haben, nicht abdeckt. Ich sage Ihnen, dass ich das selbst dann nicht tun würde, wenn das Parlament es beschließen würde, weil es ein rechtswidriger Beschluss wäre. Die Artikel 310 und 323 des EU-Vertrags verpflichten uns zum Ausgleich des Haushalts. Ich kann keine Defizithaushalte akzeptieren.

Ich möchte Ihnen zu der Frage der Besetzung hoher Positionen nur eins sagen, auch als Vorsitzender dieser Abgeordnetenversammlung: Wann immer es um die Besetzung dieser Positionen geht, wird auf mich oder Herrn Barroso von exakt den Regierungen, die die Besetzung dieser Posten kritisieren, ein enormer Druck ausgeübt, dass diese Positionen möglichst mit Beamten aus diesen Ländern besetzt werden. Das will ich hier einmal zu Protokoll geben!

  Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI). - Vanaf morgen gaan de onderhandelingen verder over de meerjarenbegroting van de Europese Unie, of beter gezegd, over het verdelen van de belastingcenten van de Europese burger. U roept hier in koor: er moet geld bij! Maar de burger vraagt zich af: welk geld eigenlijk? Er is namelijk helemaal geen geld. Waarom denkt u anders dat alle landen zo hard moeten bezuinigen? Door de crisis zijn wij blut!

Wat de Europese Unie wil, is geld afpakken van de hardwerkende burger en van toekomstige generaties, die met enorme schuldenbergen worden opgezadeld. U noemt dat solidariteit. Ik noem dat immoreel. Deze hele begroting van de Europese Unie is een gedrocht, waarvan het gros wordt verspild aan het achterhaalde cohesiebeleid en het verschrikkelijke landbouwbeleid. En wat te denken van het Europese ambtenarenapparaat? Er lopen liefst 5000 ambtenaren rond die meer verdienen dan onze Nederlandse minister-president. Het is een schandaal! Er moet helemaal geen cent bij, er moet zoveel mogelijk van het budget af. Hoe minder geld er naar de Europese Unie gaat, des te beter het is voor de burgers in de lidstaten.

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. GIANNI PITTELLA
Vicepresidente

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). - Mr President, I would like to say a few words in relation to the word ‘solidarity’, which has been used a lot here during the debate this morning. I feel an obligation, as coordinator for the European People’s Party on the Committee on Development, to speak about solidarity with citizens in the developing world.

Mr Cameron’s name has been mentioned here several times this morning. Can I say that I am a great admirer of Mr Cameron and his government for their actions in committing to meeting their 0.7% contribution to the developing world. Indeed the rest of us could learn, in terms of solidarity with the developing world, from the actions of the British Government. That is said by somebody who does not share a lot of Mr Cameron’s views.

The reality of the matter is this: while we are talking about our own constituents – and they do face difficulties and we do need to have solidarity with them – that solidarity should not end within the European Union. By 2050 the population of the world will have increased by two billion people, 90% of whom will born into what is now the developing world, where 23 000 children die each day. That is 23 000 children today and 23 000 children again tomorrow and 23 000 children every single day while the budget negotiations are going on.

Mr Barroso had to propose an emergency food regulation about two years ago. I was the rapporteur dealing with it and we had to get it through Parliament. Our humanitarian budget makes up something like 0.62% of the budget, yet we are proposing to cut that money. It is petty cash as far as we are concerned. It is life-giving as far as these children I am speaking of are concerned. In heaven’s name, do we have to cut our development budget further? When our GNI goes down, fine, our contributions go down, but we should not bring down the payments even further than that.

I make a special plea, not for me, not for my constituents, not for votes, but for the people who are dying each day. Please fight for this budget for the developing world.

  Göran Färm (S&D). - Mr President, Mr Van Rompuy said yesterday ‘we will this week, for the first time ever, decide on a real-terms cut compared to the current budget’. I welcome the fact that he admits to a real-terms cut, not a freeze, which some leaders and Mr Callanan still try to make us believe.

We hear rumours of an extra EUR 15 billion cut on top of what was announced in November. In that case, ceilings will be cut down to 2005 levels. This also means that Mr Van Rompuy’s justification for the cuts is, I quote: ‘the budget must be a budget of moderation, reflecting the savings efforts in our Member States’.

But that is false! No Member State calling for these cuts has reduced its own budget down to 2005 levels, and has certainly not taken any decision to maintain that level up to 2020.

Some blame us for an extreme spending policy. It is not true! We could live with a real-terms freeze. Still, my Group has five modest claims. Firstly, an overall level that corresponds to our responsibilities, decided by the Council itself, the Lisbon Treaty, the EU 2020 strategy, the Millennium Development Goals and the jobs and growth pact.

Secondly, a solution to the mountain of unpaid bills we have before us. We cannot turn the EU budget into a deficit budget. Thirdly, a modernisation programme able to address our priorities like research, youth unemployment, infrastructure and climate policies. Fourthly, a more flexible budget; a binding mid-term revision is a minimum requirement. Fifthly, progress on the financing of the budget, a move towards creating more own resources.

Without progress on these points I do not think our Parliament can accept the Council’s proposals. But we are not unreasonable. If we do not accept, let us see it as an invitation to serious negotiations. In this tough situation, let us find a common way to strengthen the Union, not weaken it.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE). - Tak, hr. formand! Hvis rygterne taler sandt, vil EU-landenes statsledere i de kommende dage blive enige om at beskære de foreslåede investeringer i forskning, transport og energi uden på nogen måde at tage stilling til, hvilke projekter, der så ikke skal gennemføres. De vil krampagtigt holde fast i et uigennemskueligt, uforståeligt og uretfærdigt system for egne indtægter med rabatter og rabat på rabatterne. Derfor siger jeg: ingen aftale er bedre end en dårlig aftale om den flerårige budgetramme. Vi kan sagtens arbejde videre med årlige budgetter under loftet for 2013, sådan som traktaten foreskriver det, hvis der ikke er en aftale. Det forudsætter, at både Parlamentet og Rådet arbejder sammen om at levere et lovgrundlag for budgettet. Det vil vi gerne arbejde positivt for her i Parlamentet, og jeg håber også, at Rådet vil gøre det, uanset om der foreligger en aftale om den flerårige budgetramme eller ej. Tak.

  Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE). - Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! An die irische Ratsvertreterin: Sie haben verlangt, wenn die Nationalstaaten sparen müssen, dass dann auch die europäische Ebene sparen müsste. Erstens möchte ich noch einmal deutlich machen, was Kollege Färm eben schon sagte: Der Vorschlag, der jetzt auf dem Tisch liegt, bedeutet einen Haushalt wie im Jahre 2005. Kein Mitgliedstaat macht eine solche vehemente Sparpolitik.

Zweitens: Die Kommission hat mit ihrem Haushaltsvorschlag de facto ja schon einen Sparvorschlag gemacht, hat sich also ausgesprochen verantwortlich gezeigt in den schwierigen Zeiten, aber gleichzeitig deutlich gemacht, dass wir ein gemeinsames europäisches Interesse haben, nachhaltig zu investieren, mehr für Bildung zu tun, für soziale Inklusion und für Forschung, denn das sind die wirklich nachhaltigen Wachstumsfelder der Europäischen Union.

Also ich begrüße ausdrücklich, was Präsident Schulz angekündigt hat, dass er für das Haushaltsjahr 2013 keinen Defizithaushalt unterschreiben wird. Denn der Rat – und daran kann man schon die Schizophrenie im Rat sehen – verlangt von uns einen Haushalt, den er selber anmeldet, und ist dann nicht bereit, die entsprechenden Mittel zur Verfügung zu stellen.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). - Morgen begint de top over de Europese meerjarenbegroting en ik roep de staats- en regeringsleiders op te bouwen aan vertrouwen. Dit is dé kans om de geloofwaardigheid van de Europese Unie te herstellen. Een geloofwaardige Europese Unie is een toekomstbestendige Europese Unie. Een Unie die innovatie en versterking van de concurrentiekracht voorop stelt. Dat zijn immers dé voorwaarden om de werkgelegenheid weer te bevorderen.

Ik noem twee concrete toekomstbestendige en toekomstgerichte voorbeelden:

1. De Europese Unie gaat investeren in een nieuwe zeesluis bij Terneuzen. Prima!

2. De Europese Unie gaat miljarden investeren in een nieuw programma voor de ontwikkeling van grafeen. Zo hoort het, dat is toekomstgericht denken, dat is een geloofwaardige Europese Unie met een toegevoegde waarde.

De vraag is alleen of dat bij alle staats- en regeringsleiders zo zal doordringen. Want sommigen zien de Europese Unie toch als een soort reservepot naast hun eigen nationale begroting. Landbouw- en structuurfondsen worden vaak gebruikt om eigen wensen aan te vullen en dat helpt de Europese Unie niet vooruit.

Te vaak wordt op die manier met de budgetten omgegaan. Dat versterkt het vertrouwen van de burgers in Europa niet. Dat het Parlement daar bovenop dan ook nog overweegt om 2 miljoen euro communicatiebudget te gebruiken om twitterdiscussies over de Europese Unie positief te beïnvloeden, werkt in dit verband contraproductief. Kritiek op de Europese Unie en het Europees Parlement moet niet worden weerlegd door een bombardement van positieve propaganda, maar door lessen te trekken en gemaakte fouten te erkennen en te verbeteren. Dat is bouwen aan vertrouwen. Dat is nodig!

  Matteo Salvini (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, perché i cittadini non hanno più fiducia in quest'Europa? Gli italiani sono quelli che pagano più di tutti in Europa. Gli agricoltori italiani rischiano di perdere 4 miliardi di euro nei prossimi anni, i lavoratori del tessile e del calzaturiero in Italia ringraziano per aver tolto tutti i dazi che ci fanno invadere di merce da ogni parte del mondo, prodotta anche da bambini, i lavoratori dell'agricoltura ringraziano per gli accordi col Marocco e con tutti gli altri paesi del mondo che ci fanno mangiare qualcosa che arriva da migliaia di chilometri di distanza e chiudono tutta quella che è la nostra produzione. Si parla di risparmio e siamo l'unico Parlamento che ha due sedi, perché questa sede dove veniamo una volta al mese ci costa 400 milioni di euro. Pretendete che i comuni paghino a trenta giorni e col Patto di stabilità lasciate miliardi di euro nelle casse dei comuni del nord che non possono pagare per coprire i debiti di qualcun altro. Non vi serviranno 2 milioni di euro per convincere tramite Twitter e Facebook che è questa l'Europa che fa bene ai nostri cittadini.

  Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL). - Senhor Presidente, nos próximos dias 7 e 8 vai decidir-se o nosso destino para os próximos 7 anos. Vai-se decidir se os nossos jovens terão ou não um futuro, se terão ou não acesso a uma universidade ou a um emprego, se os nossos netos terão ou não escolas, se os nossos velhos terão ou não acesso a cuidados de saúde e a medicamentos. Nos próximos dias vai-se decidir se teremos ou não um futuro juntos, um futuro com futuro para todos ou se, pelo contrário, só haverá futuro para alguns porque outros ficarão na berma da estrada.

Há países nesta Europa, como já foi aqui dito pelo Presidente da Comissão, que hoje não têm meios para cuidar dos mais vulneráveis e carenciados e para integrar os seus jovens. O Presidente da Comissão já não está, mas eu gostaria de perguntar ao representante da Comissão o que é que acha que a Troica tem feito por essas pessoas mais vulneráveis?

Senhor Presidente, o Presidente da Comissão referia que o orçamento da União Europeia tem de ter ambição e realismo, mas parece que o que iremos ser chamados a votar vai ser a ladainha que o Sr. Van Rompuy nos anda a cantar que é pretender combinar austeridade e investimento. Ora, as duas coisas não rimam uma com a outra. A Sra. Creighton dizia no início da manhã que a proposta do Sr. Van Rompuy tem o apoio da Presidência irlandesa. Gostaria de lhe perguntar se se evita a incerteza, se se traz esperança com a imposição de um quadro financeiro plurianual que, se até aqui só nos dava uma Europa mínima, com esta proposta vai-nos passar a dar uma Europa de refugo. Sejamos responsáveis! É nossa responsabilidade trabalhar para o futuro da Europa. A crise está longe do seu fim e só teremos futuro se houver a coragem e a ambição de implementar decididamente uma taxa sobre as transações financeiras.

(O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta "cartão azul" (n.º 8 do artigo 149.º)).

  Peter van Dalen (ECR), "blauwe kaart"-vraag. – Onze tolken leveren altijd uitstekend werk en ik neem aan dat ik het dus goed gehoord heb in de vertolking, nl. dat mevrouw Sousa hier bepleit dat in de begroting moet worden geregeld dat bejaarden toegang moeten krijgen tot de gezondheidszorg. Dat heb ik gehoord als stuk van uw tekst.

Europa moet zich niet overal mee bemoeien, laten wij ons richten op de dingen die Europa moet doen. De toegang regelen van bejaarden tot gezondheidszorg lijkt mij geen taak voor Europa, hoe moeilijk bejaarden het ook kunnen hebben, dat erken ik meteen. Maar dat moeten wij niet hier met elkaar regelen.

  Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL), Resposta segundo o procedimento "cartão azul". – Senhor Deputado, gostava de lhe responder que é verdade que as questões da saúde são, em geral, questões que são decididas, que estão na competência dos Estados-Membros, mas o problema é que a Europa não tem uma dimensão social e cada vez lhe falta mais essa dimensão social.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). - Monsieur le Président, deux observations seulement avant ce Conseil européen qui est destiné à fixer les finances de l'Union pour les sept prochaines années.

J'ai entendu avec beaucoup d'intérêt M. Swoboda, pour les socialistes, M. Daul, pour le groupe démocrate-chrétien, M. Verhofstadt, pour le groupe libéral, demander à cor et à cri des ressources propres pour l'Union, c'est-à-dire – car il faut appeler les choses par leur nom – un nouvel impôt européen.

J'allais dire un de plus car, mes chers collègues, vous avez déjà des ressources propres et, notamment, les droits de douane sur les produits qui sont importés de pays extra-européens. Mais vous n'avez cessé d'approuver les politiques qui ont constamment abaissé ces droits de douane, provoquant ainsi un libre-échange au niveau mondial, qui n'a rien à voir avec le libre-échange qui était prévu initialement, entre pays européens seulement, à l'intérieur d'un marché protégé.

Enfin, une dernière chose. On veut financer la démocratie et la liberté dans les États du sud de la Méditerranée. C'est très louable mais ne faudrait-il pas commencer par ce Parlement et par ne pas vouloir priver les groupes de la minorité des droits que se reconnaissent les groupes de la majorité, ainsi que le font M. Verhofstadt et M. Swoboda?

  Herbert Reul (PPE). - Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Kein Politiker wird in diesen Zeiten mehr Geld verlangen, sondern jeder weiß, dass man sparsam und vernünftig mit dem Geld umgehen muss. Wenn Mitgliedstaaten das tun, dann müssen wir als Europäische Union das auch tun. Aber es macht keinen Sinn, wie der Rat ständig neue Aufgaben hierhin zu übertragen und gleichzeitig Sparen zu organisieren. Das geht nicht. Wenn man sparsam mit dem Geld umgehen will, dann muss man auch die Frage beantworten: Welche Aufgaben stellt man dann in Frage? Wo ist man bereit, dann auch Aufgaben zurückzudrängen? Ansonsten kommt man nämlich genau zu dem Punkt, der nicht akzeptabel ist, nämlich dass man immer mehr Aufgaben platziert, gleichzeitig weniger Geld gibt und damit die Europäische Union in eine Verschuldungspolitik treibt. Das kann nicht sein. Ich finde, darauf hat der Präsident eben zu Recht hingewiesen: Es kann nicht sein, dass wir dieselben Fehler machen, die Mitgliedstaaten gemacht haben, systematisch uns in die Verschuldung hineinzutreiben, weil wir nicht das nötige Geld haben und gleichzeitig mehr Aufgaben haben.

Wer diese Frage entscheiden will, der muss bereit sein, sowohl zu sparen als auch gleichzeitig Aufgabenkritik in Gang zu setzen. Aber nur einfach zu sagen, wir reduzieren die Mittel, ist eine relativ einfallslose und intellektuell nicht besonders kluge Antwort.

Drittens: Wir brauchen dann auch hier eine Debatte – und die hat ja auch begonnen – über Schwerpunkte. Kollegin Harms hat es gesagt: Da wird es Streit geben zwischen dem, was einem wichtig ist, und dem, was einem weniger wichtig ist, dem, was notwendig ist, und dem, was weniger notwendig ist. Dem können wir uns mit ziemlicher Sicherheit nicht entziehen. Aber das heißt nicht einfach nur weniger Geld. Das ist zu simpel.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 149 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Kollege Reul, damit ich Sie richtig verstehe: Sind Sie einverstanden mit dem, was Herr Kollege Färm vorhin vorgetragen hat, dass es völlig unakzeptabel ist, wenn vonseiten des Rates jetzt versucht wird, das Niveau des europäischen Haushaltes so weit zurückzuschrauben, dass es dem Niveau des Jahres 2005 entspricht?

Zweitens: Sind Sie einverstanden mit dem, was der Präsident angekündigt hat, dass er, wenn der Rat sich nicht bereit erklärt, die aufgelaufenen Schulden zu bezahlen, diese Unterschrift verweigert?

  Herbert Reul (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Erstens: Es kann keinen Haushalt geben, der über die Verschuldung hinausgeht. Da bin ich hundertprozentig bei Ihnen und bei dem, was eben vorgetragen wurde.

Zweitens: Ich bin hundertprozentig der Meinung: Aufgaben, die da sind, müssen erfüllt werden. Und das notwendige Geld muss zur Verfügung gestellt werden. Wenn man weniger Geld zur Verfügung stellt, muss man auch entsprechende Aufgaben zusammenstreichen. Beides geht nur zusammen.

  Ivailo Kalfin (S&D). - Mr President, I would very much expect the European Council to take a decision this week on the MFF because any further delay will jeopardise all the programmes that are supposed to start next year. Any delay would mean that the European budget could not be disbursed from the beginning of next year and that the European regions would not receive funding for whatever programmes they are working on.

Parliament is ready to accept the European Council position only as an opening negotiating position, because all the signals that we are hearing are negative. The November European Council give us a very negative picture of the agreement which is about to be reached in the Council. Nevertheless there should be an agreement and there should be further negotiations with the European Parliament. We are very clear, as we have been over the last year, about what Parliament’s requirements are. They have been set out many times by the colleagues here.

The European budget does what national budgets cannot do. This is very important to understand. Public investments create jobs for young people and help the Member States and their economies to exit from the crisis. The Member States’ and the Union’s international duties and competitiveness are areas of spending that national budgets in many countries are not covering at all. We really want to close the gap between payments and commitments. We are accumulating a huge amount of unpaid invoices. You cannot blame the Member States for having extensive deficits if the European Commission is not paying the bills for them.

So it is not acceptable for us. We want proper own resources, not in order to make a bigger European budget, but to make it more independent and to alleviate the burden on the national budgets.

We want a unified budget because we do not want to be ambiguous with the citizens and ask them to contribute to two or three budgets, depending on whether their country is in the eurozone or not. So we will accept only a negotiating position and are ready to start immediate negotiations on it.

  Jan Mulder (ALDE). - Het is al door een aantal mensen gezegd, niet alleen de hoogte van de begroting is belangrijk. Ik ben wel van mening dat wij niet voor de eeuwigheid een begroting mogen hebben die elk jaar een tekort vertoont. Dan doen wij precies wat de lidstaten niet doen, of op het ogenblik bezig zijn te repareren in hun eigen lidstaat op aandringen van de Europese Commissie.

Daarnaast zijn een aantal punten belangrijk die geen geld kosten. Ook ik ben van mening dat er een nieuw systeem van eigen middelen moet komen. Het huidige systeem, dat wij verplichtingen aangaan en dat vervolgens de lidstaten weigeren om het geld beschikbaar te stellen om die rekeningen te betalen, is niet acceptabel.

Ieder jaar geeft de Europese Rekenkamer een negatieve verklaring af over de betrouwbaarheid van de rekeningen. Dat moet veranderen. Dat kan alleen als er meer politieke verantwoordelijkheid wordt genomen in de lidstaten en dat betekent dat er een lidstaatverklaring moet komen opdat het geld beter besteed wordt.

  Isabelle Durant (Verts/ALE). - Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, nous vivons une session un peu particulière. Hier, nous avons applaudi M. Hollande, qui nous proposait d'investir dans un développement plus durable et dans la jeunesse. Or, le budget, dernière version, de M. Van Rompuy nous propose 15 % de coupes dans les domaines de la recherche et de la jeunesse.

Tout à l'heure, nous allons écouter le président tunisien, M. Marzouki, qui va nous parler de ce qui se passe en Tunisie et nous allons lui apporter tout notre soutien pour la transition démocratique. Or, on propose dans ce budget une réduction de 13 % pour la politique extérieure et de 11 % pour le Fonds de développement.

Nous avons discuté, hier, du semestre européen et de l'importance d'avoir un volet social et emploi, en particulier dans nos régions. Or, on nous propose ici une réduction de 20 % pour les régions en transition.

Alors, je vous demande ou, en tout cas, je demande aux plus sceptiques parmi nous de réfléchir à la question de savoir s'il est possible, oui ou non, à ce Parlement de s'inscrire dans une stratégie budgétaire plus porteuse et une stratégie qui permette au Conseil d'honorer ces engagements.

Ces engagements doivent être payés, nous ne pouvons pas nous permettre le retard actuel et nous ne pouvons pas nous permettre, comme cela a été très bien dit hier, le déficit annoncé.

Par conséquent, franchement, les plus sceptiques n'ont plus qu'à rejoindre ceux qui, aujourd'hui, veulent un vrai budget.

  Morten Messerschmidt (EFD). - Tak, hr. formand! Forud for dette topmøde har vi hørt to centrale taler. I går hørte vi præsident Hollande stå her i parlamentssalen og tale for mere landbrugsstøtte, mere strukturstøtte, mere EU, herunder EU-skatter og generelt flere penge – altsammen initiativer der peger bagud i retning af protektionisme, planøkonomi og recession. For 14 dage siden holdt den britiske statsminister, David Cameron, en helt anden tale – en tale, der betonede demokrati, mindre EU, troen på markedskræfterne og generelt tanken om, at et EU, der i 18 år i træk har fået underkendt sine egne budgetter af sine egne revisorer, selvfølgelig ikke skal have flere midler. En tale, der pegede ind i fremtiden. Jeg håber, at det topmøde, der skal afholdes her i de kommende dage, vil fokusere på Camerons tale og på fremtiden og ikke rette blikket bagud mod fortiden.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). - Mr President, I really do have to admit I would love to be a fly on the wall in this Friday’s EU Budget talks in Brussels. I would like to see the discomfort of Mr Cameron as he walks into the room, the tension in his neck at the thought that he has to confront Mr Hollande and his colleagues throughout Europe. He has put referenda back on the agenda and he is going to have to sit down and fight for the British interest. He says he wants a renegotiation, but President Schulz has already told this Parliament that renegotiation is not possible. Mr Verhofstadt told the BBC renegotiation is not possible, so who is going to give? Are they going to be shown to be fools, or is Mr Cameron going to be shown to be a fool? I think Mr Cameron is trying to pull a Houdini act here. He is trying to appease the Eurosceptic majority in the UK, while trying to appease the European Union. This Houdini act is bound to fail and he will be shown to be more like Tommy Cooper.

My constituents tell me they do not want GBP 53 million spent in the EU. That money is better spent at home.

  Giuseppe Gargani (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, noi questi dibattiti che facciamo alla vigilia del Consiglio li sottolineiamo e li enfatizziamo. Io credo che il Consiglio che si tiene domani e dopodomani abbia davvero un'importanza particolare perché è a una svolta: o continuiamo in quella che chiamiamo la politica del rigore, oppure facciamo un passo in avanti e diamo inizio ad una strategia, una strategia politica e una strategia di sviluppo economico.

Jean Paul Fitoussi, che è un notista acuto e intelligente, ha detto ieri che una politica di rigore per il rigore è insopportabile. Io credo che l'Europa finora abbia sostanzialmente fatto così. La Cancelliera tedesca quando venne e parlò ai deputati europei disse che la strategia politica non era più possibile e che tutto dipendeva dal pareggio dei bilanci.

Io ritengo che, a parte le cifre, che non possono essere naturalmente discusse da me in un minuto e mezzo, e a parte le diminuzioni o i risparmi nel bilancio, noi abbiamo bisogno di una strategia che porti allo sviluppo, quindi di un bilancio che abbia questa significazione. Per questo io approfitto per chiedere una cosa formale alla signora Presidente del Consiglio, che interessa tutta l'Europa e interessa anche gli italiani. Noi italiani siamo contributori netti, ma quando parliamo di risorse proprie – una cosa che sento dire spesso – a che cosa alludiamo? Quali sono le risorse proprie? Quelle che derivano dalle tasse, oppure attraverso i bond che possono avere una dinamica europea diversa? Questo credo che sia fondamentale per poter capire anche se il bilancio potrà avere certamente un'ipotesi di sviluppo.

  Véronique De Keyser (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, je voudrais revenir sur les aspects de politique commerciale.

Nous avons parlé d'ouverture, de mondialisation, de croissance, etc. D'accord, mais faisons tout de même attention. Le cas tragique de Mittal, dont les travailleurs sont d'ailleurs tout près aujourd'hui, en train de défiler près du Parlement, appelle au moins trois réflexions.

Premièrement, l'Europe, si craintive quand il s'agit de défendre ses frontières contre l'immigration, n'est-elle pas trop naïve quand il s'agit, par exemple, d'investisseurs, de prédateurs, qui n'obéissent qu'à une logique financière? Nous sommes totalement impuissants, aujourd'hui, devant ces agissements.

Deuxièmement, dans nos politiques commerciales, ne devrions-nous pas scruter plus attentivement les agissements de nos partenaires sur le plan, par exemple, des aides d'État et d'autres avantages? Nous préparons un accord avec les États-Unis et nous abandonnons la surveillance rapprochée de ces accords, de ces possibilités de distorsions de la concurrence. Il en est de même pour la Russie et la Chine. Cela nous rend particulièrement vulnérables.

Troisièmement, il n'est pas normal que nos accords commerciaux ne tiennent pas davantage compte des contraintes sociales et environnementales. Cette brèche permet à des prédateurs de vider l'Europe de ses productions industrielles et, puis, de venir réimporter des produits réalisés dans des conditions plus dérégulées, parfois par leurs propres filiales. C'est ce que fait Mittal, qui ferme les sites en Europe puis se sert de ses filiales étrangères pour venir réapprovisionner ceux-ci.

"Il y a quelque chose de pourri au royaume du Danemark", comme aurait dit Shakespeare mais, sans tomber dans le protectionnisme, il faut insister sur la juste réciprocité des accords commerciaux en y incluant des critères sociaux et environnementaux. Sans cela, il n'y aura pas de politique industrielle en Europe.

  George Lyon (ALDE). - Mr President, this debate feels a little like Groundhog Day. We have heard it discussed so many times. However, I welcome Minister Creighton’s reassurance in her contribution. The Council understands the priorities of the European Parliament. I speak for my colleagues when I say that we realise the European budget must reflect the real financial pain that all our citizens are suffering today as a result of the financial crisis across Europe.

We are prepared to accept a smaller budget, but the quid pro quo must be, firstly, greater flexibility to switch money between headings and roll over underspends at the end of the year. That will allow us to spend a smaller budget more effectively and more efficiently.

Secondly, a proper mid-term review of the budget in 2017, when hopefully economic times will be improving. There is no national government around Europe or around the world that sets a budget, an austerity budget, for seven years. We must have the opportunity to look at it again. Therefore, that is our main requirement, along with the prioritisation of spending on jobs and growth. I hope that the Council will reflect on that before they come back to negotiate with us.

  François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE). - Monsieur le Président, à la veille du prochain sommet européen, le débat sur les perspectives financières 2014-2020 entre dans sa phase décisive.

Dans 48 heures, nous serons fixés sur les intentions des chefs d'État. Il faudra que le Parlement décide ou non d'approuver le cadre financier pluriannuel qui lui sera proposé. Cette décision, il faudra la peser sur la balance de l'Europe. Ce budget sera-t-il encore un budget européen, c'est-à-dire un budget qui permette, malgré la crise économique, de poursuivre les politiques de développement de l'Union européenne? Ou bien sera-t-il un budget anti-européen, c'est-à-dire une perspective sur sept ans qui programme la régression des politiques européennes les plus emblématiques? Il faudrait alors le rejeter.

Notre groupe espère que ce Parlement sera à la hauteur des responsabilités qui sont les siennes depuis que le traité de Lisbonne lui a conféré le pouvoir de codécision en matière budgétaire.

L'absence de cadre financier pluriannuel sera, à tout prendre, moins grave que l'adoption d'un cadre financier anti-européen.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD). - Pirmoji šiais metais Vadovų Taryba galėtų būti ta pavasario kregždė, kuri išpranašautų ne tik svarbiais sprendimais turtingą politikos vasarą, bet ir gerą derlių subrandinsiantį rudenį. Tikiu, kad tas pavasaris prasidės atsigręžimu į Europos žmones, įtvirtinant jų lygiateisiškumą bei vadovaujantis išmintimi vienodai teisingai paskirstant 2014–2020 metų daugiametės finansinės paramos lėšas.

Taip kalbėdamas, aš turiu omenyje du klausimus. Pirma, trijų Baltijos valstybių pastangas įtikinti Europos institucijas iki 2015 metų suvienodinti išmokas žemės ūkiui. Manau, kad toks susitarimas valstybių vadovų lygmeniu turi būti pasiektas dar šiemet. Ir antra, manau, jog būtina pasiekti, kad artimiausiu laikotarpiu valstybės narės susitartų dėl konkretaus veiksmų plano, siekdamos įgyvendinti bendrą tikslą – investicijoms į mokslinius tyrimus skirti ne mažiau kaip 3 proc. BVP.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, so Mali is going to be on the agenda. All actions have consequences, some of them unintended as well as those that are planned.

Those who are disposed to learn from past mistakes will recall that Britain’s war against the appalling regime in Afghanistan, and our ill-founded war against Iraq, resulted in the London bombings by third-generation Islamists from a large fifth column in Britain.

The political leaders of France, Britain and the rest will not be thanked by the families of service personnel killed in this conflict or by the families of victims of retaliatory atrocities in Europe, which will be the direct result of this perceived incursion into Muslim territory.

Of course the atrocities in Europe are facilitated by a large Muslim and significant Islamist population in the cities of Western Europe. Even those like the opportunists from whom we heard yesterday, who find it expedient to oppose this latest adventure, refuse to see the presence of fifth columns in Europe as the threat they undoubtedly are.

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Minister! Panie Komisarzu! Debatę o zaczynających się jutro negocjacjach, kolejnej odsłonie negocjacji na temat wieloletniego budżetu unijnego zaczęliśmy de facto wczoraj, wraz z wystąpieniem prezydenta Republiki Francuskiej. I muszę się Państwu przyznać, że szczególnie jeden wątek z wczorajszej dyskusji bardzo mnie zaniepokoił. Taki swoisty ping-pong pojawił się i wczoraj, i dzisiaj, z oskarżeniami, kto bardziej w Radzie, które rządy – prawicowe, lewicowe czy liberalne – forsują dalsze cięcia unijnego budżetu. Otóż niepokoi mnie – na jeden dzień przed rozpoczęciem kolejnej rundy negocjacji – właśnie to, że w takich sporach ambicjonalnych, sporach o wizerunek – kto wyszedł zwycięsko, a kto pokonany z tych negocjacji – albo co gorsza w sporach, w kłótniach o drobne szczegóły zagubi się szerszy obraz i prawdziwa stawka, o którą gramy w tych negocjacjach. Bo to, co liczy się najbardziej w idei wspólnej Europy dla wielu zwykłych Europejczyków, to świadomość solidarności między narodami i ich przywódcami i wola niwelowania wciąż ogromnych różnic w poziomie życia między biednymi i bogatymi regionami Unii Europejskiej. A jej gwarancją jest szczodry budżet, zwłaszcza na politykę spójności.

Te środki to także gwarancja inwestycji, których tak bardzo w czasach kryzysu potrzebujemy. W wielu państwach członkowskich udział środków unijnych w inwestycjach publicznych przekracza 50%, a często sięga blisko 70%. Wieloletnie planowanie jest podstawą tych inwestycji, które ratują te regiony przed jeszcze większym kryzysem. Dlatego apeluję do przywódców unijnych o rozwagę, odpowiedzialność i mądre decyzje, które będą akceptowalne również dla tej izby, a nie przez nią odrzucane.

(Mówca zgodził się odpowiedzieć na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki (art. 149 ust. 8 Regulaminu).)

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Panie Przewodniczący! Pan, panie pośle, mówił o zasadzie solidarności, która powinna kierować państwami Unii Europejskiej i całą Unią w podejmowaniu decyzji związanych z finansowaniem i wszystkimi ważnymi politykami, w tym, jak rozumiem, polityką rolną. Jak Pan w takim razie wyjaśni sytuację, w której Polska na przestrzeni lat 2014-2020 wpłaci do kasy unijnej 40 miliardów euro, a w tym czasie polscy rolnicy dopiero w 2020 r. będą uzyskiwać zaledwie 90% średniej dopłat unijnych? W sytuacji, kiedy rynek jest jeden, otwarty, polscy producenci rolni muszą konkurować z tymi, którzy mają znacznie wyższe dopłaty. Jak mają to robić, panie pośle?

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), odpowiedź na pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Panie Pośle Ziobro! Jesteśmy mieszkańcami tego samego kraju i widzimy, jak wiele polskie rolnictwo i polska wieś zyskały na członkostwie w Unii Europejskiej. Otwarcie rynków, dofinansowanie w postaci dopłat bezpośrednich (przy różnych kosztach wytwarzania produktów rolnych) są już – po już ośmiu latach obecności w Unii Europejskiej – oczywistym i niepodważalnym atutem i korzyścią dla polskiej wsi i polskich rolników i proces ten będzie postępował, ponieważ poziom dopłat bezpośrednich będzie się systematycznie wyrównywał.

  Patrizia Toia (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sulle spalle dell'Unione europea grava un compito gigantesco per il rilancio del sistema produttivo. È un compito gigantesco per il futuro dei giovani, una metà dei quali – la cosiddetta generazione Europa – viaggia, lavora, è inclusa, mentre l'altra metà rischia di essere la generazione perduta dell'Europa o almeno la generazione precaria.

Di fronte a questo noi ci presentiamo con un bilancio che è assolutamente inadeguato, che toglie ogni credibilità a tutti i nostri programmi: Europa 2020, COSME e via dicendo. Se la Commissione europea, che non è fatta di sognatori utopistici, propone 80 miliardi per Orizzonte, significa che ci vuole un'iniezione di innovazione e io mi chiedo con quale incoscienza noi spuntiamo quest'arma. Abbiamo bisogno di più, perché tagliare il bilancio significa lavorare contro la crescita e contro l'occupazione.

Lo dica, signora Ministro, ai suoi colleghi, e dica anche che la storia non finisce qui, non finisce a Bruxelles il 7 e l'8 febbraio. La storia passa poi da questo Parlamento. Lo dicono i trattati, ma lo dice la politica perché noi siamo la legittimazione democratica più alta dell'Europa e non rinunceremo a fare la nostra parte.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE). - Mr President, the potential of social inclusion policies to support or even drive competitiveness and innovation and growth has largely been unfortunately neglected when tracing possible routes to economic recovery. But a monetary pillar without a social and economic pillar is doomed to fail.

Therefore this neglect is harmful, not only because it leaves people in the most fragile socio-economic situation unprotected, but also because it underestimates the crucial importance of social inclusion, and labour market integration in particular, to retaining and developing the economy. For that reason Members should reflect their respective strategies to improve the socio-economic situation of marginalised communities in their national budgetary policies and consider social inclusion as a very essential part of the strategy for smart and inclusive growth and fiscal consolidation.

We are now at a historic moment in which societies in all regions of the EU are demanding changes to certain models and structures which have failed and are clearly not working. In this sense, countries cannot afford to waste the potential of any part of their population. Investing in social inclusion is more than a matter of human rights; it stands for good economic sense and means progress for all of us and our future generations. Giving priority to social inclusion is not optional now, it is obligatory.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). - Señor Presidente, suscribo lo que tantos diputados han dicho a lo largo de este debate.

Estas son las prioridades y, por tanto, las condiciones para que el Parlamento Europeo apruebe el presupuesto: un nivel más alto de los recursos de este presupuesto, unas prioridades orientadas hacia el crecimiento, el empleo y la innovación, unos recursos propios, por lo menos, como primer paso, y una mayor flexibilidad.

Pero quiero subrayar que una parte del presupuesto ha de mostrar otra cara de Europa a la Europa del futuro, que son sus jóvenes, unos jóvenes que en gran parte de la Unión no encuentran empleo, no encuentran oportunidades, y que no quieren ver la cara de los éxitos del pasado, sino las respuestas del presente.

En ese sentido apoyo la garantía juvenil y el programa o dispositivo especial, con dos condiciones: que tengan unos recursos adicionales que no consistan solamente en una reorientación de recursos ya disponibles, y que no exijan sacrificios adicionales a los países más necesitados.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). - Este evident că statele membre au dreptul de a stabili contribuţia la bugetul Uniunii, dar este tot atât de evident că aceleaşi state membre au obligaţia să respecte prevederile Tratatului de la Lisabona, cât şi angajamentele stabilite tot de ei privind politicile europene. Statele membre care consideră că vor câştiga prin reducerea contribuţiei naţionale se înşeală. Bugetul european este, în proporţie de 95%, buget de investiţii. Diminuarea lui va reduce investiţiile şi, implicit, locurile de muncă peste tot în Europa, iar efectele se vor vedea în toate statele membre. Consecinţele negative vor fi mai mari decât cele relativ pozitive ale diminuării contribuţiei naţionale. Un buget mai mic decât cel actual ar constitui un pas înapoi, un eşec al Uniunii. Vor fi şi alte efecte decât cele directe, financiare; va fi un câştig pentru eurosceptici, pentru populişti, va constitui un semnal negativ pentru pieţele financiare şi va determina incertitudini în cancelariile ţărilor terţe.

Parlamentul trebuie să voteze un aviz privind CFM-ul. Rezultatul acestui vot nu este cert în acest moment. Pe de altă parte, peste 60 de propuneri legislative se află în lucru, în procedură de codecizie, unde Parlamentul are puteri egale cu Consiliul. Este nevoie de un acord în aceste negocieri, altfel vom fi în situaţia aplicării, în 2014, a unor politici stabilite în 2006. Consiliul European trebuie să se gândească înainte de a lua decizia, deoarece un dezacord pe buget ne duce la aplicarea, în 2014 şi în următorii ani, a plafonului bugetar din 2013, care este mult mai bun.

Domnule preşedinte, domnul Farage s-a referit la circulaţia forţei de muncă, la români şi la bulgari. Aş vrea să-l rog să înceteze cu astfel de aprecieri populiste şi să se aplece mai mult asupra situaţiei interne a Marii Britanii. Nu libera circulaţie a forţei de muncă şi apartenenţa la Uniune a creat situaţia din Marea Britanie acum.

(Vorbitorul a acceptat să răspundă unei întrebări adresate în urma ridicării cartonaşului albastru, în conformitate cu articolul 149 alineatul (8) din Regulament).

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Chciałam zapytać o Pana zdanie w następującej sprawie. Pojawiła się tutaj myśl, która coraz częściej jest powtarzana. Wczoraj mówił o tym poseł Cohn-Bendit, dzisiaj poseł Verhofstadt i koledzy z ALDE że może wieloletnie ramy finansowe nie są tak ważne – odłóżmy tę kwestię, zastanówmy się, nie musimy co do tego osiągnąć porozumienia. Natomiast kluczowe są roczne budżety. Zacznijmy pracować na tej podstawie. Kolega Verhofstadt posunął się nawet do tego, że mówił, że wieloletnie planowanie to jak wieloletnie plany w dawnym Związku Radzieckim. Chcę powiedzieć, że roczne budżety stwarzają ogromną niepewność, o jakiej Pan mówił, i nie dają tej pewności środkom spójności, dużym projektom europejskim. Jakie jest Pana zdanie na ten temat?

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), Răspuns „cartonaşului albastru”. – Este evident că un buget multianual este mult mai bun decât un buget anual, dar depinde care este valoarea bugetului, pentru că, dacă avem un buget multianual mai mic decât actualul cadru financiar, nu cred că este în avantajul Uniunii. Regula din tratatul de bază spune că, în cazul în care nu există un acord privind bugetul, se va aplica, în 2014 şi în următorii ani, plafonul bugetului din 2013, care este mai mare decât cel care în acest moment este propus de Consiliu. Deci s-ar putea să fie un avantaj pentru Uniune, dacă, în acelaşi timp, se aprobă şi politicile orizontale.

  Jutta Haug (S&D). - Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Unser Tagesordnungspunkt, unter dem wir seit mehr als zwei Stunden diskutieren, heißt „Vorbereitung des Europäischen Rates“. Das zeigt ja wieder einmal mehr, dass das Europäische Parlament den Europäischen Rat ernst nimmt. Zu ernst? Auch gehen wir davon aus, dass der Rat durchaus weiß, welche Dinge bei einem mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen für das Parlament wichtig sind, und das bei seinen Gesprächen und der Erarbeitung der Verhandlungsbasis auch berücksichtigt.

Wir haben unsere Position vor mehr als anderthalb Jahren erarbeitet und formuliert und in regelmäßigen Abständen wiederholt. Mittlerweile kennt die jeder. Die Höhe und die Struktur des Budgets mitsamt dem Verhältnis von Verpflichtungen und Zahlungen müssen stimmen. Die Flexibilität über die sieben Jahre und die unterschiedlichen Kategorien muss es geben. Wir wollen die Modernisierung des Haushalts und den Einstieg in die Eigenmittelreform. Da bleibt uns jetzt nur noch die Aufforderung an den Rat: Lassen Sie Ihre kleinlichen nationalen Egoismen hinter sich! Werden Sie wirklich eine europäische Institution! Lassen Sie sich von der Frage leiten: Was wollen wir mit dem europäischen Haushalt für Europa und seine Bürger erreichen?

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). - Em primeiro lugar, aquilo que queria frisar é que é evidente que o Parlamento Europeu e, em particular, o grupo do PPE não estarão disponíveis para aceitar um orçamento da parte do Conselho que seja um orçamento que signifique um retrocesso da União Europeia. E isto tem de ficar muito claro, é apoiado pelos países da coesão e é apoiado pelos contribuintes líquidos no Parlamento Europeu. Todos os deputados dos vários países querem uma Europa mais forte com um orçamento maior.

Deixado este primeiro ponto, há um segundo que é fundamental para os países da coesão que é justamente a capacidade de aumentarmos os fundos estruturais para os países em necessidade e, em particular, para aqueles que estão em dolorosos processos de ajustamento. Se não houver fundos estruturais para esses países não haverá nenhum investimento porque o investimento privado está em retração e o investimento público está condicionado pela situação financeira dos países. O apoio e a solidariedade da União Europeia são decisivos para que, com o ajustamento necessário das contas públicas, se crie algum crescimento e se torne sustentável a recuperação destes países.

Finalmente, queria deixar uma palavra porque estamos também a favor de um reforço do investimento na investigação e desenvolvimento e, nomeadamente, nos programas para os jovens e que não pode o Conselho deixar cair, nestes dois dias, programas tão estruturantes para o futuro da União Europeia como é o caso do Programa Erasmus e de outros programas para a juventude.

  Edit Herczog (S&D). - A KGST utolsó időszakában láttam egy karikatúrát, 17 sovány tehén fejte egymást. A mostani kormányfői tanácskozás egyre inkább arra hasonlít, hogy 27 sovány tehén feji egymást. Ez nem jó irány. Nagyon sok politikát az elmúlt időszakban európai szintre emeltünk, az innovációt vagy a kisvállalkozás-politikát. Ezért tagállami szinten jelentősen csökkentették a hozzárendelt forrásokat. El tudják Önök képzelni, hogy most európai szinten is megkurtítsuk ezeket a pénzeszközöket? Nemet mond erre az Európai Parlament.

Hölgyeim és Uraim! A legnagyobb tartalék az iskolából friss, korszerű tudással kikerült fiatalok munkába állításában és a tudományos-technológiai fejlődésen alapuló gazdaságfejlesztésen múlik. Ezt kell megtennünk. Ez az a vízió, amit kérünk Önöktől. Végül engedjék meg, hogy egy olyan ügyet is említsek, amiben Magyarországon egyetértünk, noha mi nagyon kevés ügyben értünk egyet. Abban, hogy a mali nemzetközi csapatot támogassuk, Magyarország minden pártja egyetért. Ehhez kívánunk nagyon sok sikert az elnökségben.

  Андрей Ковачев (PPE). - Г-н Председател, първо, не мога да оставя без коментар изказването на г-н Farage, който каза, че при отпадането на ограниченията за българи и румънци от 1-ви януари 2014 година, както е записано в предприсъединителните договори и ратифицирано от Обединеното кралство, Лондон ще напусне Европейския съюз.

Сеенето на страх от източноевропейци може би носи политически дивиденти на г-н Farage и е добра политическа калкулация в неговата игра на „извиване на ръце“ с г-н Камерън, но е неморално и отвратително политическо поведение. Г-н Farage и другите представители от Обединеното кралство, дали консултирахте Вашата позиция за излизане на Вашата страна от Европейския съюз с Лондонското сити и с бизнеса на Обединеното кралство?

Но сега относно многогодишната финансова рамка. За да имат европейските региони шанс за развитие, размерът на средствата за еврофондовете трябва да бъде запазен поне на равнището от сегашния програмен период, както настоява Парламентът. За последните няколко години България усвоява ускорено и ефективно еврофондовете и българските фирми и граждани усещат ползите от членството в Европейския съюз.

Призовавам бизнеса, финансовите институции и правителствата на всички страни членки, в сътрудничество с Европейската комисия, да разработят една проевропейска комуникационна стратегия за всяка една страна членка поотделно с акценти към различните обществени групи, за да могат всички те да припознаят своя интерес от един силен европейски бюджет.

Тогава няма да е проблем да отстояваме не само 1 % от БВП на Европейския съюз да представлява европейския бюджет, а и той да се формира до голяма степен от собствени средства на ЕС. Този бюджет е целеви инвестиционен инструмент, който увеличава потенциала и конкурентоспособността на всички европейски региони и по този начин допринася за завършването на Единния европейски пазар и за растежа.

  Bernd Lange (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Frau Ratsvorsitzende, ich fand ja Ihre Einlassung im Bereich Handel sehr interessant, weil das ein Thema ist, das wir heute noch gar nicht besprochen haben. Insbesondere dass wohl klar ist, dass der Handel in der Tat deutlich zum Bruttosozialprodukt beitragen kann und dass wir auch Leitplanken brauchen. In den Schlussfolgerungen ist ja auch vorgesehen, dass zum Beispiel Reziprozität bei der öffentlichen Beschaffung geregelt werden soll, und zwar möglichst schnell – das finde ich richtig und gut. Ich beglückwünsche den Rat, dass er diesen Weg jetzt auch gehen will und dass er auch deutlich sagt, dass die Kommission trade defence instruments auf den Weg bringen soll. Auch das, glaube ich, ist richtig, weil Handel nur mit vernünftigen Leitplanken funktioniert.

Allerdings, Frau Ratsvorsitzende, was mir fehlt, ist, wenn man sich die ganzen Handelsabkommen, die da genannt werden, ansieht, auch gerade mit emerging countries, dass nicht davon gesprochen wird, dass wir auch sustainable chapters haben müssen, dass wir klar sagen müssen, welche sozialen und Umweltstandards wir einfordern, damit ein fairer Handel passieren kann. Gestern Abend haben wir auch über die soziale Verantwortung von Unternehmen diskutiert. Ich glaube, auch das gehört in die Schlussfolgerungen hinein, dass sich europäische Unternehmen in anderen Ländern vernünftig verhalten.

  Wim van de Camp (PPE). - Na alles wat gezegd is heb ik nog vier punten. Het eerste punt is de verantwoording van de financiële middelen. Zoals Collega Mulder al zei is het onacceptabel, ook voor de burgers in Europa, dat wij niet in staat zijn om de uitgaven van de Europese Unie te verantwoorden via de nationale beheersverklaringen.

Het tweede punt is de innovatie. Wij vinden dat innovatie ook binnen de klassieke begrotingen van landbouw en regionale uitgaven een veel grotere positie moet innemen. Minder overdrachtsuitgaven, meer innovatie.

Het derde punt betreft de flexibiliteit. Wij moeten meer flexibiliteit in die meerjarige begroting krijgen opdat wij kunnen inspelen op actuele ontwikkelingen in Europa.

En het vierde punt, na afweging toch wel graag een zevenjarig meerjarig financieel kader. Er is te veel onzekerheid bij die jaarbegrotingen. Grote projecten kun je niet uitvoeren als het jaar voor jaar moet. En waarom doen wij dit allemaal? Om de jeugd in Europa hoop te bieden, om de sociale markteconomie te beschermen, om een duurzame economie te bewerkstelligen die ook de waarden van Europa de komende zeven jaar vooruithelpt.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D). - Mr President, I am sure everyone wants an agreement on the budget, but it has to be a good agreement, a good agreement for citizens, for organisations, and for jobs and growth, not just for finance ministers. I say this because cuts in the overall budget will mean cuts in things like cohesion policy, rural development, research and development – and these are the programmes which we should be investing in as a European Union. These are the programmes which will help us achieve jobs and growth.

I wanted to give colleagues, the Commission and the Council, an example of what these cuts will mean. Wales, where I come from, benefits hugely from European structural funds. That is why we are perhaps the most pro-European part of the UK. The Welsh Government has recently done an analysis of what a cut of EUR 75 billion in the EU budget will mean. It means that over the next financial period Wales will get EUR 1 billion less than expected in the first place. Therefore, when David Cameron says he is defending the interests of the UK, it is not all the UK.

  Reimer Böge (PPE). - Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Am Ende kann der Rat einem Vorschlag für die Finanzperspektiven erst einstimmig zustimmen, nachdem das Parlament seine Zustimmung erteilt hat. Man achte hier auch auf die Reihenfolge und nehme den Vertrag ernst.

Ich sehe die Gefahr eines zweifachen Defizits: Defizit im Haushalt und ein rasantes Defizit im Europäischen Rat im Hinblick auf europäische Gesinnung und Orientierung. Deswegen muss es auch so sein, dass die eingegangenen Verpflichtungen, die bezahlten Rechnungen von Mitgliedstaaten jetzt so ausgeglichen werden, wie die Haushaltsregeln und der Vertrag es vorsehen, damit wir nicht in ein Defizit kommen. Also lösen wir die Zahlungsrückstände der 16 Milliarden – mehr oder weniger – auf, bevor wir zum Finanzrahmen kommen, und schieben wir nicht erneut durch Haushaltstricks oder durch extrem niedrige Zahlungsermächtigungen für die nächste Laufzeit Zahlungen auf die Zeit nach 2020. Das wäre unehrlich und gegen den Vertrag, denn wir wollen auch in Zukunft keine Schulden machen.

Aus meiner Sicht wird auf der Ebene des Rates zu viel über Rabatte und Transfers zugunsten von Staaten diskutiert. Wo bleibt die Debatte um den europäischen Mehrwert? Dem Europäischen Rat muss man sagen: Schaut euch mal eure Schlussfolgerungen zu Forschung, zu Entwicklungspolitik oder zu den Verkehrsnetzen an! Das steht in einem großen Widerspruch zu dem, was dort an Zahlen diskutiert wird.

Natürlich gibt es auch hier Reformbedarf. Aber die Debatte um Reform darf nicht so geführt werden, dass die Öffentlichkeit den Eindruck bekommt, in Friedenszeiten wird der Feind durch Brüssel ersetzt. So geht das nicht! So kommen wir nicht zu einer vernünftigen europäischen Politik!

  Alain Lamassoure (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, Madame la Présidente, ça ne peut pas fonctionner comme cela. Il s'agit du budget, pas pour un an mais pour sept ans. Pas pour un seul pays mais pour les vingt-huit membres de l'Union, 500 millions de citoyens.

La démocratie est née le jour où les représentants du peuple ont dit non! Quand ils ont exigé et obtenu que le financement du budget et son emploi soient décidés par eux. Depuis lors, budget signifie transparence, information, débat public, vote démocratique après des explications de vote publiques.

Or, la négociation en cours se déroule entre vingt-huit personnes, complètement à huis clos. Ce secret est mieux gardé que ceux du département d'État américain puisqu'aucun site wikileaks n'y a eu accès. Aucun parlement national, ni le Parlement européen n'est informé aujourd'hui du contenu des chiffres et du dossier qui sera sur la table. Aucun n'aura donc pu en débattre avant, aucun parti politique d'aucun pays n'aura pu donner son avis en connaissance de cause.

Dans ces conditions, l'accord qui sera peut-être conclu au sein du Conseil européen ne mettra pas fin au débat, au contraire. Il permettra simplement que le débat commence. Alors s'ouvrira la phase démocratique du débat budgétaire et la décision finale, la seule démocratiquement acceptable, sera celle qui sera votée par le Parlement européen.

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). - Mr President, let me pick up where my colleague, Mr Lamassoure, has just finished. I think the message to the Council – and I know Minister Creighton will convey this message – is that the European Parliament is watching very closely not just the figures, but the structure of the budget. I see that sources are saying that there would be far-reaching and serious consequences for the European Union if we do not have an agreement over the coming days. I think that is true, but remember that this is only the first step. If agreement is reached, this House has got to have its say.

I think that a few comments on agriculture were negative. Let me say something very positive about the common agricultural policy. This is a policy for jobs, for stable markets, for growth, for rural development and for increased environmental delivery, and we have been asked to do this with potentially less money and to redistribute money to those Member States – the new Member States – who rightfully are looking for more. So there are a lot of demands being made on this policy. We in the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development will certainly watch closely what the Council agrees.

  Presidente. − Care colleghe e cari colleghi, io voglio essere molto chiaro. Ora inizia il "catch the eye" ma noi siamo con i tempi molto ristretti perché dovremmo finire alle 11.30 e sono già previsti gli interventi di due Commissari e della rappresentante del Consiglio. Io prenderò soltanto sei interventi, rigorosamente nell'ordine in cui le richieste sono state prese dalla presidenza. Quindi è inutile che alzate i cartelli perché io non posso fare nulla. Io seguo la lista che mi stata fatta in maniera rigorosissima.

Procedura "catch the eye"

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Pani Minister! Najbliższy szczyt Rady Europejskiej w znacznym stopniu określi, w jakim kierunku zmierzać będzie Unia Europejska do końca roku 2020. Czy będzie to wzrost gospodarczy i tworzenie nowych miejsc pracy, czy też może stagnacja i dalszy spadek zatrudnienia? Przewodniczący Van Rompuy proponuje, aby budżet na lata 2014–2020 był budżetem umiaru. Umiar ten nie może jednak się przerodzić w zachowawczość i pozorne oszczędności, do czego wydają się dążyć niektóre z państw członkowskich. Obywatele potrzebują dziś pozytywnych sygnałów, które pozwolą odbudować zaufanie do instytucji europejskich. Bez wątpienia takim sygnałem może być przyjęcie wieloletnich ram finansowych na poziomie umożliwiającym realizację ambitnych celów strategii Europa 2020 i powrót na ścieżkę wzrostu.

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). - Arvoisa puhemies, komission puheenjohtaja Barroso aloitti sanomalla, että Euroopan unioni on maailman suurin kauppamahti, ja tämä on totta. Hän myös muistutti siitä, että maailmankaupassa tarvitaan uusia pelisääntöjä, että vääristävistä rakenteista päästään irti.

Yksi vääristävä tekijä tapahtui aivan hiljakkoin, jolloin eteläkorealainen yritys lypsi sekä ranskalaista että suomalaista telakkayhtiötä ja vaati mahdollisimman suuria valtion tukiaisia ja päätyi loppujen lopuksi Ranskaan. Onnittelen siitä ranskalaisia, joskin se saattaa myöhemmin koitua suureksi taakaksi ranskalaisille veronmaksajille. Nyt komissio selvittää, onko tässä tapahtunut Euroopan unionin jäsenvaltioiden puolelta jotain EU-säännösten vastaista. Toivoisin arvoisan komission puheenjohtajan edustajan täällä kommentoivan tätä asiaa ja selventävän, miten on mahdollista, että eteläkorealaiset ikään kuin lypsävät kahta EU-maata.

  Graham Watson (ALDE). - Mr President, I wish the Council well in its search for agreement on a multiannual financial framework. When tax revenues are hard to predict, spending commitments are hard to make, but I hope that all our Heads of State and Government will recognise that what is essential is to ring-fence spending for research and innovation to restore competitiveness and to commit to the trans-European networks on transport, power transmission and broadband, which will pave the way back to prosperity.

The current Presidency can doubtless make some savings as Ryanair becomes Ireland’s national flag carrier, but I am not sure I would wish that on future presidencies.

  Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). - Zbliżający się szczyt Rady Europejskiej poświęcony będzie przede wszystkim budżetowi Unii na lata 2014-2020. W obliczu kryzysowej sytuacji zrozumienie budzi chęć lepszego planowania wydatków i oszczędności. Nie mogą one jednak dotyczyć strategicznych i kluczowych funduszy, jak na przykład Fundusz Spójności. Drastyczne cięcia w tym sektorze dałyby wyraźny sygnał, że starsze państwa członkowskie Unii chcą łatać dziurę budżetową kosztem nowo przyjętych państw członkowskich. Stracą na tym nie tylko takie kraje, jak Polska czy Węgry, ale podważy to zaufanie do całej Unii Europejskiej i przyjętej wcześniej przez nią zasady solidarności. Już teraz wielu się zastanawia, czy grudniowa decyzja Komisji Europejskiej wstrzymująca fundusze na budowę dróg w Polsce nie jest pierwszym krokiem wcześniej zaplanowanej przez niektóre państwa strategii. Jeśli cięcia Funduszu Spójności dla nowych państw członkowskich, w tym Polski, miałyby oznaczać kompromis, to z pewnością w krajach tych odczytane to będzie nie jako kompromis, lecz jako kompromitacja Unii.

  Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE). - Evropski proračun v višini enega procenta niso samo številke, čeprav so te številke tako nizke, da so v življenjskih normalnih pogojih lahko na nivoju statistične napake: en procent!

Torej gre za politično voljo. Gre za to, ali hočemo Evropo, in gre za to, ali hočemo, da bomo med sabo bolj povezljivi. Povezljivi preko digitalizacije Evrope, povezljivi preko infrastrukture. In če si želimo večjo kakovost življenja, ali bomo namenili več denarja tudi v raziskave in razvoj, ki služijo zdravju, ki služijo obvladovanju bolezni. Torej več Evrope v uravnoteženem proračunu.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - Como disse o Presidente Barroso, o quadro financeiro plurianual é para alguns Estados-Membros crucial para fazer face à crise e investir no crescimento da economia e emprego. É o caso de Portugal, hoje sob o resgate e supervisão da troica, e isso porque parte substancial da riqueza produzida pelos portugueses continua a ser apropriada por gangsters e desviada para o exterior a coberto da selva fiscal na União Europeia e da desregulação global. A troica fez e faz vista grossa à corrupção e às disfunções no sistema financeiro, fiscal e judicial que garantem impunidade aos gangsters, agora aproveitando-se das privatizações impostas e forçadas. Como se compreende que a troica tenha endossado a amnistia fiscal de 2012 com que o Governo tratou de proteger indivíduos como o banqueiro Ricardo Salgado, que se esqueceu de declarar milhões na Suíça, e os acionistas da SLM Galileu, que não pagam os milhares de milhões que devem ao Estado à conta da fraude monstruosa no BPN? O Governo permitiu-lhes legalizar capitais no exterior sem terem de os repatriar mediante uma taxa ridícula de 7,5%, sem lhes questionar a origem e assegurando-lhes a proteção do segredo.

(Fine della procedura "catch the eye")

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, colleagues, thank you for this debate, which was predominantly a true and realistic picture of the European budget. But I could also hear things that were not true, wrong and misleading. My job is to tell the difference.

Therefore, those who say that the European budget is small are right. This is 1% of the national wealth, less than 2% of public expenditure in the European Union. But those who say – and I hear it constantly – that we are cutting our national budgets at home while the European budget is growing are wrong. More than 20 national budgets are growing, and we are now expected to finance a larger Europe with the accession of Croatia – and more duties – with less money. That is true.

Those who say that the European budget is about investment are right. You cannot find investment money for growth and jobs in the national and regional budgets; these are normally the first victim of savings.

But the stability of the MFF in the European Union has nothing to do with the Soviet planning I remember. This was about planning how many shoes or toys you were to produce annually; the European MFF is about stability of investment over many years for multiannual projects, which is of great value in this time of crisis.

Those who say that one euro spent at European level could bring more added value than separate national expenditures are right. You can find the proof in international consortia in research for global competitiveness, in the trans-European networks in energy and transportation, and in humanitarian aid worldwide.

Those who say that we need to avoid an excessive gap between commitments and payments are right. Some difference is normal, but in order to avoid excessive difference we need to go into the new MFF without an excessive overhang legacy from this one.

Therefore, we need the European Parliament to find missing money for the 2013 budget. As for what I see is a real witch-hunt in respect of the less than 6% of the European budget which is set aside for administration, I will leave that story to Commissioner Šefčovič.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, allow me to have the last word before the European Council on Heading 5 of the MFF, on administration.

Despite the fact that it represents less than 6% of the budget, it is the subject of a huge discussion – I would even say a media campaign – in Europe. Therefore, I believe that it is absolutely necessary to underline the need for a top professional, independent and geographically balanced EU administration.

The EU has to deliver on more and more demanding tasks, and in all 23 languages. This alone represents 15% of administrative costs. We have to deliver on a new task given to us under the EU Semester. We will have to issue opinions on the national budgets. In the trade talks we discussed this morning we will have to face the best and finest negotiators from all over the world. This is without mentioning the European Court of Justice, where our lawyers have to face the best global law firms in the world, and in the overwhelming majority of cases – 90% – they win.

Fines imposed by the European Court of Justice have brought more than EUR 30 billion into the EU budget over the last few years. Member States, law firms and companies send their best people to Brussels, Strasbourg or Luxembourg to cover EU matters. They also need to be of high quality. If you ask them how much they are paid you will not usually get an answer. The President of the European Parliament tried to get one. He received no answer, and I do not think he will ever get one. But I can assure you that they are paid at a much different level than they are paid back home in their capitals.

But I think this is right, because they are being paid for their quality, language skills and hard work. Therefore, I would repeat here the plea I made to European ministers on Monday: let us not get carried away; let us not break the EU machine.

We have already offered to make almost EUR 10 billion in cumulative savings since 2004. Our civil servants working for the EU institutions will work longer hours and will retire later than most civil servants in the Member States, and we are already proposing to cut 2500 jobs. This is the equivalent of the entire administrative staff of the European Court of Justice, so these are very significant savings.

We know that more is expected, but I would also like to underline that if we overdo this we will create a situation where projects for regional development will be delayed or not be processed with the required quality. This would create a situation where translation will be scarce, thus leading to an even longer backlog of unsolved cases at the European Court of Justice, creating very serious legal uncertainty.

So I would just like to say that, through marginal savings, we can do structural damage where it will be the citizens who will feel it first.

  Lucinda Creighton, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, I would like to thank the Members of the European Parliament for a very insightful, very fruitful and very helpful debate from my point of view. It is fair to say that we will engage in very intensive and very important negotiations at the European Council tomorrow and on Friday.

Different Member States have different perspectives. President Van Rompuy has the unenviable task of trying to bring those different perspectives together to achieve a compromise. I certainly agree with, and I think I can reflect, the desire and the determination of the European Parliament to ensure that this compromise is fair, balanced and ultimately ensures that we have a budget which is fit for purpose, so that we can continue to pursue the policies which are so essential to tackle the challenges that we face at EU level.

I would like to particularly note and thank the representatives of the Committee on Budgets, rapporteurs, members of the contact group, particularly Mr Lamassoure, Mr Böge, Mr Kalfin, Ms Jensen and Mr Dehaene for the engagement that we have seen over the last 18 months or more, from the Polish Presidency to the Danish Presidency to the Cyprus Presidency and now into the Irish Presidency. That engagement has been invaluable and has helped to inform the discussions at the General Affairs Council and at the European Council in November.

A number of points have been made, particularly by the Members of Parliament. I appreciate that there are some divergent views here in the Chamber, but there a number of common issues that are also of enormous concern to the Council.

The first of those is youth unemployment. It is clear that all Members of the European Parliament want to tackle the scourge of youth unemployment and indeed the general challenge of unemployment across the European Union. We are all agreed that the budget must be oriented towards trying to tackle that challenge.

It is important to note that as well as the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission are working in that direction. We, as the Irish Presidency, intend to secure an agreement on the Youth Guarantee at the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council (EPSCO) at the end of February.

That is a proposal which comes from the Commission and which has been endorsed by the European Parliament. President Van Rompuy announced earlier this week his intention to ensure that several billions of euros within the Multiannual Financial Framework will be oriented towards tackling youth unemployment. So there is a coherence and a consistency in our approach, and I am confident that this will come to bear in the negotiations at the European Council tomorrow.

A number of MEPs mentioned solidarity in the debate. I note that Mr Swoboda and a number of other contributors highlighted the need for solidarity at European-Union level. I fully agree with that.

There is also a need for responsibility. That responsibility does not just lie with governments or the Council; it lies with all of the institutions and individual elected representatives at EU level. It is important that we all assume that responsibility to try to ensure that we arrive at a deal that is acceptable and, most importantly, that serves the interests of our citizens.

On the question of solidarity, certain remarks were made about immigration. I just want to say that from our experience in my country in Ireland, and indeed across the EU, immigration and free movement across EU Member States has hugely enriched the European Union. The presence of citizens from all EU Member States working, interacting and getting to know each other across borders is extremely important, and something that we should treasure and continue to embrace.

I would like to make a point on the negotiations at the European Council this week. It is important to say – and a number of Members have pointed to this, Mr Lamassoure, Mr Kalfin, Mr Daul and others – that it is not a question of a deal being agreed at European Council level on Thursday and Friday and that becoming a fait accompli or a ‘take it or leave it’ scenario. That is not the case.

We have had good consultation with the European Parliament to date, but we will have even better and much deeper engagement and negotiation with the European Parliament over the weeks and months ahead.

If an agreement is reached at the European Council on Thursday and Friday, the Commission will then come forward with its proposal and with its proposed interinstitutional agreement. Then we will engage in intensive negotiations with the European Parliament. So it is the beginning, rather than the end, of the process. We, as the Irish Presidency, are very much committed to that course of action.

There are a number of red-line issues and priorities which have been identified by MEPs and Parliament, and the contact group have made these very consistently and very coherently to members of the Council over recent months: flexibility, the need for a mid-term review and the question of own resources.

These priorities have been heard and are being heard, and I am confident that they will be reflected in the outcome of our negotiations over the next two days. Members of this Parliament have identified a range of priorities, from SMEs, to research and development, to the common agricultural policy, to cohesion policy, and different Members lay emphasis on different aspects of those.

All EU policies are important. It is essential that they are adequately funded, but there is no doubt that we have a challenge. We have a challenge to ensure, with reduced resources, that we have better, more effective and more efficient spending than we have ever seen before. That will be the challenge: to ensure that all of the policies are oriented towards growth and that we are investing smartly and wisely.

That does not mean that one aspect – whether it is Horizon 2020 or the common agricultural policy – should trump another. They all have their place, they are all important and we are committed as the European Union to ensuring that they can all function appropriately, adequately and for the benefit of our citizens.

To sum up I would like to say – and repeat the point – that this is the beginning of the process. I hope and believe, for the credibility of the European Union, the credibility of the Council and the credibility of the institutions, that we must arrive at a deal this week; that the EU Heads of State and Government must achieve agreement amongst themselves for a position in the Council so that we can take forward our negotiations with the European Parliament.

Over the next weeks and months we can ensure that we put in place a Multiannual Financial Framework that will benefit our citizens, that will help us in the huge challenge of tackling unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, and ensuring the growth and development of the European Union for the benefit of our citizens over the weeks and months and years ahead.

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΑΝΝΥ ΠΟΔΗΜΑΤΑ
Αντιπρόεδρος

  Πρόεδρος. - H συζήτηση έληξε.

Γραπτές δηλώσεις (άρθρο 149)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), par écrit. – Mes premiers mots seront pour regretter que le président du Conseil européen, Herman Van Rompuy, ne soit pas venu pour écouter et entendre les positions du Parlement européen dont il faut, sans cesse, répéter qu’il est en codécision pour le cadre financier européen 2014-2020. Sur ce sujet, je me réjouis que l’idée d’une clause de révision en 2016 fasse son chemin. En effet, je crois nécessaire de laisser « souffler » les Etats membres sur le plan financier. Ils doivent faire face au rétablissement de leurs finances publiques, à la contribution au budget de l’Union et au financement du Mécanisme européen de stabilité. En 2016, nous aurons un nouveau Parlement européen, une nouvelle Commission européenne, un nouveau président du Conseil européen. En 2016, l’essentiel des Etats ayant signé le traité de stabilité, de coordination et de gouvernance économique (« règle d’or ») devraient l’avoir ratifié. En 2016, nous devrions avoir doté l’UE de ressources propres. En 2016, il est possible que le Royaume-Uni ait quitté l’Union européenne. Préalablement à 2016 et lors des élections européennes de 2014, nous pourrons mettre en débat politique tous les sujets liés au cadre financier : agriculture, fonds de cohésion, recherche scientifique etc....

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), în scris. – Cel mai important subiect discutat la summit-ul Consiliului European din 7-8 februarie este cadrul financiar multianual 2014-2020. Mari speranțe se pun în finalizarea dezbaterilor legate de bugetul UE, iar atingerea unui consens este prioritară pentru fiecare stat membru. O altă prioritate pe care o are România în cadrul summit-ului este Republica Moldova. Țara mea va solicita ca negocierile privind acordul de asociere UE-Moldova să fie finalizate cât mai rapid, astfel încât acesta să fie semnat până în noiembrie 2013, când are loc Summit-ul Parteneriatului Estic de la Vilnius. Mai mult, în timpul vizitei sale la Chişinău anul trecut, Jose Manuel Barroso, Președintele Comisiei Europene, a subliniat că UE va continua să sprijine procesul de reforme din Republica Moldova, exprimându-și în același timp convingerea că în 2013 se va reuși semnarea Acordului de Asociere. În acest context, doresc și eu să subliniez importanța încheierii acordului, luând în considerare progresul obținut până în prezent de către Republica Moldova în alinierea legislației naționale la cea europeană. Totodată, este nevoie ca cetățenii moldoveni să poată calatori în UE fără vize cât mai rapid. De aceea rămâne prioritar obiectivul de finalizare, în acest an, a Planului de Acțiuni privind liberalizarea vizelor.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – Last September, Mr Barroso came here and called for a ‘federation of nation states. Not a superstate’. He also agreed that such a ‘federation of nation states will ultimately require a new Treaty’. However he caveated it by saying, ‘Discussions on treaty change must not distract or delay us from doing what can and must be done already today’. In Dublin a couple of weeks ago, when asked about the UK Government’s plans for an In/Out Referendum on its membership of the European Union, he repeated those words and I quote: ‘What I hope is that debate does not distract us from the very important challenges we have, namely tackling the (economic) crisis’. Prime Minister David Cameron is keen to begin those negotiations on Treaty changes so that he can get his referendum – is he as keen?

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), în scris. – Dificultatea de a ajunge la un consens cu privire la bugetul european transmite un semnal negativ nu doar pieţelor internaţionale, ci şi cetăţenilor europeni. Parlamentul European, dar şi Preşedintele Barroso, au făcut apel în repetate rânduri la nevoia de credibilitate a instituţiilor europene în faţa unor cetăţeni tot mai străini de proiectul european. Reducerea fondurilor pentru educaţie, infrastructură şi telecomunicaţii, dar şi pentru politica de coeziune şi politica agricolă comună ar amputa o parte vitală a programelor europene într-un moment de criză, în care ar trebui favorizată creşterea economică şi încurajată solidaritatea socială. Faptul că se vorbeşte de tăierea fondurilor pentru programe precum Erasmus sau ajutorul alimentar pentru persoanele nevoiaşe indică lipsa unei viziuni europene centrate asupra cetăţenilor. Nu în ultimul rând, un buget european care ar reflecta doar interesele marilor contribuitori ar amplifica dezechilibrele dintre aceştia şi statele membre, precum România, care au nevoie de solidaritate pentru depăşirea decalajelor.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – O decurso da discussão sobre o próximo Quadro Financeiro Plurianual, partindo de uma proposta já de si inaceitável da Comissão Europeia, trouxe-nos, por pressão das potências da UE, para um patamar ainda mais prejudicial aos interesses de países como Portugal. Os maiores beneficiários do mercado único e das políticas comuns querem agora esmagar o orçamento da UE, levando, pela primeira vez, a uma redução em termos reais face ao anterior Quadro Financeiro (2007-2013), ainda por cima num contexto de novo alargamento da UE. Por um lado, querem aprofundar a integração (mercado único, etc.), integração essa que, pela sua natureza capitalista, conduz a uma dinâmica de divergência. Por outro lado, o instrumento por excelência destinado a, pelo menos, minimizar este efeito de divergência ou mesmo a, desejavelmente, promover a convergência - o orçamento comunitário - é reduzido. Logo, o resultado só pode ser um: mais divergência! São cada vez mais os constrangimentos e prejuízos do processo de integração para os países com economias mais débeis, como Portugal. Os supostos benefícios, cada vez mais, uma miragem. Destaque-se ainda a inaceitável imposição de condições a nível macroeconómico, para utilização de verbas do orçamento comunitário (FEDER, FSE, Fundo de Coesão, Agricultura e Pescas). Mais uma forma de chantagem e de dominação de recorte neocolonial.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D), in writing. – The protest taking place this morning outside these walls reminds us of the harsh reality faced by many European citizens and workers. Moreover it highlights the need for Europe to come up with a concrete and ambitious common strategy for re-industrialisation. We need investment in research, innovation and transport if we want to foster the single market and Europe to compete in an increasingly globalised world. In my country Hungary, citizens from the countryside recently organised so-called ‘Hunger Marches’ because the crisis, the closing of local factories and the austerity measures are making it more and more difficult for them to purchase even the most basic product: food. We now have four million people living below the poverty line in Hungary and this is something I never thought I would have to witness, especially after Hungary’s accession to the EU. This reminds us that we need a sustainable budget that includes provision for the most vulnerable of our Member States and citizens, Therefore I urge the Member States to put aside their differences and short-term electoral views and remember the principles on which this Union was founded: solidarity and long-term vision.

  Liem Hoang Ngoc (S&D), par écrit. – Le rôle du budget communautaire est crucial, notamment pour les pays de l'eurozone qui ne peuvent pas dévaluer leur monnaie. On comprend que la Grande-Bretagne, dont la monnaie s’apprécie ou se déprécie vis-à-vis de l’euro, soit sceptique à l’endroit de nos débats budgétaires. C’est d’ailleurs la raison d’être de l’eurogroupe que de traiter des problèmes spécifiques de l'eurozone. Le Parlement devrait se doter d’une structure parallèle pour lui faire contrepoids. Mais il y a d'autres responsables au blocage du débat budgétaire. Un consensus de circonstance se constitue autour du président du Conseil pour aboutir à des perspectives dont le montant serait inférieur aux perspectives 2007-2013. A l’heure où la discipline budgétaire est imposée aux Etats membres, cet accord mènerait l’Union européenne à l’impasse, en la privant complètement de politique budgétaire. Moins pour la cohésion et la PAC, trop peu pour la compétitivité ! C’est le résultat des marchandages intergouvernementaux. Il devient urgent de doter l’Union de ressources propres pérennes. Il faut pour cela envisager tous les moyens: la TTF, l’impôt européen sur les société, l’emprunt. Tel doit être l’horizon de la politique budgétaire européenne en 2020. Le signal lancé au Conseil cette semaine sera décisif, ou ne sera pas.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), na piśmie. – Najbliższe posiedzenie Rady Europejskiej będzie bardzo ważne dla naszej europejskiej przyszłości. Ramy finansowe, o których toczą się tak emocjonujące spory i zabiegi, są jednocześnie małe i wielkie. Tak, to paradoks. Małe, bo od strony czysto finansowej stanowią zaledwie 1% PKB Unii Europejskiej. Wielkie, bo przy okazji tej decyzji pojawiają się koncepcje, propozycje, emocje, pułapki, które mogą mieć decydujący wpływ na to, czy projekt europejski będzie się rozwijał, a jeżeli tak – to w jakim kierunku.

Jestem optymistycznie nastawiony i wierzę, że liderzy dojdą do rozsądnego porozumienia. Niepokojące jest tylko to, że tak wielu opozycyjnych polityków życzyłoby sobie klęski szczytu. Nie potrafią spojrzeć nieco dalej, poza swój krótkoterminowy i partykularny interes polityczny. Dla nich liczą się tylko następne wybory i wszystko, czym można uderzyć w aktualny rząd. Taka postawa zniechęca, bo tak naprawdę stanowi zdradę istoty samej polityki – poszukiwania dobra wspólnego. Niszczą przy okazji wartości leżące u podstaw integracji europejskiej, na przykład solidarność. Jestem przekonany, że obywatele nie są jednak ślepi i w swej mądrości potrafią dostrzec, kto poszukuje dobra wspólnego, a kto taniego poklasku.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), în scris. – Referitor la Consiliul European din 7-8 februarie, aş dori să fac câteva precizări legate de două dintre temele aflate pe agendă, respectiv: 1. aspectele privind relaţia Uniunii Europene cu principalii parteneri comerciali internaţionali şi 2. relaţiile externe ale Uniunii Europene, cu accent pe evoluţiile din ultimii doi ani din vecinătatea sudică, respectiv situaţia din Siria şi Mali. În ceea ce priveşte relaţiile comerciale externe ale UE, consider că este extrem de importantă avansarea negocierilor comerciale aferente Parteneriatului estic, în special cu Republica Moldova. În perspectiva summit-ului Parteneriatului estic de la Vilnius din noiembrie 2013, cred că acest Consiliu European ar trebui să emită un semnal pozitiv în ceea ce priveşte Republica Moldova, având în vedere progresele înregistrate de acest stat în finalizarea acordului de liber schimb aprofundat şi cuprinzător cu UE. Referitor la Mali, trebuie continuate eforturile de combatere a terorismului şi crimei organizate, cu implicarea statelor din vecinătate şi din nordul Africii. Cu titlu informativ, autorităţile române analizează momentan posibilitatea unei participări româneşti la viitoarea misiune UE în Mali.

  Ivari Padar (S&D), kirjalikult. – Euroopa Liidu eelarve lõppfaas on pingeline. Nagu ikka kõikide eelarvete vastuvõtmisel – nii see just on. Kompromissi on vaja, teadmatus on hullem arengu pidurdaja. Lõppfaasi vaidlused viitavad sellele, kuidas tulevikus olla eelarveläbirääkimisteks paremini ette valmistunud. Tänane arutelu näitab, et pole piisavat arusaama senise rahakasutuse otstarbekusest. Liiga palju on ikkagi õhus liikmesriigi egoismi ja vähem üldisi poliitikaid, nagu transpordiühendused, energiaprojektid, teadusprojektid. Habemega teema on kindlasti ELi institutsioonide paiknemine. Liigne hajutatus mõjub kokkuhoiudebatis paroodiana.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), na piśmie. – Ze szczytem w dniach 7–8 lutego wiążemy wielkie nadzieje. Po niepowodzeniu w listopadzie ubiegłego roku teraz to już najwyższa pora, aby uzgodnić budżet UE na lata 2014–2020. Na ten budżet czekają wszyscy Europejczycy. Chcą widzieć, że UE podejmuje działania na rzecz powrotu na ścieżkę wzrostu gospodarczego. Budżet UE, który w ponad 90% ma charakter inwestycyjny, z pewnością jest narzędziem, które nas do tego zbliża. Szczególnie ważne jest, aby nie zmniejszać środków na politykę spójności i wspólną politykę rolną, które dają dużą wartość dodaną. Niedopuszczalne jest również nierówne traktowanie poszczególnych krajów w razie cięć.

Dla przykładu tzw. druga propozycja przewodniczącego Van Rompuya z listopada ubiegłego roku przewidywała obcięcie środków na II filar WPR (tj. politykę rozwoju obszarów wiejskich) dla Polski o blisko 3 mld euro, co stanowi prawie 25% obecnej alokacji! Niestety, z nieoficjalnych informacji wynika, że przewodniczący Van Rompuy zaproponuje jednak dalsze cięcia, rzędu nawet 15 mld euro w stosunku do swojej ostatniej propozycji, która i tak była już o 75 mld euro mniejsza w porównaniu do wyjściowego projektu Komisji Europejskiej. Nasuwa się zatem pytanie, gdzie będą ciąć szefowie państw i rządów? Przewodniczący Van Rompuy wśród swoich priorytetów wymienia badania, rozwój i edukację. Wydaje się jednak, że może być osamotniony.

  Γεώργιος Σταυρακάκης (S&D), γραπτώς. – Αν και κατανοούμε τις προσπάθειες εξορθολογισμού των κρατών μελών, εμείς στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο δεν θα κουραστούμε να υποστηρίζουμε ότι ο μακροπρόθεσμος προϋπολογισμός της ΕΕ αποτελεί ένα στρατηγικό εργαλείο για επενδύσεις, ένα στρατηγικό εργαλείο για την τόνωση της ανάπτυξης και της ανταγωνιστικότητας και, φυσικά, ένα στρατηγικό εργαλείο για την δημιουργία θέσεων απασχόλησης σε ολόκληρη την Ευρώπη. Σε αυτό το σημείο θα ήθελα να εκφράσω τον προβληματισμό μου για το γεγονός ότι οι διαπραγματεύσεις στο Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο θα ξεκινήσουν από το σημείο που διεκόπησαν τον Νοέμβριο, δηλ. την δεύτερη πρόταση Βαν Ρομπάι που προτείνει περικοπές 75 δις, και όχι από την πρόταση της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, όπως λογικά θα έπρεπε. Η πρόταση της Επιτροπής, μη λαμβάνοντας υπόψη την ένταξη της Κροατίας, προβλέπει 8,6 δις λιγότερα σε πραγματικούς όρους από ό, τι το πάγωμα των ανώτατων ορίων της επομένης προγραμματικής περιόδου στο επίπεδο του προϋπολογισμού του 2013. Με απλά λόγια, η ήδη μειωμένη πρόταση που έχει υποβάλλει η Επιτροπή ψαλιδίζεται ακόμα περισσότερο από τις προτάσεις Βαν Ρομπαι, ιδιαίτερα σε μια περίοδο που αναμφισβήτητα χρειαζόμαστε περισσότερη Ευρώπη. Γι αυτό τον λόγο εμείς στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο μιλάμε για «ποιότητα στις επενδύσεις» (better investing) και διεκδικούμε την επαρκή χρηματοδότηση του κοινοτικού προϋπολογισμού. Ευελπιστούμε το Συμβούλιο να μας εισακούσει.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D), írásban. – Már a tavaly novemberben megtárgyalt költségvetési javaslatok is elfogadhatatlan csökkentést jelentettek a Bizottság eredeti javaslatához képest. Tűrhetetlen, hogy egyes tagállamok még ezt is tovább akarják csökkenteni. Hazám, Magyarország már így is kohéziós támogatásainak 30%-át, hétmilliárd eurót veszíthet el, ezzel ennek a végeláthatatlan költségvetési huzavonának igazságtalanul a legnagyobb vesztesévé válhat. Amennyiben a februári Európai Tanácson nem születik elfogadható megállapodás az Unió hétéves költségvetéséről, a Tanácsban ülő állam- és kormányfők szegénységi bizonyítványt állítanak ki magukról. Ennél azonban sokkal nagyobb gond, hogy szegénységre ítélik azokat a tagállamokat és állampolgáraikat, amelyek nehéz gazdasági helyzetük miatt uniós források hiányában nem tudnának befektetni. Magyarországon pl. az állami beruházások 97%-a társfinanszírozásból működik. Már most is késésben vagyunk: a támogatási programoknak jövő ilyenkor már működniük kellene, miközben még a főösszegről sincsen megállapodás! Ki viseli majd a felelősséget ezért a hátrányos helyzetben lévő régiók, köztük a magyarországi régiók lakossága előtt? Ki viseli a felelősséget azért a sokkért, amelyet a támogatások hirtelen és drasztikus csökkentése jelent majd a nehéz helyzetben lévő magyar régiók, kistérségek számára? Nem lehet nacionalista gőgből, önzésből követelt kiadáscsökkentések, az európai szolidaritás félreértelmezéséből fakadóan elvárt költségvetési visszatérítések miatt kockára tenni egész országok felzárkózását, sőt, az egész Európai Unió legfontosabb értékét: a szolidaritást!

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. – Consiliul European din 7-8 februarie 2013 va avea ca principale subiecte realizarea unui acord privind cadrul financiar multianual pentru perioada 2014-2020. Parlamentul încurajează realizarea unui acord, dar va susţine doar un cadru financiar multianual care va întări instituţiile europene şi va permite implementarea politicilor Uniunii. Cadrul financiar multianual 2014-2020 trebuie să asigure finanţarea necesară pentru politica de coeziune, pentru politica agricolă, pentru creşterea competitivităţii prin investiţii în cercetare şi inovare, precum şi în reţele trans-europene de transport, energie şi comunicaţii. Solicit Consiliului European menţinerea bugetului propus de Comisie pentru programul de furnizare de alimente pentru persoanele cele mai defavorizate, pentru programul Orizont 2020 şi pentru mecanismul de conectare a Europei. De asemenea, consider că viitorul cadru financiar multianual 2014-2020 şi politica agricolă comună ar trebui să asigure nu doar reducerea decalajelor dintre subvenţiile directe alocate agricultorilor din toate statele membre, ci chiar egalizarea acestora. În final, cadrul financiar multianual nu ar trebui să permită un deficit bugetar pentru perioada 2014-2020.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), na piśmie. – Naszym priorytetem jest ambitny budżet dla Europy, szczególnie w obecnych warunkach kryzysu, bo właśnie w takim ambitnym budżecie widzimy skuteczny instrument pobudzania wzrostu gospodarczego w UE. Musimy mieć też na uwadze, jak istotnym elementem tego budżetu jest polityka spójności, której fundusze są w swej istocie inwestycyjne. Cięć nie powinno się dokonywać kosztem nowych państw członkowskich, bo ich rozwój przynosi korzyści całej Wspólnocie. Przede wszystkim jednak musimy zabiegać o to, by budżet na lata 2014–2020 został uchwalony. Oczywiście nie za wszelką cenę i z uwzględnieniem postulatów Parlamentu. Brak porozumienia byłby negatywną wiadomością dla pogrążonej w kryzysie Europy.

  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D), schriftelijk. – Als de voorstellen voor de volgende meerjarenbegroting te ver beneden het voorstel van de Commissie zakken, moet het Europees Parlement zijn verantwoordelijkheid nemen en deze voorstellen verwerpen. We hebben die macht en onze fractie zal al het mogelijke doen om zich te verzetten tegen irrationele bezuinigingen. Ik ben blij te zien dat ook in de andere fracties de geesten ondertussen gerijpt zijn. Door nog drastischer te snijden in de Europese begroting zal de EU niet meer in staat zijn om haar taken effectief te vervullen. Bezuinigingen op de Europese begroting gaan ten koste van maatregelen die moeten worden genomen om uit de crisis te geraken. We moeten immers investeren in duurzame en groeigerichte investeringen en in mensen (bijvoorbeeld het Erasmusprogramma of de jeugdgarantieregeling).

Wij hebben de indruk dat enkel nationale belangen het Europese debat in de Raad domineren, terwijl we een gemeenschappelijk belang hebben in de strijd tegen de crisis. Door te investeren in onderzoek en ontwikkeling, infrastructuur, opleidingsprogramma’s en andere cruciale domeinen zoals de strijd tegen de jeugdwerkloosheid, kan Europa de lidstaten net helpen in de strijd tegen de crisis. De Unie is geen speelgoed voor nationale belangen, het is een werktuig voor gemeenschappelijke Europese belangen.

  Iuliu Winkler (PPE), în scris. – După puseul de optimism din 2010, când analişti economici şi lideri europeni previzionau sfârşitul rapid al crizei, azi avem o certitudine: criza, cu toate aspectele ei – economică, a locurilor de muncă, criza competitivităţii europene – va mai dura. Trebuie găsită soluţia la criză şi la multiplele sale provocări, dar ne aflăm pe o cale greşită! Modul ocult, netransparent, în care Consiliul European încearcă să construiască un compromis între egoismele naţionale, între duplicitatea liderilor europeni care îşi declară sprijinul pentru Uniune, apelând apoi acasă la protecţionism şi la discursul antieuropean, nu va aduce adevărata soluţie. Avem răspunsul la aşteptările cetăţenilor noştri: strategia UE 2020 şi îndeosebi CFM 2014-2020. Noul CFM trebuie să asigure suportul financiar solid politicilor comune, investiţiilor, creării de noi locuri de muncă, iar pentru noi, cetăţenii noilor state membre, şanse egale cu vechii membri în privinţa politicii de coeziune şi dezvoltare regională şi a politicii agricole comune. Noul CFM trebuie adoptat într-un adevărat spirit comunitar, nu doar respectând formal metoda comunitară. Consiliul European din această săptămână trebuie să ţină cont de opinia formulată de PE înainte de a ceda ispitei, încheind compromisuri oculte împotriva interesului fiecăruia dintre cetăţenii UE.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), na piśmie. – Kryzys finansowy lat 2008–2009 rozpoczął się i zakończył na krótko po rozpoczęciu wykonywania budżetu UE na lata 2007–2013. Niestety mało kto sądził wówczas, że kryzys rozleje się na kolejne kraje, a w Unii Europejskiej zagości na dobre. Tym samym niewielu ekspertów i polityków zaprzątało sobie głowę nadchodzącymi problemami z porozumieniem w sprawie kolejnej perspektywy finansowej. Alternatywa „oszczędzać czy wydawać środki publiczne?” jest teraz czymś bardzo aktualnym, kwestia ta jest szczególnie oczywista przed spotkaniem Rady.

Na wstępie warto zaznaczyć, że z punktu widzenia wszystkich 27 gospodarek łącznie kwota budżetu unijnego nie jest imponująca. To nieco ponad 1% dochodu narodowego brutto całej Wspólnoty. Dla porównania poziom fiskalizacji (relacja wydatków sektora publicznego do PKB) w UE był w 2011 roku bliski przekroczenia 50%. W Polsce wskaźnik ten wyniósł 43,6%. Jak się jednak okazuje, nawet o tak „niewielką” kwotę walka trwać może miesiącami, szczególnie w dobie kryzysu i ogólnoeuropejskiej mody na oszczędzanie.

Obok wysokości przyznanych środków ważne będzie także ich przeznaczenie. Eksperci coraz częściej mówią o konieczności ograniczania dotacji i dopłat na rzecz zwrotnych instrumentów finansowych, np. kredytów czy poręczeń. Niewiadomą pozostaje także kwestia rozliczania podatku VAT w projektach finansowanych ze środków unijnych, co w polskich realiach stanowi istotną część kosztów.

  Πρόεδρος. - Το επόμενο σημείο είναι η ώρα των ψηφοφοριών.

(Για τα αποτελέσματα και άλλες ψηφοφορίες σχετικά με τις ψηφοφορίες: Βλέπε Συνοπτικά Πρακτικά)

Επειδή έχουμε στη διάθεσή μας 30 μόλις λεπτά πριν διακόψουμε για την πανηγυρική συνεδρίαση, σας προτείνω να μεταθέσουμε την ψηφοφορία επί της έκθεσης Rodust για την κοινή αλιευτική πολιτική αμέσως μετά την πανηγυρική συνεδρίαση.

(Το Σώμα συμφωνεί με τη μετάθεση της ψηφοφορίας)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί της τροπολογίας 7

  Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL). - Eu apresentei uma alteração oral para retirar as seguintes palavras: e assegurar as vias de recurso adequadas nos termos dos procedimentos nacionais às empresas afetadas. A justificação é que eu pedi a retirada do artigo 8.° e portanto, para coerência, esta parte do recital 9 também deveria sair do texto.

(Η προφορική τροπολογία δεν κρατείται)

- Μετά από την ψηφοφορία

  Antonyia Parvanova (ALDE). - Madam President, I would like to thank colleagues for the positive vote and I would like to ask the Commission to give its position on the adopted amendment.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, the Commission would also like to thank the rapporteur, Ms Parvanova, for her work and for the effort invested in processing these very demanding proposals. However, given the number of amendments, the Commission will submit its position on each individual amendment to Parliament’s secretariat.

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D). - Madam President, I want to take the opportunity during the vote on Ms Parvanova’s report to make one thing clear, and to ask you to refer this to President Schulz. Mr Farage said today, with reference to Mr Cameron, that there should be continuing discrimination against Bulgarian and Romanian citizens in Great Britain. This is not acceptable and I think it should very clearly be the will of this House, and President Schulz, to state at the Council that we cannot accept that Bulgarian and Romanian citizens should be discriminated against after the end of the special term for Bulgarians and Romanians. We are all equal, and Bulgarian and Romanian citizens cannot be discriminated against.

(Applause)

(Η συνεδρίαση διακόπτεται στις 11.55 και επαναλαμβάνεται στις 12.00 το μεσημέρι).

VORSITZ: MARTIN SCHULZ
Präsident

  Der Präsident. − Meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es ist mir eine große Ehre, den tunesischen Staatspräsidenten Moncef Marzouki im Europäischen Parlament in Straßburg begrüßen zu dürfen. Herzlich willkommen, Herr Staatspräsident!

(Beifall)

Während Sie hier zu uns gekommen sind, trauert zur gleichen Stunde Ihr Land um den Führer der Volksfront, Chokri Belaïd, der heute Morgen auf schreckliche Weise ermordet worden ist. Wir verurteilen dieses Attentat mit großem Nachdruck.

(Beifall)

Wir wissen, dass die tunesischen Behörden alles tun und die nötigen Maßnahmen ergreifen werden, um die Verantwortlichen vor Gericht zu bringen. Ein solches Verbrechen darf nicht ungesühnt bleiben. Ich möchte der Familie von Herrn Belaïd und dem tunesischen Volk unser Beileid aussprechen. Wir stehen in dieser schweren Stunde an Ihrer Seite, und ich appelliere an alle Bürgerinnen und Bürger Tunesiens, aufzustehen und einzustehen für die Demokratie, damit der Geist der Einheit und des Einvernehmens, der am 14. Januar 2011 zur Befreiung des Landes geführt hat, erhalten bleibt.

Herr Präsident, in Ihrer Person nehmen wir mit offenen Armen den Vertreter eines würdigen und mutigen Volkes in Empfang. Ihr Volk hat vor zwei Jahren einem der repressivsten und auch einem der korruptesten Regime der Welt auf friedlichem Wege ein Ende gesetzt.

Herr Präsident, mit Ihrer Präsenz hier in diesem Plenarsaal geben Sie uns die Gelegenheit, auch der Tunesierinnen und Tunesier zu gedenken, die für die Freiheit und die Würde mit ihrem Leben bezahlt haben, und schließlich, meine Damen und Herren, empfangen wir mit Herrn Staatspräsidenten, mit Ihnen, in dieser Stadt einen Mann, der sich als Arzt und als Exilant über 15 Jahre lang hier in Straßburg seinen Patienten gewidmet hat und unermüdlich für die Menschenrechte eingetreten ist.

Meine Damen und Herren, Herr Staatspräsident hat mir eben, während ich ihn in Empfang nehmen durfte, erzählt: „Ich habe als Bürger von Straßburg den Bau des alten Parlamentsgebäudes und den Bau des neuen Parlamentsgebäudes sehen können, als Nachbar, in einer anderen Straße hier, und es ist für mich ein Moment der Emotion“, so hat er gesagt, „dass ich als jemand, der 23 Jahre im Exil in der Nachbarschaft dieses Gebäudes gelebt hat, wo dieses Gebäude immer das Symbol für die Hoffnung war, dass es eines Tages zur Demokratie und Freiheit in meinem Land kommt, hier empfangen werde.“ Der Herr Staatspräsident hat mir gesagt, es sei für ihn persönlich ein großer emotionaler Augenblick, jetzt hier zu sein. Ich glaube, Herr Präsident, es ist auch für uns ein emotionaler Moment, Sie hier willkommen heißen zu dürfen.

(Beifall)

Ihr Volk hat die Fesseln der Willkür gesprengt und damit einen historischen Weg in Richtung Demokratie und Rechtsstaat eingeschlagen. Dieser Weg war weit und steinig, und er bleibt voller Herausforderungen. Er bleibt schwer und schmerzhaft. Ich bin allerdings nach wie vor davon überzeugt, dass es für Ihr Land keinen Weg zurück geben wird, sondern dass auf dem Weg zur Demokratie weiter vorangeschritten wird.

Ich war im Dezember Ihr Gast in Tunis. Ich war zum ersten Mal in Ihrem Land, und ich muss zugeben, dass ich voller Befangenheit da war, weil ich nicht wusste, wie ein Land in Transformation ist. Aber ich muss Ihnen sagen, der Mut, die Courage und der Aufbruch in Ihrem Land ist faszinierend.

Sie haben mir in freundschaftlichen und offenen Worten erklärt, dass es Ihre Rolle als Präsident sei, allen Tunesiern Zuversicht zu vermitteln. „Denjenigen, die für den Erhalt ihres Lebensstandards kämpfen, und denjenigen, die für die Verbesserung der Demokratie kämpfen, eine Hoffnung zu geben“, haben Sie mir gesagt, „ist die Aufgabe eines Staatspräsidenten.“ Dazu braucht ein Staatspräsident Unterstützung, und diese Unterstützung werden Sie hier in diesem Parlament ganz sicher finden.

Herzlich willkommen, Herr Staatspräsident!

(Beifall)

  Moncef Marzouki, Président de la République tunisienne. − Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, chers amis, de 1996 à 2001, la dictature m'avait interdit de quitter la Tunisie. Le Parlement européen y a répondu par ce document, "Le passeport de la liberté", remis à ma fille cadette en ce lieu en 2000.

Ce passeport symbolique a été parrainé par Hélène Flautre, Jean-Pierre Thierry, Michel Rocard, Astrid Thors, Gianfranco Dell'Alba, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Daniel Ducarme, José María Mendiluce, Alain Lipietz, Fodé Sylla, Alima Thierry-Boumediene, Cecilia Malmström, Marie-Arlette Carlotti, Françoise Grossetête et François Zimeray.

Qu'il me soit permis de leur exprimer ma profonde gratitude et, par-delà mon cas et leurs personnes, la gratitude de tous les démocrates tunisiens et arabes qui ont toujours trouvé dans cette institution représentant les peuples de l'Europe un soutien sans équivoque.

(Applaudissements)

Mesdames et Messieurs, à la fin des années 90, j'avais écrit que, si le XVIIIe siècle a été le siècle des révolutions française et américaine, le XXe celui des révolutions russe et chinoise, le XXIe siècle sera le siècle de la révolution arabe. Ce n'était pas à force de lire dans le marc de café, mais dans le livre de l'Histoire. Les grandes nations ne se suicident pas, ne se laissent pas mourir. Au plus profond d'elles-mêmes, elles finissent, quand tout semble perdu, par retrouver l'énergie de rebondir. Plus long est le calvaire, plus profonde est la chute, plus forte est l'énergie qui va les propulser hors du trou où elles sont tombées.

Les révolutions arabes, inscrites dans une sorte de fatalité de l'Histoire, ont donc fini par arriver. La question fondamentale et légitime qui se pose à vous comme à tous les Européens est simple: ces révolutions sont-elles pour nous un bien ou un mal, une chance ou un danger? Pour comprendre les événements, les peuples, les êtres humains, voire les animaux ou même les choses, il faut une dose minimale d'empathie. Sans elle, ce que nous voyons se ferme au regard et se dérobe à l'entendement. Je ne demande pas simplement votre attention mais aussi votre empathie, Mesdames et Messieurs, sans laquelle il n'y a aucune chance que nous puissions communiquer et nous rencontrer.

Oui, les révolutions arabes peuvent poser à l'Europe de sérieux problèmes. On voit déjà se profiler les principaux. Il y a le risque de les voir dégénérer en désordres, en guerre civiles voire en guerres régionales, comme c'est déjà le cas en Syrie, avec tout l'impact que cela peut avoir sur la sécurité de l'Europe.

Le deuxième risque, nous l'avons vécu au lendemain de la chute de la dictature en Tunisie. Nos jeunes, profitant de l'effondrement de l'appareil sécuritaire et connaissant mal les difficultés économiques de l'Europe, se sont précipités sur les bateaux pour prendre d'assaut vos côtes dans l'espoir d'une vie immédiatement meilleure.

Il y a enfin la troisième menace: l'extrémisme islamiste armé, que nous appelons le salafisme djihadiste, qui pourrait retrouver une nouvelle vigueur à l'occasion de la poussée de fièvre que connaît cette région du monde. Menace mondiale dans le cas d'Al Qaïda, menace régionale comme dans le nord du Mali, à l'origine de la nécessaire intervention française, il est surtout une menace nationale dans chaque pays du printemps arabe, car c'est lui, et non les suppôts de l'ancien régime, qui constitue la partie la plus dangereuse de la contre-révolution. Et pour cause, la révolution démocratique lui a coupé l'herbe sous le pied et l'a frustré de ce qu'il croyait être sa chance historique d'hériter des dictatures déchues.

(Applaudissements)

Mesdames et Messieurs, le verre est aussi à moitié plein. Non, il n'y a rien à craindre des révolutions arabes, car ce ne sont pas des révolutions nationalistes ou xénophobes. Lors de leurs déclenchements, on n'a pas entendu les habituels slogans antioccidentaux ou anti-israéliens. Et pour cause, la liberté n'est plus arrachée à l'occupant étranger, mais à une dictature corrompue et brutale qui a fini par se constituer en véritable occupation interne. Les dernières manifestations violentes de salafistes djihadistes contre les ambassades occidentales, lors de cette lamentable histoire de la vidéo islamophobe, n'ont réuni que quelques centaines d'individus, sous le regard inquiet et désapprobateur de l'écrasante majorité.

Non, il n'y a vraiment rien à craindre des révolutions arabes, car ces révolutions sont d'abord et avant tout des révolutions sociales, se battant pour les mêmes droits sociaux et économiques qui ont été à l'origine de vos propres évolutions ou révolutions. Non, il n'y a rien à craindre des révolutions arabes, car ce sont des révolutions démocratiques.

Certes, les partis islamistes ont remporté des victoires électorales indéniables en Tunisie, en Libye, en Égypte. Mais n'est-ce pas la démocratie qui a amené une fraction importante de l'islamisme dans son camp? N'est-ce pas elle qui leur a imposé ses règles, son éthique et, en arrière-plan, sa vision du monde?

Non, ce n'est pas l'islamisme qui a triomphé dans le sillage du printemps arabe, qu'il pervertirait ou récupérerait, comme le craignent certains, ce ne sont pas les démocrates qui se sont "convertis" à cette idéologie politique appelée l'islamisme, mais ce sont bel et bien les tenants de cette doctrine – du moins la fraction modérée largement majoritaire dans le spectre islamiste tunisien – qui se sont convertis à la démocratie.

Sont-ils sincères ou manœuvrent-ils? Qui le dira mieux que le temps? Ils devront apprendre le jeu et le jouer selon les règles de la démocratie, sinon ils auront à réinstaller une dictature religieuse, que les Arabes liquideront comme ils ont liquidé celles à visage dit nationaliste ou dit socialiste.

(Applaudissements)

Quant à ceux qui parlent déjà de l'hiver islamiste succédant au printemps arabe, ils ne semblent pas connaître le nombre d'années, voire de décennies, qu'il a fallu à d'autres peuples pour retrouver un équilibre après une révolution.

Mesdames et Messieurs, pour ce qui est du devenir de ces révolutions, tout est en jeu, rien n'est encore joué. En Tunisie, mon pays, celui que je connais le mieux, nous sommes fiers d'avoir fait une révolution au plus faible coût humain possible. Je pense ici avec une grande émotion au calvaire du peuple syrien qui, lui, paie sa liberté au plus fort prix et qui a besoin plus que jamais du soutien humanitaire et politique de tous les peuples libres et surtout de l'Europe.

(Applaudissements)

Nous avons mis en place un gouvernement de coalition entre laïcs modérés et islamistes modérés, pour que les deux composantes, moderniste et traditionaliste, de notre peuple se retrouvent dans ceux qui conduisent leurs affaires.

Ce gouvernement fonctionne. Il a restauré un État qui avait cessé d'exister en 2011. Il a remis en marche la machine économique qui fait que la Tunisie est passée d'un taux de croissance de -1,8 % en 2011 à + 3,5 % en 2012. Certes, le gouvernement dysfonctionne du fait de tous les conflits personnels et politiques propres à toutes les coalitions, mais nous n'avons pas cependant de meilleur choix et il faudra bien s'en accommoder jusqu'aux prochaines élections, que nous voulons aussi proches que possible.

Nous rédigeons depuis des mois la constitution d'un État démocratique et civil, d'une société plurielle, avec les difficultés que vous imaginez, mais, là aussi, l'esprit du consensus l'emporte, et nous espérons nous mettre d'accord sur le texte dans les deux ou trois mois.

Nous sommes absolument déterminés à promouvoir et à défendre toutes les libertés, à protéger les acquis de la femme, mais on ne change pas les attitudes et les comportements de plus de cinquante ans en deux années.

Nous sommes déterminés à protéger le mode de vie des Tunisiens, de la Tunisie moderniste et à élever le niveau de vie de la Tunisie pauvre et oubliée, mais les défis socio-économiques sont colossaux, tant l'héritage de la dictature, soigneusement camouflé pendant plus de vingt ans, se révèle lourd.

Nous sommes absolument déterminés à continuer notre stratégie d'absorption de la fraction moderniste, modérée de l'islamisme – car elle existe, n'en déplaise aux idéologues qui ne voient ni la complexité, ni la dynamique de la chose politique – et tout aussi déterminés à faire face à sa fraction insoluble dans la démocratie, et ce par les moyens sécuritaires dans le cadre de la loi et du respect des droits de l'homme, mais surtout par le développement social, économique et culturel. Nous n'accepterons jamais que ce courant, l'équivalent de votre extrême droite, mette en danger notre modèle de société profondément arrimé à son héritage arabo-musulman mais résolument tourné vers la modernité. Nous ne le laisserons pas mettre en danger les acquis de la femme, les droits de l'homme ou la relation à l'Occident, que nous voulons pacifiée, amicale et basée sur le respect mutuel, et le partenariat profitable à nos deux communautés.

(Applaudissements)

Ce chemin, Mesdames et Messieurs, est semé d'embûches, de beaucoup d'embûches, car cette révolution pacifique compte de nombreux ennemis, qui sont décidés à la faire échouer. Une violence verbale orchestrée, des marabouts brûlés, pour dresser les musulmans contre les musulmans, et aujourd'hui, cet odieux assassinat d'un leader politique que je connais bien, qui a été pour moi un ami de longue date, Chokri Belaïd. Cet assassinat politique aujourd'hui même, alors que j'allais m'adresser à vous, c'est une menace, c'est une lettre envoyée, mais qui ne sera pas reçue. Nous refusons cette lettre, nous refusons ce message et nous continuerons, d'abord à démasquer les ennemis de la révolution...

(Applaudissements)

... et aussi à mener notre politique.

Tout ce processus de démocratisation de l'État et de la société, de mise en place d'un développement durable se révèle être donc plus difficile, plus complexe et surtout plus long que prévu, mais il avance.

Beaucoup de facteurs vont décider du sort de notre révolution et des révolutions arabes: la détermination des peuples ou leur découragement, la sagesse des hommes ou leur folie, cet effet papillon si difficile à identifier et à contrôler et qu'on désigne, à défaut d'autre vocable, sous les termes de chance ou de providence. Mais vous pouvez parier sur la Tunisie, qui est aujourd'hui le véritable laboratoire d'une grande transition ayant vocation de réussir.

Mesdames et Messieurs, nous avons beaucoup souffert en Tunisie de l'absence de l'état de droit national mais aussi de son absence sur le plan international. Face aux élections présidentielles organisées par le dictateur et gagnées sur l'éternel score de 99 %, nous, démocrates et militants des droits de l'homme, n'avions aucun recours pour demander l'invalidation de ces élections truquées. Pas de cour constitutionnelle nationale, pas de cour constitutionnelle internationale. D'où l'idée de cette dernière: une instance supranationale chargée de statuer à partir de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l'Homme, des pactes et traités internationaux, sur la validité d'une élection et sur la conformité d'une constitution nationale avec les standards internationaux.

Cet organisme dont j'ai rêvé en intellectuel persécuté est aujourd'hui un projet ficelé qui a eu l'aval du sommet de l'Union africaine à Addis-Abeba la semaine dernière. Il a recueilli l'appui de plusieurs États sud-américains et je suis là pour vous demander, au nom de la Tunisie, de l'appuyer afin que l'état de droit sur le plan mondial continue d'avancer et la démocratie de se renforcer.

Mesdames et Messieurs, nous devons certes compter sur nous-mêmes, mais nous voulons aussi pouvoir compter sur l'Europe, surtout que pour la première fois dans notre histoire commune, nos intérêts et idéaux concordent.

Nous comprenons les difficultés de nos partenaires de la rive nord de notre mer commune mais, à moyen terme, nous sommes sûrs qu'investir et s'investir dans la consolidation de notre économie, c'est aussi consolider notre démocratie naissante et donc consolider la démocratie tout court.

Je voudrais ici remercier l'Allemagne pour avoir accepté de reconvertir une partie de notre dette – l'équivalent de 60 millions d'euros – en projets de développement. Nous espérons que nos autres partenaires, et notamment le premier d'entre eux, la France, fassent de même.

Mesdames et Messieurs, au-delà cet aspect strictement économique, il y a dans les relations entre nos deux mondes quelque chose de plus profond. Les astronomes identifient les galaxies et les groupements de galaxies. Nous pouvons identifier de la même façon des cultures et des groupes de cultures. Quelqu'un a dit à juste titre que l'Orient commençait quelque part à l'est de l'Iran. "Maghreb" signifie en arabe "occident", et dans un certain sens nous sommes des sud-occidentaux partageant avec les nord-occidentaux que vous êtes le même héritage grec, judéo-chrétien et musulman, une histoire douloureuse partagée, des croisades à la colonisation. Tout cela a tissé des relations complexes, mais puissantes, entre deux communautés.

On sait ce que l'Occident naissant doit à la culture arabo-musulmane. On sait aussi que la modernité de la culture arabo-musulmane est en grande partie l'appropriation de ce que l'Europe a créé de mieux dans le domaine des arts, de la culture, des sciences et de la politique. J'aimerais rappeler que les échanges humains ne sont enrichissants pour les uns et pour les autres, surtout s'ils se veulent pérennes, que dans l'égalité. Les trois cent millions d'Arabes ont promu plusieurs langues européennes qui font aujourd'hui partie intégrante de leur culture. Laissez-moi ici exprimer le vœu que l'Europe saura donner à la langue et la culture arabes une place injustement refusée dans le cadre des relations inégales qui seront de moins en moins acceptées par nos nouvelles générations.

(Applaudissements)

Mesdames et Messieurs, l'influence européenne sur le monde arabe est aussi idéologique et cela ne date pas d'aujourd'hui. Durant le vingtième siècle, tour à tour, l'Égypte, l'Irak ou la Libye se sont vus dans le rôle de la Prusse, Nasser, Saddam et Kadhafi se voyant être les Bismarck arabes. Ce modèle de l'unité arabe fondé sur la force des armes et le charisme d'un chef a fait faillite, et tant mieux pour les Arabes et le monde. Aujourd'hui, ce qui nous fait rêver c'est une union maghrébine, et plus tard arabe, sur le modèle de l'Union européenne, c'est-à-dire une union d'États démocratiques et de peuples libres, travaillant ensemble pour le bien de tous.

(Applaudissements)

L'Union européenne nous fascine aussi par ce qu'elle a réussi de plus remarquable, pour ne pas dire de miraculeux: la réconciliation franco-allemande. L'existence d'un tel miracle montre sa possibilité et aussi la possibilité de sa reproduction, malgré la rareté des miracles.

Laissez-moi ici vous demander de préparer la venue de cette paix que nous attendons tous au Proche-Orient.

Demandez à tous vos collègues israéliens, face au blocage actuel, gros de toutes les menaces futures sur la paix dans cette région et dans le monde, de réfléchir à une paix qui ne rime ni avec reddition, ni avec une longue trêve que chaque camp utilise pour fourbir ses armes en vue d'un nouveau round dans la guerre éternelle.

Demandez-leur de libérer Marwan Barghouti, parlementaire comme vous... (Applaudissements)

... et de le laisser venir en Tunisie récupérer une santé détruite par dix années de prison en isolement total.

Mesdames et Messieurs, j'ai commencé par un souvenir personnel, permettez-moi de terminer par un autre souvenir personnel.

Strasbourg est la ville où j'ai fait mes études, appris mon métier, la ville dont les habitants m'ont profondément marqué, par leur sens du travail, de la discipline et de la modestie, la ville où sont nées mes deux filles. C'est aussi la ville où se sont décidés les choix fondamentaux qui ont dirigé le reste de ma vie.

Jeune interne, au début des années 70, je me suis présenté devant l'un de mes maîtres les plus prestigieux de la faculté de médecine de Strasbourg, pour lui demander un sujet de thèse pour mon doctorat. Il me proposa de travailler sur la question de l'expérimentation humaine en médecine. J'ai tout de suite accepté, pas parce que le sujet m'intéressait, mais parce que je voulais me dire l'élève de Marc Klein. Ce que je ne savais pas, c'est que mon vénéré maître, parce qu'il était juif, avait été envoyé dans un camp de concentration, et parce qu'il était médecin, il avait été affecté à une unité d'expérimentation médicale sur les prisonniers.

La préparation de la thèse fut un voyage dans l'horreur, l'horreur d'une science sans conscience, l'horreur d'une nature humaine capable du pire, l'horreur de régimes politiques déments, l'horreur de la banalité du mal.

C'est lors de mes recherches que j'ai lu pour la première fois la déclaration universelle des droits de l'homme, et c'est là que tout a basculé.

Je ne pense pas que Marc Klein ait réalisé un instant l'impact qu'il allait exercer sur la vie de ce jeune interne étranger venu lui demander l'honneur d'être son élève, ni l'impact que cela allait avoir, par des voies mystérieuses, sur le destin de milliers d'autres hommes. Il était à mille lieues d'imaginer ce que son influence allait me coûter en termes de combats, de prison, d'exil, d'années de persécution, mais aussi en termes de combats, d'accomplissements et de victoires.

Parce que cette victoire, qui me permet d'être aujourd'hui ici, en ce haut lieu de la démocratie, de la paix et de la fraternité entre les peuples, d'y prendre la parole en homme libre parlant au nom d'un peuple libre, est aussi la sienne, permettez-moi de la lui dédier.

(Applaudissements)

Permettez-moi enfin de saluer par la même occasion Strasbourg, l'Alsace, l'amitié franco-tunisienne et l'amitié euro-arabe.

Je termine par le plus beau salut échangé entre les hommes: As-salâm

aleïkoum, Que la paix soit sur vous.

(L'Assemblée, debout, applaudit l'orateur)

  Der Präsident. − Meine Damen und Herren, ich glaube, ich brauche den Worten des Präsidenten und Ihrem Beifall nichts hinzuzufügen. Aber ich habe gerade mit dem Herrn Staatspräsidenten vereinbart – weil ich während der Rede des Präsidenten eine Reihe von Bitten bekommen habe –, dass dieses Haus auch symbolisch über den Beifall hinaus dem Opfer und den Opfern eine Ehrung zuteil werden lässt, indem es am Ende dieser Sitzung eine Schweigeminute einlegt. Ich würde Sie bitten, sich von Ihren Plätzen zu erheben.

(Das Parlament legt eine Schweigeminute ein.)

Ich darf mich herzlich bei Ihnen bedanken. Ich danke dem Staatspräsidenten von Tunesien. Ich glaube, das war ein bewegender Moment.

Vive la Tunisie, vive la liberté et vive la démocratie, Monsieur le Président!

(Vifs applaudissements)

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΑΝΝΥ ΠΟΔΗΜΑΤΑ
Αντιπρόεδρος

  Πρόεδρος. - Το επόμενο σημείο είναι η συνέχιση των ψηφοφοριών.

(Για τα αποτελέσματα και άλλες πληροφορίες σχετικά με τις ψηφοφορίες: Βλέπε Συνοπτικά Πρακτικά)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί της τροπολογίας 106

  József Szájer (PPE). - Madam President, I apologise to the House for taking your time with our internal matters. We have a mistake in our voting list under 106. The first part we voted ‘No’ and the second part ‘Yes’. I apologise for taking your time.

- Προφορική τροπολογία επί της τροπολογίας 119

  Ulrike Rodust, Berichterstatterin. − Frau Präsidentin! Im Namen der S&D-Fraktion stelle ich folgenden mündlichen Antrag zu Artikel 15: Absatz 1 Buchstabe a soll wie folgt lauten: „spätestens ab 1. Januar 2014 Fischerei auf kleine pelagische Arten, d. h. Fischerei auf Makrele, Hering, Stöcker, Blauen Wittling, Sardelle, Goldlachs, Sardine, Sprotte;“. Das heißt, der Eberfisch wird aus der Liste gestrichen. Begründung: Damit ist das Rückwurfverbot auch im Mittelmeer möglich.

Ich bitte Sie, dem zuzustimmen.

(Η προφορική τροπολογία κρατείται)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί της τροπολογίας 298

  Ulrike Rodust, Berichterstatterin. − Frau Präsidentin! Können Sie bitte noch einmal die Abstimmung davor wiederholen? Bei der Übersetzung sind falsche Zahlen angekommen. Wir haben eine falsche Nummer bekommen.

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί της τροπολογίας 51

  Miroslav Ouzký, rapporteur. − Madam President, before this vote I just want to announce, as rapporteur, that there is no point holding a split vote here because it is just one tab. If we want to avoid messing things up further down the line, I would like to ask anyone wishing to vote against one part to vote against both.

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE). - Madam President, from the outset I want to thank the House for their support in November and January in deferring my report on technical conservation measures. The whole purpose of deferring the vote was to focus attention on the impasse between Parliament and the Council of Ministers on the issue of long-term management plans.

No progress had been made on these important plans since the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty in 2009; and this was by sucessive Council presidencies. Long-term management plans will be a key cornerstone of the new and reinforced common fisheries policy – which we have just recommended – as the purpose of these plans is to protect fishery resources while ensuring the livelihood of communities depending on fisheries. Last week the issue was discussed by Ministers under the Irish Presidency. The Irish Minister confirmed to the Chair of the Committee on Fisheries, Gabriel Mato, that the Council will make every effort to find an acceptable compromise. So as a gesture of goodwill the Committee on Fisheries have decided to go ahead and vote on my report today.

However, the committee, let me say a note of warning, will closely monitor developments over the next number of weeks and if no progress is made we will review our position and we may – hopefully only may – be forced to block the adoption of further reports if necessary.

  Werner Langen (PPE). - Frau Vizepräsidentin! Könnten Sie entweder sofort das Telefonieren einstellen oder Ihren Platz für einen fähigen Präsidenten räumen?

(Beifall)

  Πρόεδρος. - Κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι, τα σχόλια εκφράζουν αυτούς που τα διατυπώνουν.

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ancora oggi e purtroppo anche all'interno di quest'Assemblea sentiamo frasi che assomigliano a una giustificazione delle violenze e che addossano la responsabilità di questo proprio alle donne. Parole dal forte significato misogino, pronunciate anche da colleghe, che non possiamo né tollerare né accettare. Tutti noi dobbiamo condannarle con forza e determinazione. Senza un cambio radicale di mentalità tutti gli sforzi che facciamo quotidianamente saranno vani.

- Προφορική τροπολογία επί της παραγράφου 6

  Monika Hohlmeier, Berichterstatterin. − Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die mündliche Änderung geht ganz kurz. Es wird das Wort „demand driven“ gegen das Wort „end“ ausgetauscht, und der restliche Text bleibt.

(Η προφορική τροπολογία κρατείται)

- Μετά από την παράγραφο 47

  Raffaele Baldassarre, relatore. − Signora Presidente, si tratta di un emendamento orale il quale inserisce dopo il paragrafo 47 il seguente titolo: "Questioni di conformità e relazioni con i paesi terzi".

(Η προφορική τροπολογία κρατείται)

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). - Madame la Présidente, je voudrais intervenir sur la base de l'article 213 de notre règlement.

Madame la Présidente, nous avons connu une séance solennelle exceptionnelle en présence du Président de la République tunisienne, Moncef Marzouki. Je voudrais exprimer le regret qu'à cette occasion – et c'est prévu par le règlement intérieur – nous n'ayons pas fait jouer l'hymne européen, puisque l'hymne européen est normalement joué pour souhaiter la bienvenue à des chefs d'État et à l'occasion de chaque séance solennelle.

Γραπτές αιτιολογήσεις ψήφου

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Aprovo a presente recomendação, considerando antes de mais essencial potenciar os novos Estados-Membros da União Europeia a tomarem total proveito da ajuda da União Europeia no seu processo de integração, e, ao mesmo tempo, apoiar estes países a terem as condições devidas no âmbito das trocas globais. Deste modo, aprovo esta recomendação que pretende ajustar as obrigações da União Europeia sob as regras da Organização Mundial do Comércio, após a adesão da Bulgária e da Roménia. O propósito é acordar com os membros da Organização Mundial do Comércio um ajustamento justo e mutuamente satisfatório de modo a evitar perdas para estes países recém-membros da União.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – Ce rapport vise à adapter les règles du commerce international. En effet, avec l'adhésion de la Bulgarie et de la Roumanie, l'Union européenne (UE) a élargi son union douanière. Selon les règles de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (OMC), l’UE doit ouvrir des négociations avec les membres de l'OMC concernés pour convenir de compensations. Ce genre de texte survient lors de chaque élargissement et j’ai donc voté en faveur.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea raportului deoarece acesta vizează asumarea responsabilităţilor UE faţă de partenerii săi comerciali. Aderarea ţării mele şi a Bulgariei în 2007 a determinat extinderea vamală a UE. Fiind membră a OMC, UE trebuie să se supună normelor organizaţiei. În această situaţie, este nevoie de o ajustare care să compenseze creşterea taxelor vamale consolidate şi pierderile semnificative aferente. Ajustarea este benefică tuturor statelor membre OMC, indiferent dacă ţările care au aderat recent practicau tarife vamale mai mici sau mai mari faţă de UE. Este dreptul SUA să îşi restabilească drepturile comerciale anterioare în urma extinderii uniunii vamale. De aceea, salut acordul încheiat cu SUA, care demonstrează ataşamentul UE faţă de regimul comercial bazat pe norme multilaterale şi încercarea de a facilita comerţul între părţile contractante.

  Nora Berra (PPE), par écrit. – Avec l'adhésion de la Bulgarie et de la Roumanie, l'Union européenne a élargi son union douanière. Elle était tenue, selon les règles de l'OMC, d'ouvrir les négociations avec les membres de l'OMC concernés pour convenir d'un ajustement compensatoire. L'approbation du Parlement étant indispensable pour la conclusion de cet accord, j'y ajoute ma voix.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), na piśmie. − Głosowałem za przyjęciem rezolucji. Stany Zjednoczone pozostają jednym z najważniejszych producentów na świecie i zarazem kluczowym partnerem gospodarczym Europy. Wskutek rozszerzenia unii celnej po przystąpieniu Bułgarii i Rumunii, prawa handlowe tego kraju uległy nieznacznemu nadwerężeniu. W zgodzie z międzynarodowymi zasadami funkcjonowania Światowej Organizacji Handlu, której Unia jest członkiem, zobowiązani jesteśmy niwelować niedogodności w handlu zagranicznym. Przywrócenie praw handlowych Stanów Zjednoczonych w relacjach z nowymi krajami Wspólnoty jest korzystne dla wszystkich stron.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Ho sostenuto col mio voto la relazione Moreira sull'accordo fra l'Unione europea e gli Stati Uniti d'America per la modifica delle concessioni negli elenchi della Repubblica di Bulgaria e della Romania. Il presente accordo non pregiudica gli interessi dell'Unione. Si tratta di un adeguamento necessario per ripristinare i diritti della controparte americana in seguito all'ingresso di Bulgaria e Romania nell'UE. Il loro mancato rispetto avrebbe implicato una violazione delle regole dell'Organizzazione mondiale del commercio.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), în scris. − În 2007, Uniunea Europeană şi-a extins uniunea vamală cu încă două state, Bulgaria şi România. În aceste condiţii, UE a fost obligată să intre în negocieri cu statele membre ale OMC, având drepturi de negociere în ceea ce priveşte listele de angajamente ale oricărui viitor membru în curs de aderare în scopul de a conveni asupra unei ajustări reciproc avantajoase care să compenseze creşterea taxelor vamale consolidate şi pierderile semnificative aferente. Dacă adoptarea regimului tarifar extern al UE duce la o creştere a taxelor vamale peste nivelul practicat de Bulgaria şi România, atunci aceste compensaţii sunt necesare.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), în scris. − Idealul unei uniuni vamale sau a unei zone de comerţ liber este acela de a facilita comerţul între teritoriile care o compun şi nu să ridice bariere. Intrarea României şi Bulgariei în Uniunea Europeană a presupus şi lansarea unor renegocieri a tarifelor vamale cu ţările care fac parte din Organizaţia Mondială a Comerţului. Cei care au avut de câştigat cel mai mult au fost membrii OMC şi comerţul liber deoarece, la momentul aderării, atât România, cât şi Bulgaria practicau taxe vamale mai mari decât cele ale UE. În cazul opus, unde România şi Bulgaria au fost nevoite să îşi mărească taxele şi cotele vamale pentru a şi le ajusta la politica de tarife externe ale UE, încălcându-şi astfel angajamentele luate în OMC, UE a fost cea care a trebuit să compenseze diferenţa. Acest angajament a arătat încă o dată simpatia instituţiilor europene pentru comerţul multilateral.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − Com a adesão da Bulgária e da Roménia, a União alargou a sua união aduaneira, e em concordância com as regras da OMC foi chamada a negociações para um acordo quanto a um ajustamento compensatório, de modo a satisfazer todas as partes, contrabalançando perdas e ganhos de todos os envolvidos. Este ajustamento deverá ser feito caso a adoção do regime pautal externo da UE resulte num aumento dos direitos que ultrapasse o nível em relação ao qual o país aderente se comprometeu no âmbito da OMC. O instrumento mais frequente usado na compensação dos direitos mais elevados é a abertura do contingente pautal atribuído por país ou o aditamento do contingente pautal pré-adesão. Em 27 de janeiro de 2007, o Conselho autorizou a Comissão a entrar em negociações com os países que têm direito a compensação, resultando as negociações com os Estados Unidos num projeto de acordo sob a forma de troca de cartas, através do qual os EUA são compensados pela sua posição comercial deteriorada. A Comissão escolheu o aumento dos contingentes pautais como instrumento de compensação para os produtos provenientes dos EUA. Voto a favor da presente Recomendação.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), în scris. − Odată cu aderarea Bulgariei şi României, UE şi-a extins uniunea vamală. UE a fost obligată, în conformitate cu normele OMC, să intre în negocieri cu statele membre ale OMC, cu drepturi de negociere în ceea ce priveşte listele de angajamente ale oricărui membru în curs de aderare în scopul de a conveni asupra unei ajustări reciproc avantajoase care să compenseze creşterea taxelor vamale consolidate şi pierderile semnificative aferente.

Extinderea UE este un factor pozitiv pentru membrii OMC. Când ţările care au aderat practicau taxe vamale mai mari decât cele aplicate de UE, ţările membre ale OMC sunt cele care au de câştigat. În caz contrar, atunci când ţările care au aderat practicau taxe vamale mai mici decât cele aplicate de UE şi au fost obligate să îşi mărească taxele vamale, UE compensează diferenţa. Acordul de compensare UE-SUA vizează produse cum ar fi carnea de pasăre şi de porc, precum şi preparatele alimentare. Acordul privind noul contingent tarifar pentru aceste produse agricole va fi implementat prin intermediul unui regulament de aplicare ce urmează a fi adoptat de Comisie. SUA au dreptul să îşi restabilească drepturile comerciale anterioare în urma uşoarei erodări a acestora datorată extinderii uniunii vamale a UE odată cu aderarea României şi Bulgariei.

  Mário David (PPE), por escrito. − Votei a favor deste relatório que conclui o acordo entre a UE e os EUA, no âmbito da Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC), relativo à alteração das concessões previstas nas listas da Bulgária e da Roménia no contexto da sua adesão à UE. Com a adesão da República da Bulgária e da Roménia, a União Europeia alargou a sua união aduaneira. Consequentemente, em conformidade com as regras da OMC, teve de iniciar negociações com os membros da OMC com poderes de negociação nas listas dos novos Estados-Membros para chegar a acordo quanto a um ajustamento compensatório que satisfaça todas as partes e contrabalance o aumento dos direitos consolidados e as consequentes perdas significativas. Assim, em 29 de janeiro de 2007, a Comissão é autorizada pelo Conselho a iniciar negociações com os países que tinham direito a uma compensação. As negociações com os Estados Unidos resultaram num projeto de acordo sob forma de troca de cartas, que foi rubricado pela parte UE em 21 de dezembro de 2011 e pela parte EUA em 17 de fevereiro de 2012 e que se encontra agora em fase de conclusão.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente esta recomendação por introduzir as alterações necessárias no Acordo UE-EUA, nos termos do GATT de 1994, tendo em conta o alargamento da união aduaneira aquando da adesão da Roménia e da Bulgária à UE.

  Jill Evans (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report. The accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU’s customs union resulted in an increase in some tariffs beyond the level to which they had bound themselves at the WTO. Both countries therefore have the right to compensation. It is important that we respect the position of new EU members, particularly as we wish to see Wales as a Member State in its own right in the future.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − O acordo com os Estados Unidos é, por mim, bem recebido, uma vez que julgo que os EUA têm direito a que sejam restabelecidos os seus direitos comerciais, que tinham sofrido uma ligeira degradação devido ao alargamento da união aduaneira aquando da adesão da Roménia e da Bulgária à UE. Este acordo de compensação é um exemplo de que a UE tenciona respeitar as regras do regime de comércio multilateral no seio da OMC. A UE e os Estados Unidos notificar-se-ão mutuamente da conclusão dos respetivos procedimentos internos necessários para a entrada em vigor do Acordo.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − O colega Vital Moreira apresenta-nos uma recomendação sobre o projeto de decisão do Conselho que conclui um Acordo sob a forma de troca de cartas entre a União Europeia (UE) e os Estados Unidos da América (EUA), nos termos do artigo XXIV, n.º 6, e do artigo XXVIII do Acordo Geral sobre Pautas Aduaneiras e Comércio (GATT) de 1994, no que respeita à alteração de concessões previstas nas listas da República da Bulgária e da Roménia no contexto da adesão destes países à UE. Este acordo surge na sequência das negociações entre a UE e os membros da Organização Mundial do Comércio (OMC), com poderes delegados para tal, a fim de proceder a um ajustamento compensatório entre as partes. O projeto de acordo foi assinado pela UE em 21 de dezembro de 2011 e pelos EUA a 17 de fevereiro de 2012 e contempla, essencialmente, a carne de aves de capoeira e de porco. Considerando que o alargamento da UE a estes dois estados foi vantajoso para os membros da OMC e tendo em conta o parecer do relator, saúdo a conclusão deste acordo com os EUA e voto favoravelmente o mesmo.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Como consequência da adesão da República da Bulgária e da Roménia à União Europeia, esta última teve que alargar a sua união aduaneira. As regras da OMC impõem que seja estabelecido entre as partes aderentes um acordo que tenha como objetivo um ajustamento compensatório que contrabalance o aumento dos direitos consolidados e as consequentes perdas significativas. Assim, após a conclusão de vários acordos semelhantes de compensação, o Parlamento aprova o acordo entre a UE e os EUA, que cria novos contingentes pautais para a carne de aves de capoeira e de porco, bem como outras preparações alimentícias. É bem conhecida a nossa opinião relativamente às regras da OMC. A própria UE reconheceu que, em consequência do acordo estabelecido em 2007, relativo às aves de capoeira nos termos do artigo XXVIII do GATT de 1994, se assistiu a um forte aumento das importações de carnes de aves de capoeira que afetou negativamente o sector aviário europeu. Um exemplo entre muitos outros possíveis. É necessária uma profunda alteração das políticas comerciais vigentes, que ponha travão à desregulação e liberalização do comércio, que tantas dificuldades têm trazido ao tecido empresarial das economias mais débeis, como Portugal. Não podemos deixar de o assinalar em mais esta ocasião.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. − Pristúpením Bulharska a Rumunska Európska Únia rozšírila svoju colnú úniu. V dôsledku toho bola EÚ v zmysle pravidiel WTO (článok XXIV ods. 6 dohody GATT z roku 1994) povinná začať rokovania s členmi WTO, ktorí majú právo rokovať v rámci zoznamov záväzkov pristupujúcich členov, s cieľom dohodnúť sa na vzájomne vyhovujúcom kompenzačnom vyrovnaní, aby sa vyvážilo zvýšenie cla a z neho vyplývajúce značné straty. Rada dňa 29. januára 2007 poverila Komisiu, aby začala rokovania s krajinami, ktoré majú nárok na kompenzáciu. Výsledkom rokovaní so Spojenými štátmi americkými je návrh dohody vo forme výmeny listov, ktorá bola parafovaná Európskou úniou 21. decembra 2011 a Spojenými štátmi americkými 17. februára 2012. V kompenzačnej dohode medzi EÚ a Spojenými štátmi je predmetom dohody samotnej predovšetkým hydinové a bravčové mäso, ako aj potravinové prípravky. Dohoda o nových colných kvótach pre poľnohospodárske výrobky bude vykonaná prostredníctvom vykonávajúceho nariadenia prijatého Komisiou. Európska únia dosiaľ uzavrela podobné kompenzačné dohody s Kubou, Brazíliou a (so súhlasom Parlamentu) aj s Austráliou, Novým Zélandom a Argentínou. Ďalší návrh dohody s Čínou bol parafovaný 31. mája.

  Jim Higgins (PPE), in writing. − I welcome and support the agreement with the United States. With the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the EU, the trading rights of the US were impacted and it is right that they are now properly restored. I also agree with the decision of the Commission to use the increase in tariff rate quotas as the method by which to compensate the United States. My wish is that, following on from this, we will be able to work further on developing our trade links with the US.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Balsavau už šį dokumentą. Į Europos Sąjungą įstojus Bulgarijai ir Rumunijai, išsiplėtė jos muitų sąjunga. Todėl Europos Sąjunga pagal Pasaulio prekybos organizacijos (PPO) taisykles buvo įpareigota pradėti derybas su PPO narėmis, turinčiomis derybų teisę dėl bet kurios stojančiosios šalies įsipareigojimų sąrašo, kad būtų susitarta dėl abipusiškai priimtino kompensacinio sureguliavimo siekiant išvengti privalomų muitų didėjimo ir su tuo susijusių didelių nuostolių. Toks sureguliavimas privalomas, jei patvirtinus ES išorės muitų tarifų režimą muitų tarifai padidėja, palyginti su muitais, dėl kurių stojančioji šalis įsipareigojo PPO, „atsižvelgdama į muitų sumažinimus tai pačiai prekių grupei, kuriuos, kuriant muitų sąjungą, atliko kitos šios sąjungos šalys“. Siekiant įgyvendinti PPO reikalavimus šiuose susitarimuose sprendžiami du klausimai. Pirma, didesnių muitų tarifų kompensavimas, kuris dažniausiai vykdomas nustatant šaliai skirtą tarifinę kvotą arba padidinant esamą (-as) kvotą (-as). Antra, pasirengimo narystei erga omnes tarifinė kvota Bulgarijai ir Rumunijai (ne skirta tam tikrai šaliai, bet taikoma visame pasaulyje) taip pat turi būti pridedama prie galiojančių ES erga omnes tarifinių kvotų.

  Elisabeth Köstinger (PPE), schriftlich. − Die Zollunion der Europäischen Union wurde durch den Beitritt Bulgariens und Rumäniens ausgeweitet. Nach WTO-Recht besteht daher die Pflicht, mit WTO-Mitgliedstaaten Verhandlungen über einen Ausgleich für die Erhöhung der gebundenen Zollsätze und die resultierenden Verluste aufzunehmen. Als Ausgleich für eine sich verschlechternde Handelsposition werden im Wesentlichen die zollfreien Warenkontingente für bestimmte Erzeugnisse aus den USA angehoben. Ich stimme daher für dieses Ausgleichsabkommen, weil es zeigt, dass die EU sich dem Handelssystem auf der Grundlage multilateraler Regeln verpflichtet fühlt.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report. The Parliament should give its consent to the signing of this Agreement. The compensatory adjustment for the US is a natural consequence of Romania and Bulgaria’s accession to the UE. The Agreement adjusts our trade relations to this post-accession reality and follows the procedural rules of the WTO.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I supported this proposal. With the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the European Union enlarged its customs union. Consequently, the EU was obliged under WTO rules to enter into negotiations with WTO members having negotiating rights in the schedules of any of the acceding members for the purpose of agreeing on a mutually satisfactory compensatory adjustment to offset the increase in bound duties and the resulting meaningful losses. Such adjustment is due if the adoption of the EU’s external tariff regime results in an increase in tariff beyond the level for which the acceding country has bound itself at the WTO, whilst taking ‘due account of reductions of duties on the same tariff line made by other constituents of the customs union upon its formation’, as required by paragraph 6 of Article XXIV. In order to meet the WTO requirements, two issues are addressed in the agreements. Firstly, the compensation of higher tariffs, for which the instrument most often used is the opening of a country-allocated tariff rate quota or the increasing of existing ones. Secondly, the pre-accession erga omnes tariff rate quota of Bulgaria and Romania also needs to be added to the existing erga omnes tariff rate quota of the EU.

  Clemente Mastella (PPE), per iscritto. − Con l'adesione della Bulgaria e della Romania, l'Unione europea ha allargato la propria unione doganale. Di conseguenza, le norme dell'OMC hanno imposto di avviare dei negoziati con i paesi membri dell'OMC detentori di diritti di negoziato, negli elenchi di uno dei paesi aderenti, allo scopo di concordare un adeguamento reciprocamente soddisfacente per compensare l'aumento dei dazi consolidati e le ingenti perdite che ne derivano.

Accogliamo, dunque, con favore l'accordo con gli Stati Uniti e riteniamo fondamentale che il Parlamento europeo sia chiamato a dare la propria approvazione. L'Unione europea e gli Stati Uniti dovranno reciprocamente notificare l'avvenuto espletamento delle rispettive procedure interne necessarie per l'entrata in vigore dell'accordo. Auspichiamo che gli Stati Uniti procedano in questo senso, senza alcun indugio, in modo che tutti i produttori possano beneficiare tempestivamente dell'accesso al mercato.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), în scris. − Susţin decizia de încheiere a Acordului de compensare UE-SUA, deoarece acesta va influenţa pozitiv şi va impulsiona creşterea schimburilor comerciale pe termen mediu şi lung. Lărgirea Uniunii Europene, prin aderarea României şi Bulgariei a făcut ca Acordul GATT 1994 să necesite o revizuire, să existe o politică unitară a tuturor ţărilor UE faţă de Statele Unite. România şi Bulgaria vor avea acelaşi statut ca şi celelalte ţări ale UE, raportat la comerţul cu SUA. Consider că acest pas va duce la o creştere rapidă a comerţului între ţările membre ale UE, în special România şi Bulgaria, şi Statele Unite. Practic, e vorba de o restabilizare a accesului la piaţă, de o reorganizare a parteneriatului comercial între SUA şi UE, necesară prin extinderea uniunii vamale a comunităţii europene, o extindere datorată aderării României şi Bulgariei. Un nou acord înseamnă o dovadă clară a ataşamentului UE faţă de regimul comercial bazat pe norme multilaterale cu toate ţările partenere, OMC fiind în centrul acestuia.

  Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. − A adesão da República da Bulgária e da Roménia levou a que a União Europeia tivesse que alargar a sua união aduaneira. Assim, e em conformidade com as regras da OMC (artigo XXVI, n.º 6 do GATT de 1994), a União Europeia teve de encetar negociações com os membros da OMC com poderes de negociação nas listas de qualquer dos membros aderentes, para chegar a acordo quanto a um ajustamento compensatório que satisfaça todas as partes e contrabalance o aumento dos direitos consolidados e as consequentes perdas significativas. Saúdo assim o acordo com os Estados Unidos, dando o meu voto favorável ao mesmo. Os EUA têm assim direito a que sejam restabelecidos os seus direitos comerciais anteriores, que sofreram uma ligeira degradação devido ao alargamento da união aduaneira aquando da adesão da Roménia e da Bulgária à UE.

  Louis Michel (ALDE), par écrit. – En 2007, la Roumanie et la Bulgarie ont rejoint l'Union européenne. Suite à cet élargissement de l'union douanière de l'UE, les droits commerciaux de certains membres de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce ont quelque peu été amoindris, notamment ceux des États-Unis.

Selon les règles de l'OMC (datant du GATT), tout membre de cette organisation est en droit d'ouvrir des négociations en vue d'obtenir une compensation s'il le juge nécessaire. En l'occurrence, les États-Unis l'ont fait de sorte à obtenir le rétablissement de leurs droits commerciaux. Ceci est tout à fait justifié et compréhensible.

C'est pour cette raison que j'ai voté en faveur de cet accord de compensation entre l'Union européenne et les États-Unis. Il est toutefois important de rappeler que, dans l'ensemble, cet élargissement de l'Union a été favorable aux membres de l'OMC.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I support the report since it is a technical file to adjust the EU’s obligations under WTO rules, following the accession of Bulgaria and Romania. The purpose is to agree with the WTO members on a mutually satisfactory compensatory adjustment to offset the increase in bound duties and the resulting meaningful losses. The EU has so far concluded similar compensatory agreements with Cuba, Brazil, and – with Parliament’s consent – Australia, New Zealand and Argentina. I voted in favour.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), písomne. − Pristúpením Bulharska a Rumunska Európska únia rozšírila svoju colnú úniu. V dôsledku toho bola EÚ v zmysle pravidiel WTO povinná začať rokovania s členmi WTO, ktorí majú právo rokovať v rámci zoznamov záväzkov pristupujúcich členov, s cieľom dohodnúť sa na vzájomne vyhovujúcom kompenzačnom vyrovnaní, aby sa vyvážilo zvýšenie cla a z neho vyplývajúce značné straty. Na to, aby sa splnili požiadavky WTO, sa v týchto dohodách riešia dve otázky. Prvou je kompenzácia vyšších ciel, ktorá sa najčastejšie dosahuje prostredníctvom zavedenia colných kvót voči konkrétnym krajinám alebo zvýšením existujúcich kvót. Druhou je skutočnosť, že predvstupovú colnú kvótu Bulharska a Rumunska uplatňovanú voči všetkým treba pridať aj k jestvujúcej colnej kvóte EÚ uplatňovanej voči všetkým. Rada 29. januára 2007 poverila Komisiu, aby začala rokovania s krajinami, ktoré majú nárok na kompenzáciu. Napríklad v kompenzačnej dohode medzi EÚ a USA sa to týka najmä hydinového a bravčového mäsa, ako aj potravinových prípravkov. Súhlasím so spravodajcom pánom Moreirom, že Komisia správne zvolila zvýšenie colných kvót ako nástroj kompenzácie v prípade amerických výrobkov, ktorých sa to týka, pretože colné kvóty sú najcielenejším spôsobom kompenzácie strát.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), raštu. − Balsavau už šią rezoliuciją, kuria raginama pritarti susitarimo sudarymui. Tam, kad ES tinkamai vykdytų savo tarptautinius įsipareigojimus taip pat atsižvelgiant į paskutinę Europos Sąjungos plėtrą, būtina vykdyti ES valstybių narių ir Bulgarijos bei Rumunijos GATT įsipareigojimus. Turime dėti visas pastangas, kad būtų išlaikyti įprastiniai prekybos srautai bei neužkertamas kelias prekėms iš kitų šalių patekti į ES rinką. Atkreiptinas dėmesys į tai, kad dėl ES muitų sąjungos plėtros, pablogėjo JAV padėtis. Tam, kad JAV tinkamai įgyvendintų savo teisę susigrąžinti ankstesnes prekybos teises, turi būti taikomas abipusiškai priimtinas kompensacinis sureguliavimo mechanizmas. Šis mechanizmas užkirs kelią muitų didėjimui, be to, gamintojams atkurs palankias patekimo į rinką galimybės.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho votato a favore dell'accordo fra l'Unione europea e gli Stati Uniti relativo alla modifica di concessioni negli elenchi della Repubblica di Bulgaria e della Romania perché, a seguito dell'ingresso nell'UE dei 2 Paesi, è prassi comune rivedere e risolvere i problemi relativi a precedenti regimi doganali. Nel caso specifico, Romania e Bulgaria hanno fatto sì, con il loro ingresso nell'Unione nel 2007, che l'UE fosse obbligata a regolamentare la loro situazione di dazi e tariffe con gli Stati Uniti attraverso un indennizzo comune.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − A adesão da República da Bulgária e da Roménia à União Europeia teve como efeito imediato o alargamento da sua união aduaneira. Consequentemente, em conformidade com as regras da Organização Mundial do Comércio, a União Europeia teve de encetar negociações com os membros da OMC com poderes de negociação nas listas de qualquer dos membros aderentes, para chegar a acordo quanto a um ajustamento compensatório que satisfaça todas as partes e contrabalance o aumento dos direitos consolidados e as consequentes perdas significativas. O alargamento da UE foi, em geral, positivo para os membros da OMC e os ajustes necessários foram devidamente negociados e estão apenas dependentes da notificação mútua entre as partes da conclusão dos respetivos procedimentos internos necessários para a entrada em vigor do Acordo. Nestes termos, votei favoravelmente a proposta de aprovação do acordo entre a União Europeia e os Estados Unidos da América no que respeita à alteração de concessões previstas nas listas da República da Bulgária e da Roménia, no contexto da adesão destes países à União Europeia.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE), por escrito. − Com a adesão da Republica da Bulgária e da Roménia, a União alargou a sua união aduaneira e, em concordância com as regras da OMC, foi chamada a negociações para um acordo quanto a um ajustamento compensatório. Tal ajustamento é devido caso a adoção do regime pautal externo da UE resulte num aumento que ultrapasse o nível em relação ao qual o país aderente se comprometeu no âmbito da OMC. O instrumento mais frequente usado na compensação dos direitos mais elevados é a abertura do contingente pautal atribuído por país ou o aumento dos já em vigor. Em 27 de janeiro de 2007, o Conselho autorizou a Comissão a entrar em negociações com os países que têm direito a compensação, resultando as negociações com os Estados Unidos num projeto de acordo sob a forma de troca de cartas: a compensação pela posição comercial deteriorada resume-se ao aumento dos contingentes pautais para importações de certos produtos agrícolas dos EUA.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. With the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, the European Union enlarged its customs union. Consequently, the EU was obliged under WTO rules (Article XXIV(6) of GATT 1994) to enter into negotiations with WTO Members having negotiating rights in the schedules of any of the acceding Members for the purpose of agreeing on a mutually satisfactory compensatory adjustment to offset the increase in bound duties and the resulting meaningful losses. Such adjustment is due if the adoption of the EU’s external tariff regime results in an increase in tariffs beyond the level for which the acceding country has bound itself at the WTO, whilst taking ‘due account of reductions of duties on the same tariff line made by other constituents of the customs union upon its formation’, as required by paragraph 6 of Article XXIV.

  Catherine Stihler (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour as this Agreement will award appropriate compensation to the USA.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – Avec l'adhésion de la Bulgarie et de la Roumanie, l'Union européenne a élargi son union douanière. En conséquence, elle était tenue, selon les règles de l'Organisation mondiale du commerce (article XXIV, paragraphe 6, du GATT), d'ouvrir des négociations avec les membres de l'OMC ayant des droits de négociation dans les listes des pays adhérents afin de convenir d'une compensation mutuellement satisfaisante pour contrebalancer l'augmentation des droits consolidés et les pertes notables qui en résultent.

Il est en effet nécessaire de prévoir une telle compensation si l'adoption du régime tarifaire extérieur de l'Union entraîne une augmentation des droits au-delà du niveau auquel le pays adhérent s'est engagé dans le cadre de l'OMC, tout en tenant "dûment compte des réductions de droits de douane sur la même ligne tarifaire faites par d'autres entités constitutives de l'union douanière lors de l'établissement de cette union", conformément aux dispositions de l'article XXIV, paragraphe 6.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − Com a adesão da República da Bulgária e da Roménia, a União Europeia alargou a sua união aduaneira. Consequentemente, em conformidade com as regras da OMC, a União Europeia teve de encetar negociações com os membros da OMC para chegar a acordo quanto a um ajustamento compensatório que satisfaça todas as partes e contrabalance o aumento dos direitos consolidados e as consequentes perdas significativas. Para cumprir tais requisitos, foram abordadas duas questões nos acordos: a compensação dos direitos mais elevados, para a qual o instrumento utilizado com mais frequência é a abertura do contingente pautal atribuído por país ou o aumento dos já em vigor; e aditar o contingente pautal pré-adesão da Bulgária e da Roménia ao atual contingente erga omnes da União. Os produtos visados no acordo de compensação entre a UE e os EUA são, principalmente, a carne de aves de capoeira e de porco, bem como as preparações alimentícias. Pelas razões apresentadas, votei favoravelmente o Acordo.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), na piśmie. − Wraz z przystąpieniem Bułgarii i Rumunii do UE niezbędne było rozszerzenie unii celnej. Zgodnie z zasadami WTO UE zobowiązała się do rozpoczęcia negocjacji z członkami WTO posiadającymi prawa negocjacyjne w zakresie list koncesyjnych któregokolwiek z przystępujących krajów. Negocjacje te podjęto celem uzgodnienia wzajemnie zadowalającego wyrównania kompensującego wzrost związanych stawek celnych i powstałych w wyniku tego znacznych strat. Takie wyrównanie jest należne, jeżeli przyjęcie systemu zewnętrznej taryfy celnej UE powoduje wzrost stawek ponad poziom, do którego dany przystępujący kraj zobowiązał się w ramach WTO.

Rada upoważniła Komisję do otwarcia negocjacji z państwami, którym przysługuje rekompensata. W wyniku negocjacji ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi powstał projekt porozumienia w formie wymiany listów, które zostało parafowane przez stronę UE w dniu 21 grudnia 2011 r. i przez stronę USA w dniu 17 lutego 2012 r. Produkty, których dotyczy porozumienie kompensacyjne między UE i USA, to głównie mięso drobiowe i wieprzowe oraz przetwory spożywcze. Projekt tej rezolucji może przyczynić się do poprawy stosunków handlowych z USA. Wedle tego postanowienia w krajach, w których obowiązuje wyższa stawka niż taryfa celna UE, zyskają członkowie WTO, natomiast jeśli kraje posiadają niższe stawki, UE rekompensuje różnicę. Uważam, że takie działania przyczynią się do poprawy wymiany handlowej, która z może być jednym z czynników wpływających pozytywnie na wzrost gospodarczy.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), per iscritto. − Il testo del collega on. Moreira riguarda l'accordo concluso tra l'Unione europea e gli Stati Uniti per risolvere i problemi sorti tra le parti a seguito dell'adesione di Bulgaria e Romania nell'UE. Poiché i due paesi in questione hanno rivisto il loro regime di dazi e tariffe con gli Stati Uniti in seguito all'adesione, si è resa necessaria una sorta di indennizzo dell'Unione in seguito al cambio di regime e di concessioni per i prodotti di questi paesi.

Γραπτές αιτιολογήσεις ψήφου

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Aprovo o presente relatório, considerando que as Orientações para as políticas do Emprego são de extrema importância, saliento antes de mais um ponto que é essencial a meu ver: todos os Estados-Membros devem também tomar particular atenção às suas orientações nacionais, nomeadamente em Estados onde atualmente se vive um clima de severa austeridade económica e fiscal. Pois há que considerar que a análise dos programas nacionais de reformas dos Estados-Membros, constante do relatório conjunto sobre o Emprego, mostra que os Estados-Membros deverão continuar a desenvolver todos os esforços para cumprir as seguintes prioridades: aumentar a participação na atividade económica e reduzir o desemprego estrutural, desenvolvendo para tal uma mão-de-obra especializada, dando resposta às necessidades do mercado de trabalho e promovendo a qualidade dos empregos e a aprendizagem ao longo da vida, melhorar os desempenhos dos sistemas de educação e formação a todos os níveis e aumentar a participação no ensino de terceiro ciclo, promover a inclusão social e combater a pobreza.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the resolution on Guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States. This resolution sends a clear signal from Parliament to the Member State governments that they have to make further commitments to ensure the implementation of the Europe 2020 Strategy, with a special focus on job creation and stimulating growth. Moreover, further support should be given to the development of SMEs, and special emphasis should be placed on education and training. Member States should continue to make every effort to address the priority areas of increasing labour market participation and reducing structural unemployment, developing a skilled workforce responding to labour market needs and promoting job quality and lifelong learning, improving the performance of education and training systems at all levels, promoting social inclusion and combating poverty. Also, due to the persistent employment and social crisis, combating youth unemployment in particular should be a top priority for all governments.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE), în scris. − Creşterea şomajului la nivelul statelor membre ale Uniunii Europene este cea mai gravă dintre problemele cu care ne confruntăm în prezent. Nivelul ridicat al şomajului, în special în rândul tinerilor, ameninţă nu numai solidaritatea ce stă la baza funcţionării societăţilor europene, ci şi viitorul Uniunii. În condiţiile în care coordonarea politicilor de ocupare a forţei de muncă la nivel european nu va cunoaşte o intensificare, obiectivul atingerii, în perspectiva anului 2020, a unui model de dezvoltare durabil, sustenabil şi incluziv devine iluzoriu. Susţin adoptarea raportului comisiei, tocmai pentru că această coordonare a politicilor economice vine în întâmpinarea prevederilor tratatelor europene, care subliniază clar că acestea, alături de cele cu privire la promovarea ocupării locurilor de muncă nu sunt probleme de interesul naţional, ci chestiuni care ţin de esenţa proiectului european. Totodată, adoptarea acestui document este un pas concret în direcţia atingerii obiectivelor pe termen lung ale Uniunii.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – Ce texte met l’accent sur le rôle central de l’emploi conformément à la "stratégie Europe 2020" visant à aboutir à une croissance intelligente, durable et inclusive, assortie d'un niveau élevé d'emploi, de productivité et de cohésion sociale. J’ai donc soutenu ce texte qui constitue un rappel des engagements pris en 2010, qu’il convient de remplir compte tenu de la situation actuelle.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį siūlymą dėl valstybių narių užimtumo politikos gairių. Vienas iš Europos Sąjungos tikslų – plėtoti suderintą užimtumo strategiją, kuriant kvalifikuotą, profesiniu atžvilgiu pasirengusią darbo jėgą bei darbo rinkas, prisitaikančias prie ekonomikos pokyčių. Šiose gairėse valstybėms narėms pateikiami aiškūs ir tikslūs nurodymai, kaip parengti su šiuo tikslu susijusiais nacionalines reformų programas ir jas įgyvendinti laikantis Stabilumo ir augimo pakto. Šiuo siūlymu siekiama pratęsti šių gairių galiojimą iki 2014 metų, todėl jam pritariu.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea raportului deoarece consider importantă menţinerea orientărilor pentru coordonarea politicilor naţionale de ocupare a forţei de muncă în statele membre. Cred că strategia Europa 2020 trebuie susţinută în continuare. Doar astfel se pot îndeplini ţintele vizate: creşterea participării pe piaţa muncii, îmbunătăţirea sistemului educaţional şi combaterea excluziunii sociale. Aceste priorităţi trebuie să rămână valide pentru a încuraja potenţialul european de creştere inteligentă şi sustenabilă. Iar statele membre ar trebui să se concentreze mai mult pe implementarea orientărilor principale şi atingerea obiectivelor menţionate în concordanţă cu recomandările Consiliului. Trebuie acordată o atenţie particulară Fondului social european şi eficienţei lui privind proiectele care vizează persoanele cu dizabilităţi şi şomajul în rândul tinerilor.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente este relatório para que as orientações para o emprego adotadas em 2010 sejam mantidas estáveis até 2014 e sejam tidas em conta pelos Estados-Membros nas respetivas políticas de emprego. A coordenação das políticas económicas e de emprego dos Estados-Membros faz parte da Estratégia «Europa 2020» que visa reforçar o potencial da Europa em termos de crescimento sustentável e de competitividade. Nas próximas metas para o emprego, os Estados-Membros deverão continuar a desenvolver todos os esforços para aumentar a taxa de participação dos homens e das mulheres no mercado de trabalho e reduzir o desemprego. O desenvolvimento de uma mão-de-obra especializada é outro desafio que se impõe aos Estados-Membros para dar resposta às necessidades do mercado de trabalho. Para se atingir esse objetivo, é essencial promover a aprendizagem ao longo da vida, melhorar os desempenhos dos sistemas de educação e formação a todos os níveis e aumentar a participação no ensino de terceiro ciclo. A promoção da inclusão social e o combate à pobreza devem continuam a ter um destaque especial nas políticas da União Europeia.

  Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), par écrit. – Les lignes directrices pour les politiques de l'emploi adoptées par l'Union en 2010 devraient être maintenues. Les priorités suivantes, qui vont dans le bon sens, devraient animer l'action des Etats membres jusqu'en 2014 : accroître la participation au marché de l'emploi et diminuer le chômage structurel; développer une main d'oeuvre qualifiée en mesure de répondre aux besoins du marché du travail, promouvoir des emplois de qualité et l'éducation et la formation tout au long de la vie; rendre les systèmes d'éducation et de formation plus performants à tous les niveaux et augmenter la participation à l'enseignement supérieur; promouvoir l'inclusion sociale et lutter contre la pauvreté.

  Nora Berra (PPE), par écrit. – Conformément à la "stratégie Europe 2020" visant à aboutir à une croissance intelligente, durable et inclusive, assortie d'un niveau élevé d'emploi, de productivité et de cohésion sociale, le traité sur le fonctionnement de l'Union européenne prévoit que le Conseil adopte de grandes orientations des politiques économiques et des lignes directrices pour l'emploi. Le rapport approuve la proposition de la Commission et invite le Conseil, s'il entend s'écarter du texte approuvé par le Parlement européen en 2010 ou s'il entend modifier de manière substantielle le texte approuvé par le Parlement, à en informer celui-ci. C'est donc dans cette optique que je vote en faveur de ce rapport.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Non ho sostenuto la relazione Berès che analizza la proposta di decisione del Consiglio sugli orientamenti per le politiche degli Stati membri a favore dell'occupazione. Le relazione riprende in modo acritico i punti programmatici della "Strategia Europa 2020", non considerando e tantomeno analizzando le problematicità di tale strategia, la sua effettiva fattibilità nel medio e lungo termine e i rischi derivanti dal rafforzamento del "coordinamento economico degli Stati membri", basato sull'imposizione della sorveglianza di Bruxelles sui bilanci dei paesi membri.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), în scris. − Conform Tratatului privind funcţionarea UE, promovarea ocupării forţei de muncă reprezintă o chestiune de interes comun pentru statele membre şi trebuie să le coordoneze în cadrul Consiliului. Pentru a face faţă concurenţei reprezentate de noile economii emergente, consider că Europa trebuie să creeze locurile de muncă de care are nevoie o societate dinamică, bazată pe cunoaştere. Pentru aceasta, este necesar să se investească în educaţie şi ştiinţă, precum şi în politicile privind ocuparea forţei de muncă, astfel încât UE se ţină pasul cu schimbările şi să depăşească perioada de criză economică.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), per iscritto. − La proposta della Commissione al Consiglio enfatizza correttamente, nell'ambito della strategia Europa 2020, gli aspetti di riforma del mercato del lavoro e di qualificazione del capitale umano. Vi è ormai consenso unanime sulla necessità di incrementare il valore aggiunto dei sistemi produttivi europei se, di fronte alla concorrenza globale, intendiamo mantenere margini di competitività sufficienti a sostenere il nostro modello sociale e di sviluppo, che si fonda sul valore della persona e sulla lotta alle disuguaglianze attraverso l'esercizio delle libertà civili e di iniziativa.

I cinque ambiti di intervento riguardano soprattutto le debolezze della nostra forza lavoro in questa prospettiva, con alcuni paesi che sono molto indietro sul versante della formazione terziaria, dell'educazione degli adulti e dell'apprendimento permanente. Si tratta anche di promuovere processi di inclusione sociale fondati sulla cultura del lavoro e sull'incremento della produttività. La decisione del Consiglio ha individuato un obiettivo strategico e concertato condivisibile, così come la correlata decisione del Consiglio. Pertanto dichiaro un voto favorevole alla relazione.

  Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), na piśmie. − Poparłem sprawozdanie pani poseł Pervenche Berès na temat wytycznych dotyczących polityki zatrudnienia państw członkowskich. Uważam, że tworzenie odpowiednich polityk dotyczących rynku pracy, ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem walki z bezrobociem, to obecnie kluczowe wyzwanie zarówno dla Unii Europejskiej, jak i poszczególnych państw członkowskich. Kryzys finansowy, pogorszenie koniunktury gospodarczej, budzący wielki niepokój poziom bezrobocia, zagrożenie wykluczeniem społecznym i ubóstwem milionów Europejczyków to największe bolączki, z jakimi przychodzi nam się zmagać.

W związku z tym niezbędne jest tworzenie długofalowych strategii dotyczących polityki zatrudnienia, tworzenie nowych miejsc pracy, szczególnie dla osób młodych, najbardziej dotkniętych negatywnymi trendami ekonomicznymi ostatnich lat. Konieczne jest też przygotowanie odpowiednich programów dla pozostałych grup zagrożonych niekorzystnymi zjawiskami na rynku pracy tj. kobiet, osób starszych, niepełnosprawnych, mieszkańców wsi i małych miast. Wyrażam nadzieję, że wysiłki podejmowane zarówno na forum UE, jak i przez państwa członkowskie przyczynią się do ograniczania bezrobocia, wspierania wysokiego poziomu kwalifikacji i wyszkolenia pracowników oraz zwalczania ubóstwa i wykluczenia społecznego.

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − I voted against the proposals as they demonstrate the EU dictating to Member States what economic policies they should have in place.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − A proposta de decisão do Conselho relativa às orientações para as politicas de emprego dos Estados-Membros (que constam no anexo da Decisão do Conselho de 21 de outubro de 2010, conforme redigido pela Comissão Europeia no âmbito da estratégia "Europa 2020") deve ser mantida para 2013 e ser tida em conta pelos Estados-Membros de modo a conseguir uma maior coordenação em matéria de emprego, em especial promovendo mão-de-obra qualificada, formada e suscetível de adaptação, bem como mercados de trabalho que reajam rapidamente às mudanças económicas. O Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia estabelece que as orientações em matéria de emprego devem ser coerentes com as orientações gerais para as políticas económicas. Através da coordenação destas duas políticas, será possível o desenvolvimento de uma estratégia de crescimento inteligente, sustentável e inclusivo, acompanhado de um elevado nível de emprego, produtividade e coesão social, tal como preconizado na Estratégia 2020. Concordo com o presente relatório, em relação ao qual voto a favor, e realço a sua importância e a sua ênfase numa das políticas mais relevantes e urgentes da União neste momento: a política de emprego.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), în scris. − Tratatul privind funcţionarea UE prevede că statele membre şi Uniunea se angajează să elaboreze o strategie coordonată de ocupare a forţei de muncă şi să promoveze o forţă de muncă formată, calificată şi adaptabilă, precum şi pieţe ale muncii capabile să reacţioneze rapid la evoluţia economiei. Orientările privind ocuparea forţei de muncă ar trebui să stea la baza oricăror recomandări specifice unei ţări, pe care Consiliul le poate adresa statelor membre. Ele ar trebui să constituie baza pentru redactarea raportului comun privind ocuparea forţei de muncă, trimis anual de Consiliu şi de Comisia Europeană Consiliului European.

Statele membre trebuie să depună toate eforturile necesare pentru a aborda următoarele domenii prioritare în cadrul programelor lor naţionale de reformă: creşterea participării pe piaţa muncii şi reducerea şomajului structural, dezvoltarea unei forţe de muncă calificate care să răspundă nevoilor pieţei muncii şi promovarea calităţii locurilor de muncă şi a învăţării pe tot parcursul vieţii, îmbunătăţirea performanţei sistemelor de educaţie şi de formare profesională la toate nivelurile şi creşterea participării la învăţământul terţiar, promovarea incluziunii sociale şi combaterea sărăciei. Orientările privind ocuparea forţei de muncă adoptate în 2010 trebuie să rămână stabile până în 2014, astfel încât eforturile să se concentreze asupra punerii lor în aplicare.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), por escrito. − A atual crise económica e financeira representa um desafio sem precedentes em termos de aumento do desemprego e da exclusão social, sendo que a Estratégia Europeia para o Emprego e as orientações para o emprego constituem os principais instrumentos no quadro da Estratégia de Lisboa com o objetivo de ultrapassar os desafios colocados pelo mercado de trabalho. É necessária uma resposta forte e coordenada que promova o aumento do emprego, da produtividade, da competitividade e que reforce, em paralelo, a coesão social. Estas orientações constituem, assim, metas partilhadas pelos Estados-Membros e fornecem-lhes orientações precisas para a definição dos seus programas nacionais de reforma e aplicação dessas reformas, nomeadamente através da definição das prioridades nas reformas a nível macroeconómico, microeconómico e do mercado de trabalho para a União no seu conjunto. O TFUE estabelece que os Estados-Membros devem considerar as suas políticas económicas e a promoção do emprego como questões de interesse comum e coordená-las no âmbito do Conselho. Pelo que, apesar das orientações terem sido adotadas em 2010 e deverem permanecer estáveis até 2014, a presente decisão é necessária de forma a confirmar a sua validade para 2013 e recomendar que os Estados-Membros as tenham em conta nas respetivas políticas de emprego para esse ano.

  Ricardo Cortés Lastra (S&D), por escrito. − Mi voto es favorable al informe porque los Estados miembros necesitan ahora más que nunca unas orientaciones claras hacia las que dirigir las políticas de empleo. El paro es el principal problema de Europa, sobre todo en países como el mío, que tuvo en 2012 una tasa media de desempleo superior al 25 % y en el caso del paro juvenil este porcentaje supera el 55 %. Los socialistas españoles hemos dado un primer paso la semana pasada proponiendo a las principales fuerzas políticas y sindicatos un Pacto por el Empleo para comenzar a tomar medidas cuanto antes que pongan remedio a esta situación insostenible. Sin embargo, la UE no puede dejar a los Estados miembros actuar solos ante esta dificultad que está poniendo a miles de familias en peligro de pobreza y exclusión social. Necesitamos transmitir unas orientaciones claras a los 27 y también tiene que ser la UE quien vele por una creación de empleo cualificado y formado y una mano de obra con capacidad de respuesta ante los cambios en los mercados económico y laboral.

  Ioan Enciu (S&D), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea raportului Parlamentului European care aprobă Decizia Comisiei privind orientările pentru politicile de ocupare a forţei de muncă ale statelor membre. Sub noile prevederi ale Tratatului privind funcţionarea Uniunii Europene, statele membre au obligaţia de a-şi coordona politicile de ocupare a forţei de muncă, lucru care este necesar mai ales în contextul crizei economice şi financiare şi, de asemenea, ţinând cont de faptul că strategia Europa 2020 stabileşte ţinte ambiţioase în domeniul ocupării forţei de muncă. Statele membre trebuie să continue să-şi armonizeze politicile privind forţa de muncă şi să asigure faptul că libera circulaţie a forţei de muncă în interiorul UE este garantată. De asemenea, este important ca toate statele membre să continue liberalizarea totală a pieţei muncii pentru lucrătorii din România şi Bulgaria care se confruntă cu restricţii pe piaţa muncii în nouă din cele 27 de state ale Uniunii Europene.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente este relatório por defender que as orientações para o emprego adotadas em 2010, que fizeram parte das orientações integradas da estratégia "Europa 2020", deverão manter-se até 2014. Considero que as prioridades definidas em 2010 para as políticas de emprego permanecem válidas, fornecem orientações importantes aos Estados-Membros sobre a definição dos seus programas nacionais de reforma e estão também em consonância com o Pacto de Estabilidade e Crescimento.

  Jill Evans (Verts/ALE), in writing. − This uncontroversial report confirms the existing guidelines. It includes improving the quality of education and training systems, increasing the labour market participation of women and men and reducing structural employment. These and other elements are essential if we are to build and strengthen the Welsh economy. I voted in favour of the report.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − O TFUE prevê que o Conselho adote orientações gerais das políticas económicas (artigo 121.°) e de emprego (artigo 148.°). Ora, as prioridades para as políticas de emprego dos Estados-Membros foram aprovadas a 21 de outubro de 2010, as quais se devem manter estáveis até 2014, até porque os seus objetivos e prioridades continuam a ser pertinentes. Porém, de acordo com o artigo 148.°, n.° 2, do TFUE, a sua validade para 2013 tem de ser confirmada por decisão do Conselho. Nesse sentido, e pela importância que tem este Parlamento na construção democrática da União, se o Conselho entender afastar-se do texto aprovado em 2010, deve envolver e consultar o Parlamento no processo da sua modificação.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − A estratégia “Europa 2020”, lançada pela Comissão Europeia e aprovada pelo Conselho Europeu a 26 de março de 2010, visa “reforçar o potencial da Europa em termos de crescimento sustentável e de competitividade”. O relatório presente debruça-se sobre a proposta de decisão do Conselho no que concerne às orientações para as políticas de emprego dos Estados-Membros (EM), de acordo com o estabelecido no Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da UE (TFUE) nos artigos 121.º e 148.º, segundo os quais compete ao Conselho coordenar as políticas económicas dos EM e definir as orientações em matéria de emprego. Embora as orientações em matéria de emprego tenham sido adotadas a 21 de outubro de 2010 e devam manter-se estáveis até 2014, o n.º 2 do artigo 148.º do TFUE refere que o Conselho deve, anualmente e após consulta ao Parlamento Europeu, ao Comité Económico e Social Europeu, ao Comité das Regiões e ao Comité do Emprego, definir “as orientações que os Estados-Membros devem ter em conta nas respetivas políticas de emprego.” Nestes termos, voto favoravelmente a proposta de decisão do Conselho de aplicar, ao ano de 2013, as orientações em matéria de emprego aprovadas pelo Conselho em 26 de março de 2010.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − A Comissão do Emprego e Assuntos Sociais anualmente tece recomendações relativas às orientações para as políticas de emprego dos Estados-Membros. Estas orientações, no essencial, não têm variado significativamente desde 2010. Em termos gerais, continua-se com o discurso que acolhe como necessárias e até desejáveis as políticas de consolidação orçamental, desde que sejam favoráveis ao crescimento - mirífica conciliação que a realidade vem demonstrando não ser afinal mais do que uma grotesca contradição. Enfim, nada de novo: as habituais manobras em que a social-democracia é pródiga e que a direita aplaude. Enquanto se insistir na aplicação de reformas laborais, do sistema de segurança social, no aumento da idade da reforma, baixar salários e retirar direitos aos trabalhadores, iremos continuar com o crescimento do desemprego, nomeadamente juvenil, da pobreza e das desigualdades sociais. Não aceitamos a continuação destas políticas e exigimos novas orientações para as políticas de emprego dos Estados-Membros que não ataquem os direitos consagrados dos trabalhadores, o direito à contratação coletiva e aos direitos sociais adquiridos. Assim, votámos contra.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. − V článku 145 Zmluvy o fungovaní Európskej únie sa ustanovuje, že členské štáty a Únia pracujú na rozvoji koordinovanej stratégie zamestnanosti, a najmä na podpore kvalifikovanej, vyškolenej a pružnej pracovnej sily a na pracovných trhoch reagujúcich na podmienky hospodárskych zmien so zreteľom na dosiahnutie cieľov vymedzených v článku 3 Zmluvy o Európskej únii. Európskou komisiou navrhnutá stratégia Európa 2020 umožní Únii nasmerovať jej hospodárstvo smerom k inteligentnému, udržateľnému a inkluzívnemu rastu, ktorý bude sprevádzať vysoká miera zamestnanosti, produktivity a sociálnej súdržnosti. Päť hlavných cieľov uvedených v rámci príslušných usmernení predstavuje spoločné ciele, ktorými sa riadia opatrenia členských štátov, berúc do úvahy ich východiskovú situáciu a vnútroštátne okolnosti, ako aj situáciu a okolnosti spoločné pre celú Úniu. Európska stratégia zamestnanosti zastáva vedúcu úlohu pri plnení cieľov novej stratégie v oblasti zamestnanosti a pracovného trhu. Považujem za dôležité a nanajvýš opodstatnené, aby usmernenia pre oblasť zamestnanosti prijaté v roku 2010 naďalej zostali nezmenené až do roku 2014, v snahe zabezpečiť ich nerušené vykonávanie.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), par écrit. – J’ai voté en faveur du rapport de ma collègue, Pervenche Berès, approuvant la décision du Conseil de maintenir, dans les mêmes termes, les lignes directrices de l’emploi des États-membres adoptées en octobre 2010. Pour mémoire, ces lignes directrices définissent la stratégie européenne pour l’emploi en assurant notamment la promotion de l’éducation et de la formation tout au long de la vie, l’inclusion sociale et la lutte contre la pauvreté. La persistance de la crise économique et sociale nous invite à maintenir nos efforts contre le chômage et à ne pas se concentrer uniquement sur les politiques d’austérité et d’assainissement des finances publiques.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Balsavau už šį dokumentą. Sutartyje dėl Europos Sąjungos veikimo nurodyta, kad valstybės narės ir Sąjunga veikia siekdamos plėtoti suderintą užimtumo strategiją, ypač ugdydamos kvalifikuotą, profesiniu atžvilgiu pasirengusią ir mokančią prisitaikyti darbo jėgą bei darbo rinkas, prisitaikančias prie ekonomikos pokyčių, kad būtų pasiekti Europos Sąjungos sutartyje nustatyti tikslai. Laikydamasi Komisijos siūlomos strategijos „Europa 2020“, Sąjunga galės savo ekonomiką orientuoti į pažangų, tvarų ir integracinį augimą ir kartu užtikrinti didelį užimtumą, produktyvumą ir socialinę sanglaudą. Penki pagrindiniai atitinkamose gairėse išvardyti tikslai sudaro bendrus uždavinius, kuriais grindžiama valstybių narių veikla, ir kuriuose atsižvelgta į jų skirtingas pradines pozicijas ir nacionalines aplinkybes, taip pat kaip ir į Sąjungos. Europos užimtumo strategijai tenka pagrindinis vaidmuo įgyvendinant naujos strategijos užimtumo ir darbo rinkos tikslus. Šios naujos integruotosios gairės atitinka Europos Vadovų Tarybos išvadas. Jose valstybėms narėms pateikiami tikslūs nurodymai, kaip parengti nacionalines reformų programas ir įgyvendinti reformas, atsižvelgiant į jų tarpusavio priklausomybę ir laikantis Stabilumo ir augimo pakto. Užimtumo gairės turėtų būti pagrindas konkrečioms šalims teikiant rekomendacijas.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), per iscritto. − Il tasso di disoccupazione nell’UE ha raggiunto ormai livelli di massima allerta. Nello specifico, la disoccupazione giovanile rappresenta uno degli indicatori economici che più stanno purtroppo segnando il passo di questa crisi. Con questa risoluzione, per la quale mi sono espresso in maniera favorevole, si vuole porre un ulteriore accento sul problema e avanzare proposte per risolverlo. Occorre aumentare la partecipazione al mercato del lavoro e ridurre la disoccupazione strutturale, sviluppare una forza lavoro competente e adeguatamente formata, migliorare i risultati dei sistemi di formazione e incrementare la partecipazione all’istruzione terziaria.

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), na piśmie. − W kwestii polityki zatrudnienia państwa członkowskie powinny skupiać wszystkie wysiłki na priorytetowych obszarach, między innymi na podnoszeniu współczynnika aktywności zawodowej i ograniczaniu bezrobocia, zwłaszcza wśród młodych. Uważam, że warto poprawiać wydajność systemów kształcenia i szkolenia we wszystkich dziedzinach oraz opracowywać krajowe programy reform i ich wdrożenia. Dlatego między innymi głosowałam za sprawozdaniem Pervenche Berès na temat wytycznych dotyczących polityki zatrudnienia państw członkowskich.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this resolution on the employment policies of the Member States. It is important for the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament.

  Iosif Matula (PPE), în scris. − Interdependenţa dintre politicile economice la nivel comunitar şi cele în privinţa forţei de muncă din Tratat trebuie să se regăsească în programele naţionale de reformă ale statelor membre. Astfel, până în anul 2020, putem să atingem un grad ridicat de competitivitate şi productivitate la nivel mondial, cu o forţă de muncă formată, calificată şi adaptabilă.