Stenograma dezbaterilor

Marţi, 7 iulie 2015 - Strasbourg

9. Pregătirea programului de lucru al Comisiei pentru 2016 (dezbatere)

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zur Vorbereitung des Arbeitsprogramms der Kommission 2016 (2015/2729(RSP)).

Ich will von vornherein darauf hinweisen, dass wir bei diesem Tagesordnungspunkt kein Catch-the-eye-Verfahren und keine blauen Karten zulassen, da die Vereinbarung zwischen den Fraktionen ist, dass pro Fraktion nur ein Redner spricht.

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, exactly 10 years ago in London, 52 people died and hundreds were wounded in a terrible terrorist attack. I remember vividly those days. I remember the outpouring of solidarity in London, in the United Kingdom, and across the world, especially in the European Union. I want to mention this at the start of my contribution today, because I do believe that we, as Europeans – whatever our position may be on European integration, on European cooperation – at that moment had a sense of destiny, of common destiny. Whatever else we may do right or wrong, we have a common duty to fight for the security and safety of our citizens. We have a common duty to make sure that these barbarians, these distorted thinkers, these nihilists, are not in a position to wreak havoc in European society. This is one of the main challengers all our nations face. This goes beyond politics. This is about human dignity. This is about our common values.

If I look back at the last couple of years, we have seen that Europe is facing a number of huge challenges: terrorism, as I just mentioned; the migration crisis; the need to create jobs and to create growth; the need to face the changes in the world’s economy and the place of Europe therein; and Greece. This is the backdrop against which we are working on our Commission Work Programme for this year and for next year.

Let me say something briefly about this year’s state of play and the Commission Work Programme 2015. Over half of the Work Programme items are fully or mostly fulfilled. Thanks to you, to this Parliament, the European Fund for Strategic Investments has been operational since 1 July. We have set out strategic agendas, including for investment, energy union, the digital single market, migration, internal security and a fairer corporate tax system. These agendas and action plans signal a considerable legislative workload for this House in the months and years to come.

Some of these proposals are already before you, and more are coming – starting with the revision of the energy labelling and emissions trading legislation next week. In total, over 40 proposals for legislation will flow from the strategies we have already presented. That comes on top of the 140 proposals which are pending on the table of the co-legislators. So please let us bust this myth that this Commission is not forthcoming enough. Where legislation is the right response to address the big things, we will be big on legislation.

We are working on ambitious strategies on trade and investment, on the single market for goods and services, on an ambitious package for the circular economy. We will present an action plan for developing a real capital markets union in autumn, and we will accompany it with the first legislative proposals in the most pressing areas. And before the end of the year, we want to put to you a comprehensive – and clearly much-needed –’EMU package’.

The importance of the social dimension – in EMU, obviously, but also more widely – is something President Juncker and I are both very attached to. To speed up the Youth Employment Initiative, we proposed making EUR 1 billion available this year. We are also actively working on a labour mobility package, to be adopted later this year. The College will have a further orientation debate dedicated to social policy immediately after the summer.

Before looking ahead towards 2016, I would like to stress that it takes – in this case, oddly enough – three to tango. Delivering results where it matters is a shared responsibility of all three institutions. That is why we are now negotiating a revised interinstitutional agreement (IIA) on Better Law Making, and I am very much looking forward to my first meeting – on a political level as well – with Nicolas Schmit, who is representing the Presidency, and with Guy Verhofstadt, who is representing your Parliament.

Our proposal pays particular attention to reinforcing and consolidating the annual and multiannual planning and programming. While respecting the specific arrangements for close cooperation between Parliament and Commission that are set out in the Framework Agreement – we respect and will continue to respect that Framework Agreement – and while respecting each of the three institutions’ roles under the Treaties, it is by working better upstream that we believe we can really make sure our combined efforts deliver effective and ambitious results to address the challenges Europe faces.

Let me turn briefly to the preparations for next year. A first orientation debate will be held in College a week from now. In September, we will have an opportunity to take stock of the progress made and of the challenges ahead during President Juncker’s state of the union address. We intend to adopt the 2016 Work Programme on 27 October. In the run-up, the Commission will engage actively in dialogue with Parliament, in full accordance with the Framework Agreement. We will also listen to the input of Member States in the General Affairs Council. To launch and guide our discussion, a ‘letter of intent’ will be sent in parallel with the state of the union address here in this House. So that is for September.

You can expect another targeted and balanced work programme, focused on 2016 – and 2016 only – grounded in the 10 priorities set out by President Juncker and agreed with your Parliament. Our strategic agendas – those we have already presented and those still to come later this year – will obviously be the main frame, and we will keep a clear focus on delivering what we have announced there. So please remember that those are the pivotal points in our Commission Work Programme. You know this already. This is the basis upon which we will develop our concrete proposals. And then, of course, next year will also be the year of the MFF mid-term review, which is also going to be a big challenge for both our institutions.

There will be a strong emphasis on REFIT, because keeping the acquis up to date and pertinent to today’s challenges requires a permanent effort. And if pending proposals need to be repealed or withdrawn to allow the co-legislators to use their energy on files that have a chance of being adopted, we will flag them. We need to be, I believe, pragmatic and result oriented. If others need to be prioritising and speeding up, we will flag them too. I hope that we can work closely together with Parliament on this. I strongly believe in this, and I think we need to deliver better results for our citizens.

In conclusion, Mr President, aligning our political priorities and planning can help make all the difference to whether Europeans look at Europe as part of the problem or rather as part of the solution to the huge challenges they face. I look forward to the resolution that this House will adopt later this week, which will be very useful in guiding the Commission’s ongoing reflections. Let us work together, let us work hard. There are so many challenges we face and so many results our citizens expect of us: let us do it together.

  József Szájer, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, we often say here in the House that Europe is in a difficult phase, a difficult situation in its history. This week I think we can rightly say this, but that underlines the fact that we have to work on the effectiveness of how our Union works. The exercise of discussing the Commission’s work programme is something like that.

Let us go back a little bit. I am glad that the Vice-President started with a little stocktaking because, here in the middle of the year, we can already see what has been happening. On behalf of the EPP I can confirm that the Commission has made a quick start and a good start. The investment package and many other initiatives have been strong, and on behalf of Parliament we would like to help this process of going forward in these areas. This energetic start should go on.

I also would like to comment on the point that many have misinterpreted Parliament’s decision in January about the lack of support or a resolution on the Commission’s work programme. Normally in election years this is not required, because planning is much longer and much more preparation is needed, so it is not a failure to meet our obligations. But this year is a full year, which means that we can already have full preparation, which we are doing. Obviously, I am not saying that the preparation process is perfect. For example, in the negotiations which we are now having here in Parliament, we have had to discuss all the things which had been done in this last half year – all the compromises which we are going to foresee in the next year and the second part of this year – which are a little bit too dense, which means that we cannot make the same kind of compromises.

However, in exercise of Parliament’s very important power, which is the right of initiative, we have this instrument which we have to use in order to get some kind of ideas on the Commission table, and we expect the Commission to follow those. The first thing is the method. I am glad that the Vice-President has mentioned that we want effective legislation, fighting red tape (including a significant reduction of the cost of the bureaucratic burden), and the transposition, implementation and enforcement of EU legislation.

Very often we do not need new legislation; we just need to implement that which already exists in the right way. It obviously should not be a question of vanity whether someone has a report or a piece of legislation. We have to look more thoroughly in this Parliament at whether we can do more with a view to implementation. The Commission has to do the same. So this is why we are fully supporting the better law-making exercise and law-making programme.

Another very important matter is the alignment of the legislation to the delegated and implementing act provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. This is a big delay; the Lisbon Treaty has been in force for quite a long time. We have seen resistance on the part of the Council. The Commission should also help Parliament to have full rights in this, otherwise we are falling into a constant inter-institutional fight in this area. We should solve this problem; it is already impossible that we have not gone further ahead on this. Unfortunately, the Commission has withdrawn this piece of legislation. We hope that in the framework of the better law-making package we can do more.

In our view, jobs remain the top priority; mobility and flexibility of the labour market have to be improved, as well as youth employment. The digital agenda has to play a crucial role in our society, especially in creating and re-shoring jobs, improving skills of EU citizens and work and school for the younger generation, giving better access to digital services.

The next development of the EMU should be based, in our view, on the existing two-pack and six-pack legislation. We are against any revision of these two main instruments for the moment; we want them to be fully implemented and applied.

On taxation policy, which is an integral part of the structural reform of the Member States, we would like to see a development, a shift of the tax burden from labour to other forms of taxation. Concerning the EU budget, the fight against tax fraud and evasion, supporting the better performance of the EU budget, is something very important.

So just to sum up, we would now like Parliament to say that we want to have a say in this exercise, and this is what our resolution, hopefully, will be there to do. I hope that many colleagues in this House can support the joint resolutions which we have prepared.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor Presidente, señor Vicepresidente de la Comisión, estamos en un doble ejercicio. Por una parte, chequear, de alguna forma, qué ha sucedido, por parte de la Comisión, desde la presentación de su programa de investidura, y, en segundo lugar, tratar de proporcionar una oportunidad al Parlamento Europeo de contribuir a la dirección política que la propia Comisión tiene que poner en marcha. Por supuesto, este es un elemento del acuerdo interinstitucional, pero creo que va más allá de un acuerdo. Va más allá. Por su alta dimensión política, el Parlamento debe ser parte de la dirección política de la Unión.

Cuando se trata de revisar qué ha sucedido en esta primera parte de la acción de la Comisión, la valoración que yo hago es francamente positiva. La mezcla del programa de inversión, el FEIE, con la flexibilidad del programa de crecimiento ha permitido dar un giro a la política económica de la Unión y orientarla hacia los elementos que tenemos que resolver en el contexto de la crisis económica: crecimiento y creación de empleo.

Pero, a su vez, la Comisión también ha venido con una propuesta bastante sustantiva sobre política fiscal y con una acción, además de una propuesta muy valiente, sobre la inmigración. Y ha venido, también, con posiciones ambiciosas en política energética y, también, en otros ámbitos en el campo económico. Quiero señalar, además, que la transparencia se ha establecido, se ha instalado en el comportamiento de la Comisión y creo que este es un punto positivo.

De cara a 2016, mi Grupo tiene prioridades suficientemente identificadas en el campo social, en el campo de la inmigración, en el campo de la política fiscal y en el campo de la democracia.

En el campo social, queremos que todas las políticas de la Unión sean atravesadas transversalmente por planteamientos de carácter social. Sé que el Vicepresidente, con frecuencia, dice que hay que concretar, que no basta solamente con decir que estamos a favor de una política social. Creo que podemos trabajar conjuntamente para concretar en qué aspectos. Por ejemplo, en la lucha contra la pobreza y la exclusión, en el respeto de la negociación colectiva, en —como acaba de señalar el señor Vicepresidente— la legislación sobre movilidad de los trabajadores y derechos, el respeto de los derechos de los trabajadores en el contexto de esta movilidad.

En el campo en el que ha señalado que va a presentar un paquete sobre la unión económica y monetaria, también queremos que sea la dimensión social un punto básico de la unión económica y monetaria reforzada, no solamente en el documento de los Presidentes, sino también en el conjunto de la acción de la Comisión.

En política fiscal, la propuesta se puede simplificar en dos aspectos. Queremos que se tribute en aquellos países donde se generan los ingresos y queremos que haya una tasa común, una base imponible consolidada común del impuesto sobre sociedades.

Y en el campo de la inmigración, la verdad es que lo que deseo es que la Comisión mantenga el pulso firme que ha mantenido hasta ahora, pidiendo a los Estados miembros que cumplan solidariamente con las cargas que se están generando con las crisis humanitarias, pero, al mismo tiempo, a más largo plazo, con propuestas para organizar seriamente la inmigración legal dentro de la Unión y tratar, también con solidaridad, el tema del asilo.

En lo que se refiere a la democracia, y concluyo, quiero —mi Grupo quiere— que se presente una propuesta con indicadores objetivos y con un mecanismo obligatorio para responder a los fallos y a las violaciones de los derechos fundamentales de la Unión, consagrados en sus Tratados.

Así que hay un amplio nivel de coincidencia y esperamos trabajar continuamente con la Comisión el próximo año.

  Vicky Ford, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, last year, from this very place, I warned of unprecedented challenges to our economies, our resources and our security, and today in much of Europe the situation is no better. Indeed, in many countries it is worse.

Europe does need to change, and the perpetual path to political Union is not the solution, and my group does not support this. In my country six years ago we faced a deep economic crisis, but we now have more jobs than ever before and it is the fastest growing economy in the West. This is due to a long—term economic plan. In Europe, the economy needs to come first, and it is competitiveness that drives jobs and growth. This resolution has some helpful suggestions. The EU should not churn out new laws without thinking about the impact on growth, small businesses and innovation. The Commission has cut back new legislation, is focusing on making sure existing laws work and has promised to remove burdens for businesses and set a target for cutting red tape. This report supports all of that. I have also said that every EU initiative should face the simple test: will it make it easier or harder for businesses to thrive? This report supports that.

A generation ago, politicians created the single market to make it easier to trade. This report says we must make it fit for purpose in a digital age, underpinning the digital revolution – not undermining it. This report supports that. We must increase external trade too. Let us sign the deal with Canada, and keep negotiating the one with the US.

Yes, we need investment, built on private funds because the crisis in public debt is even more acute today than it has been in the past.

We need to sort out Greece and to stop pretending that all sovereign credits are equal. Structural reforms are key. Majorities in this house at the moment are very narrow. Grand plans are easily stalled. We do need less law, but it needs to be very well targeted to get support.

My group wants to put the economy first, and to support the EU in putting competiveness first. We will work with others who share that vision.

  Sophia in ‘t Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, as the Commissioner may probably note with a smile on his face, Parliament’s resolution opens by saying that we want to focus on the big themes – and then we need about 29 pages to explain what the big themes are.

I very much welcome the aim of the Commission, supported by the majority in this House, to cut red tape. I think that is always a good idea anywhere, but it should not become a goal in itself. Quite frankly, cutting red tape – important as it may be – is not the answer to all the big challenges of today. It is not the answer to the refugee crisis. It is not the answer to the crisis in the eurozone. It is not the answer to the dismantling of the Schengen area. It is not the answer to Mr Putin. So we need to cut red tape, but we need more than that. I think what we need to keep in mind is that what we are doing here today is creating the European Union that future generations will be living in. It is not just about us and our little differences, or indeed the things that bind us, it is about future generations.

I will make a first remark about better law-making. As far as I am concerned, that is much more about the process than it is about the outcome, because the outcome is a matter of political choice. In the process I think there is a lot that needs to be improved, and the Commission can do a lot there too, for example by introducing a true culture of transparency and access to documents because, despite all the nice words, I find that the three institutions – and that includes the European Parliament – still have a very conservative reflex when it comes to opening up and being transparent.

A second point – it is a minor one and is not in the resolution, but I think I am speaking on behalf of all of us – would be getting true and serious responses to our written parliamentary questions, rather than the non-answers that we usually get. It also means responding to legislative proposals by the European Parliament. I think that the Commissioner himself has said that he intends to do this, because there is something odd in the fact that a citizens’ initiative requiring a million signatures obliges the Commission to respond, but this Parliament, elected by no less than 170 million voters who went to the ballot boxes last year, can be ignored. Finally, I think the Commission can – and should – do a lot better on review and evaluation.

On the big themes, we are talking about improving the eurozone – and that is not just Greece, that is eurozone governance – and we need to go much further than the five Presidents’ proposals. The Commission should stand shoulder to shoulder with the European Parliament in avoiding the dismantling of the Schengen area and free movement.

Finally, this House has called for a mechanism for the enforcement of Article 2 fundamental rights and the rule of law. This House will elaborate proposals, and we hope that the Commission will do the same.

  Inês Cristina Zuber, em nome do Grupo GUE/NGL. – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, no difícil momento que vários países da União Europeia e os povos atravessam, momentos dramáticos que não só comprometem a vida diária das pessoas, dos trabalhadores, mas também a possibilidade de desenvolvimento futuro dos próprios países, é urgente e imprescindível uma rutura com políticas da União Europeia que no entender do nosso grupo estão submetidas a interesses do grande capital económico e financeiro. É por isso na resolução que vamos apresentar e nas alterações que apresentaremos, recusamos que a dívida continue a ser o pretexto para a imposição das medidas de austeridade e propomos a sua renegociação, incluindo a sua redução e reestruturação, de forma a que a dívida, nos vários países, atinja níveis sustentáveis, que não sufoquem as possibilidades de desenvolvimento dos países e que pura e simplesmente sejam pagáveis.

Por isso propusemos a revogação do Pacto de Estabilidade e o Tratado Orçamental, bem como da legislação da governação económica, devolvendo aos países a possibilidade de terem uma política orçamental de acordo com as diferentes necessidades de cada um. Por isso propomos que o Pacto de Estabilidade e Crescimento seja substituído por um outro pacto, um pacto para o desenvolvimento e o emprego, que beneficie todos os países e reivindicamos a realização de uma conferência intergovernamental com o objetivo de revogar o tratado orçamental. Por isso exigimos uma alteração importante nos estatutos e no mandato do Banco Central Europeu de forma a garantir em igual nível o controlo político e democrático deste pelos Estados-Membros. Por isso consideramos ser necessário devolver aos Estados-Membros o poder de decidir em matérias tão fundamentais para o desenvolvimento dos países, tais como a política monetária. Por isso defendemos a revogação da legislação da união bancária e a necessidade de garantir o controlo público e democrático sobre o sistema bancário. É evidente que quando as políticas não servem o interesse dos povos e dos trabalhadores devem ser alteradas. Só resiste a esta lógica básica quem entende que a política não existe para servir as pessoas mas outros interesses. Nas propostas que apresentamos damos a oportunidade a todos os membros deste Parlamento de clarificarem e de que lado estão.

  Bas Eickhout, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his introduction. I think all of us in this room can agree on one point, namely that Europe should indeed be big on big things and small on small things.

But the debate, of course, is about what we call big and what we call small. That is a political debate and a political decision. Let us not hide between impact assessments, scrutiny boards or whatever. This should be an open political debate on what we call big and what we call small and where we will put Europe at the forefront. There is a lot of criticism about how Europe works at the moment, but is that because there are many rules coming out of Brussels or is it because of the situation in Greece? Is it because of the rising unemployment in Europe? Is it because of the rising inequalities in Europe?

I think it is the latter. That is the big thing for me. Europe should become a Europe that is addressing inequalities and moving towards a social Europe and a sustainable Europe. That is the core, the big thing and the big challenge for Europe. I think we should always be united there.

Mr Timmermans said that we should get rid of the myth that this Commission is not being progressive and not being ambitious on legislation. Well, I still have to say that we need to see some proof of that. One of the biggest moments when we are going to read that out is, of course, when you come forward with the so-called more ambitious proposal on the circular economy package. We will certainly watch closely to see whether that is indeed more ambitious. Mr Timmermans, you said in our group, ‘let me prove you wrong’, because you know we are sceptical. Well, I am happy to be proved wrong, but we have to see it.

The same goes for issues like migration, and also the Commission’s first reallocation plans. These are good and we support them, but we all know that this is just the start of a big debate. The Commission should also come forward here, for example by creating legal routes for labour migration, which is a very important part.

The same on taxation. The taxation package until now has not been very ambitious. We should have far more on transparency and country-by-country reporting. It is the same when we are discussing EMU, which needs to be more democratic and more social. We will challenge all these issues and have to look at them. In the end this needs to be done together, so let us indeed look forward to collaborating on the interinstitutional agreement – but let us do it on an equal footing. Let us not hide behind bureaucratic impact assessments, and let us make it a political debate where all three institutions are at the same level.

  David Borrelli, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, evidentemente dopo ciò che è successo in queste settimane, e in particolare domenica scorsa in Grecia, non è più possibile guardare qualunque programma d'azione delle Istituzioni europee come prima: domenica è successo qualcosa d'importante, qualcosa da cui tutti – ognuno secondo le proprie responsabilità istituzionali – dobbiamo imparare.

Il segnale che c'è giunto da Atene non è solo un segnale tecnico, limitato all'oggetto del quesito in questione: è soprattutto un segnale politico, e tra le Istituzioni europee nessuna più di questo Parlamento, nella sua qualità di rappresentante diretto dei cittadini, può e deve coglierne la valenza politica nel senso più nobile che essa contiene.

Vi invito allora a stimolare la Commissione Juncker a configurare un programma di lavoro che sappia:

considerare gli importanti fatti della scorsa settimana,

mostrare una Commissione veramente capace di essere titolare di un potere di iniziativa politica, dotato di concreta utilità per tutti i popoli dell'Unione, in particolare verso quelli più vulnerabili, ad esempio, riorientando il Piano Juncker secondo criteri che tengano conto delle aree geografiche più in difficoltà. Perché – al di là dei meriti o delle responsabilità dei governi – noi come Parlamento europeo dobbiamo avere al centro dei nostri pensieri i popoli.

La Commissione ha il controllo della leva dell'iniziativa politica: la usi con coscienza del presente e con attenzione al futuro e soprattutto con concreta solidarietà. Le singole misure devono – a nostro avviso – concentrarsi in particolare sui seguenti elementi:

disoccupazione elevata e una crescita in affanno,

alti livelli di debito pubblico e un'eccessiva burocrazia,

un sistema creditizio insensibile alle istanze di famiglie e imprese,

un approccio miope e inefficace alle politiche dell'immigrazione e

lotta ai cambiamenti climatici.

Vi sono poi alcuni mali trasversali, quali la corruzione, l'evasione fiscale e l'infiltrazione della criminalità organizzata, che rendono urgente un'azione più incisiva e coerente a livello comunitario. In sostanza ciò che come Istituzioni europee non possiamo permetterci è di perdere ancor più la fiducia dei cittadini. La Commissione, con il suo programma di lavoro, può fare molto nella direzione di un recupero di credibilità presso i nostri elettori; pretendiamo allora che faccia bene il suo lavoro e che, soprattutto, lo faccia con la coscienza necessaria.

  Lorenzo Fontana, a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, tante cose mi passavano per la testa durante questa discussione e devo dire che l'impressione che ho è che, purtroppo, ci ritroveremo, magari tra un anno, a essere più o meno nella stessa situazione, se non peggio.

Il problema è capire cosa la Commissione vuole fare non solo del proprio futuro ma anche del futuro dell'Europa, quanto meno, del futuro di quest'Unione europea, perché non riesco a comprendere se la Commissione si rende conto che si stanno aprendo delle crepe sempre più grandi e che non serve una mano di bianco per riuscire a far restare in piedi la casa, ma bisogna fare una ristrutturazione completa.

Bisognerà per forza fare un'azione incisiva per rivedere determinati trattati che, evidentemente, invece di portare la prosperità come c'era stato detto qualche decennio fa, stanno portando alla catastrofe alcuni popoli.

È vero che il segnale di domenica in Grecia è stato soprattutto un segnale politico e io vi invito, vi imploro a cambiare le vostre politiche di più di quello che state facendo, perché il piano Juncker, che è stato proclamato l'anno scorso, non sembra sufficiente in questo momento. Ma, soprattutto, dovete anche farci capire quali sono le vostre priorità effettive, quelle che magari non si dicono: cioè, noi abbiamo a cuore le nostre piccole e medie imprese, le nostre tradizioni, le nostre identità; pensiamo che l'Europa sia forte proprio perché è diversa. Invece, sembra esservi spesso e volentieri un'azione politica che guarda più che altro alle multinazionali, alle grandi banche e e vuole omologare tutto e tutti, al fine di farci diventare dei numeri. Noi questo non lo accettiamo e prima o poi i popoli si ribelleranno.

Pensi, per esempio, al fatto che la direttiva sul Made in è praticamente bloccata, mentre si va avanti sul TTIP che, invece, sappiamo probabilmente potrà essere utile per qualche grande multinazionale ma non certo per le nostre piccole e medie imprese, almeno così come sembra in questo momento.

Guardi anche al resto del mondo: io non capisco perché non si fa nulla, per esempio, per i nostri fratelli cristiani perseguitati. Qui si parla di tutte le fobie – islamofobia, omofobia – ma non si parla della cristianofobia. E sull'Isis? Sullo Stato islamico? Serve un'azione incisiva dell'Europa per difenderci dal più grande pericolo che ci sarà nei prossimi anni.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Az Európai Bizottság új programja világosan kimondja, hogy a migráció legális formáját támogatja, az illegális migrációval szemben – idézem – „kemény lépésekkel fog fellépni”. Arra kérem biztos urat, hogy most itt, a nyilvánosság előtt tegyen világos különbséget a kettő között. Magyarázza el az európai polgároknak, hogy mit kell legális és illegális migráción érteni. Annyit tudunk, hogy nyilván legális migráció az, amikor valaki háború elől menekül, menedékstátuszért folyamodik.

Kérdem én, hogy az ilyen ember miért rongálja szét és dobálja el az útlevelét, a személyi iratait, a schengeni magyar–szerb határ szerb oldalán, miért nem jelentkezik az útlevelével, és mondja azt, hogy kérem szépen, Szíriából jövök, háborús területről, életveszélyben vagyok, tessék engem menekültnek nyilvánítani. Másik kérdésem: azok az emberek, akik muszlim országokból jönnek, hogy hagyhatják hátra egy életveszélyes háborús helyzetben a női családtagjaikat, feleségeiket, gyerekeiket, édesanyjukat? Kérnék szépen erre valami magyarázatot, erről nyilván van hivatalos tudomásuk.

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, let me just react to a number of comments that have been made. First of all, I have to say that there is broad support for working closely together on a Commission Work Programme that is targeted and, of course, that chooses political priorities after a debate. Political priorities are something you debate, and you look for majorities to get them, clearly.

At the same time I also see the willingness in this institution, just as much as I know it exists in the Council and in the Commission, to reach an interinstitutional agreement – hopefully before the end of this year – on better law-making. Of course, better law-making is not the answer to all our problems: better law-making will not solve the crisis in Greece; better law—making is not the way to tackle Putin. I accept all these points. But better law-making is a way of trying to answer the plea of an endless number of SMEs across Europe which are telling me whenever I go to a Member State: ‘please help us cut red tape; please help us create more clarity; please help us understand that it is possible to create clear legislation, not legislation where Member States then have endless possibilities of gold plating so that we are completely lost.’ These are things that are important. They are important to SMEs; therefore, they are important to employment and to growth.

Yes, of course this is not earth—shattering – this is not going to change the nature of Europe. But it is going to make a difference for hundreds of thousands of people who are trying, day by day, to work very hard to create a living for themselves, their families and the people who work for them. Therefore, this is an important thing for me. The way we create legislation is important to hundreds of millions of Europeans. Even if they do not know it is important to them, it still is, because the outcome is something they have to deal with.

And let me be very clear on impact assessment. Let me be very clear on more scrutiny. This does not lead to taking away the power of politicians. We do not change that. It leads to better-informed politicians. I do not know what would be the problem with better-informed politicians. Better scrutiny and better impact assessment means that the politicians, when they decide, are better informed about what they can decide. I would say to Mr Eickhout: do not turn things around. Do not use the argument that ‘the politicians should be in charge’ to dismiss impact assessment and to dismiss scrutiny. That would be changing the argument you are using against me completely around. Both are wrong.

The Commission does not want to use impact assessment and scrutiny to disempower politicians. On the contrary, we want to help politicians to be better informed. We see across our Member States that sometimes scrutiny or analysis leads to a conclusion, and the experts then say this means that this measure is going to be more costly for this or that reason. Then parliaments still decide, but we think that this cost is justified for bigger political goals, and therefore we do it anyway. But at least people know what you decide, and I think there is nothing wrong with that.

As regards more transparency: I am all for it. But one of the reasons why we – the two institutions – need more transparency is also to show our customers, i.e. the recipients of our legislation, where we are responsible – Parliament and Commission – and where the Member State is responsible. There is still a tremendous amount of gold-plating going on. And again here, Member States have the full right to do that. If they want to create stricter legislation, it is entirely up to them – they have the full right to do it. But then do not blame Europe for it. Be honest about it, be transparent about it. I think the proposals we will discuss in our interinstitutional agreement will help us become more transparent. This also applies – and I say this clearly to Mr Szájer as well – to delegated acts and implementing acts. There, I hope we can reach an agreement which will create more transparency. As far as the Commission is concerned, we will put all draft delegated acts on the internet for a period of four weeks, so that everybody in the outside world can see what we are proposing.

For the implementing act it is slightly more difficult, because sometimes – like when you change the price of a product – you cannot give that over for public debate for a long period of time. Everyone will understand that. But we will try to put the maximum amount of primary and secondary legislation up for public scrutiny, so that everybody knows what we are doing. Hopefully, then, we will avoid another ‘olive oil can’ disaster or something like that. It might help by putting it in the public sphere.

Of course, we will need to act on a number of things that are very important, and migration is one of them. I am sure tomorrow, when the debates are held on the results of the European Council, President Juncker will want to come back to this. But the Commission sticks to its proposals. We believe, also after debate with your Parliament, that we are on the right track with these proposals. If you ask me what the difference between legal and illegal migration is, clearly somebody who is abusing the asylum system because they want a better life in Europe is an example of illegal migration. Asylum policy should be for people who flee because they fear for their lives.

I think we have less support in Europe for asylum policy, because many of our citizens know that the system is being abused and because we are not able, if we discover people abusing the system, to make sure they return to the countries they came from. If we want a credible migration and asylum policy, we have to make sure that the rules are actually applied, so that people who deserve asylum get asylum – unfortunately too often the system fails them – and that people who do not deserve asylum are sent back to where they come from, and also that we have agreements with third countries to do that. But we also need – and this is simple demographics – possibilities for the European Union to have traditional, legal forms of migration. There needs to be a possibility for people to apply for a visa, at an embassy in the country where they live, to come and live and work in Europe. They should not be at the mercy of smugglers, nor should they run the risk of drowning in the Mediterranean, but rather they should have a fair chance – if Europe needs people like them – to apply and then come to Europe. In that sense, I believe legal migration is also part of the solution.

Let me conclude by saying that for me, the important thing here is that our two institutions work closely together, because I do not think anybody disputes our goal that we should perform better in delivering results for our citizens. Sometimes these are huge – big earth-shattering results – but very often they are small results. But a number of small results will create more growth, more jobs, better social protection and a better future for hundreds of thousands of young Europeans who are still unemployed today. I think that that is a goal worth fighting for.

  Der Präsident. – Zum Abschluss der Aussprache wurden gemäß Artikel 123 Absatz 2 der Geschäftsordnung sieben Entschließungsanträge eingereicht.

Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 9. Juli, statt.

Schriftliche Erklarungen (Artikel 162 GO)

  Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE), in writing. – In terms of persistent economic, social and security problems facing the Union, it is very important that Commission’s Work Programme for 2016, first and foremost, concentrates on improving its law making processes and institutional effectiveness. This way it would not only help to reduce regulatory costs but at the same time enable better coordination and synchronisation of political activities among the EU Member States. This, as a result, would help to speed up the implementation of such strategic agendas as the Energy Union, the Digital Single Market, Growth and Jobs and others.

In addition to this, the EU should act as a stronger global actor. We need to be ready to take the lead and address new challenges such as Russia’s aggression in Ukraine in the East and the irregular migration flows on the EU’s southern borders. The Commission should ensure an operative response and ability to make corresponding legislative and budgetary proposals. Finally, the Union needs to improve its policy coherence and systematically project its internal policy to external action, including streaming of human rights to all policy areas.

  József Nagy (PPE), írásban. – Fontos kérdésekről hallottunk, azonban amikor itt a megoldási javaslatokat hallgatom az egyes témákban, gyakran eszembe jut az a Gandhi-idézet, hogy „Magad legyél a változás, amit a világban látni akarsz”. Európa identitásválságban szenved, s közben magunk alatt vágjuk a fát hezitálásunkkal a bevándorlási politikánkban, vagy épp szabadságjogainknak, például a schengeni rendszer megnyirbálásának ötletével. Itt az ideje, hogy kulcsprioritásként kezeljük európaiságunkat, hiszen már 6 referendum fenyegeti ezt a közös projektet. Ehhez többek közt hozzátartozik a hagyományos európai sokszínűség, az itt élő őshonos népek kölcsönhatásai, együttélése. Itt az ideje, hogy az őshonos kisebbségek védelmére konkrét lépéseket tegyünk egy kétpilléres kisebbségvédelmi rendszer megalkotásával.

  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D), schriftelijk. – De Europese Commissie heeft aangekondigd van het werkprogramma 2016 een politiek document te willen maken dat focust op de hoofdlijnen, op de echte prioriteiten voor 2016. Die benadering is goed, tenminste als het de juiste prioriteiten bevat en deze tegelijk ambitieus genoeg zijn. En daar wringt mogelijk het schoentje.

De Commissie herhaalt steeds dat de EU groot moet zijn in grote dingen en klein in kleine dingen. Voor mij betekent dit dat de EU de grootste problemen, de problemen waar EU-burgers mee geconfronteerd worden, prioritair moet aanpakken. Dit betekent niet dat onder het mom van verlichting van administratieve lasten sociale wetgeving geschrapt wordt. Problemen waar burgers van wakker liggen, zijn onder andere sociale dumping, (jeugd)werkloosheid en belastingontduiking door multinationals.

Ik roep de Commissie dan ook op in het werkprogramma 2016 voldoende aandacht te besteden aan het krachtdadig aanpakken van deze problemen. Zo moet de detacheringsrichtlijn dringend hervormd worden om detacheringsfraude en sociale dumping aan te pakken. Ik hoop dat de Commissie hier in 2016 werk van maakt en dat zij zich niet beperkt tot studies en evaluaties. De problemen met de detacheringsrichtlijn zijn immers bekend. Het is nu tijd voor actie en oplossingen.

  Milan Zver (PPE), pisno. – Pri oblikovanju programa Komisije za leto 2016 moramo imeti v mislih naslednje prioritete: zmanjšanje upravnih bremen za državljane in podjetja (zmanjšanje števila zakonodajnih predlogov in osredotočenje na glavne prednostne naloge), nove spodbude za delovna mesta, rast in naložbe, odporno energijsko unijo ter razumen in uravnotežen prostotrgovinski sporazum z ZDA. Ključen izziv ostaja območje pravosodja in temeljnih pravic. Sprejeti moramo ukrepe za spodbujanje zaposljivosti evropskih delavcev ter za obravnavanje težav dolgotrajno brezposelnih ljudi, še posebej mladih. Naša prioriteta je odporna energijska unija, ki vodi do večje energetske ter gospodarske neodvisnosti, zagotavlja pa tudi politično neodvisnost in stabilnost EU. Politika podnebnih sprememb mora biti usmerjena v prihodnost, pomembna je tudi reforma sistema za trgovanje z emisijami (ETS). Razumen in uravnotežen prostotrgovinski sporazum z ZDA je strateškega pomena. Je najpomembnejši projekt ki bo, če bo uspešno zaključen, poleg svojih trgovinskih vidikov ponovno oživil čezatlantsko partnerstvo kot celoto. Podpiram prizadevanja za sporazum z obojestranskimi koristmi, ki bo v celoti spoštoval evropske socialne in okoljske standarde ter standarde varstva potrošnikov. In ključno, pravosodje in temeljne pravice. Komisija mora bolj sistematično delovati na področju sodelovanja v civilnih in kazenskih zadevah ter na področju nadaljnjega razvoja evropskega pravnega prostora ter varstva človekovih pravic v Uniji.

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. ANTONIO TAJANI
Vicepresidente