Index 
 Précédent 
 Suivant 
 Texte intégral 
Débats
Mercredi 24 octobre 2018 - Strasbourg Edition révisée

17. Évaluation du traité de Lisbonne (débat d'actualité)
Vidéo des interventions
PV
MPphoto
 

  President. – The next item is the topical debate (Rule 153a) on evaluation of the Lisbon Treaty (2018/2888(RSP)).

I should like to inform Members that for this debate there is no catch-the-eye procedure and there will be no blue cards, so no blue cards will be accepted.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marco Zanni, autore. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sono ormai passati dieci anni dall'entrata in vigore del trattato di Lisbona ed è necessario, quindi, fare un po' il punto della situazione attuale nell'UE.

I dati economici e sociali non mentono e ci dicono che oggi stiamo peggio di dieci anni fa, con la disoccupazione in aumento, la ricchezza diminuita e il rapporto tra debito e PIL che in dieci anni si è amplificato di oltre venti punti percentuali. Questa è la realtà dei numeri, ma al di là di questi macroindicatori chiari è la realtà della vita quotidiana che mostra come i cittadini siano sempre più in difficoltà e quanto siano acuite anche le differenze e le diffidenze tra i paesi dell'Unione, facendo rinascere e rinsaldare sentimenti di timore e sfiducia reciproca che credevamo ormai sepolti da tempo.

È chiaro che il trattato e l'UE hanno fallito negli obiettivi che si erano proposti: non c'è benessere, non c'è coesione economica, non c'è coesione sociale o territoriale né la tanto sbandierata solidarietà tra paesi.

Del resto non c'è da stupirsi se tra gli obiettivi sanciti dal trattato vi sia l'avere un'economia sociale e di mercato fortemente competitiva. Come si è tradotto, io chiedo, questo principio nel concreto? Ecco, si è tradotto nel sacrificio di giovani, di lavoratori, di pensionati ad appannaggio di lesive politiche neoliberiste. Si sono avuti quindi disoccupazione giovanile, compressioni salariali e tagli alle pensioni – le uniche ricette che Bruxelles è stata in grado di imporre agli Stati membri.

In questi dieci anni il trattato e l'UE non sono stati in grado di dare una risposta concreta ai tre grandi problemi che oggi i cittadini europei affrontano: la crisi economica che perdura, la crisi della sicurezza interna e la protezione dei confini contro l'immigrazione clandestina. Non solo nulla è stato fatto, ma le ricette europee hanno addirittura peggiorato la situazione.

Io mi chiedo come l'Unione europea possa migliorare la situazione se un governo democraticamente eletto non può nemmeno stabilire le proprie misure economiche ma deve essere sempre sotto ricatto di questo o quel commissario UE, che dopo aver fallito a casa propria vuole ora decidere a casa nostra. Mi domando quale potere abbiano Junker, Dombrovskis o Moscovici per decidere il futuro e le speranze di milioni di giovani, di lavoratori, di pensionati e di disoccupati in Italia e altrove.

L'arroganza con cui volete proseguire su una visione di un'Unione accentratrice, con sempre più poteri e competenze sottratti ai governi nazionali, sta portando l'Europa al collasso. Forse è opportuno togliersi dalla testa il mantra del "più Europa" del "there is no alternative", che per voi rappresenta la soluzione a tutti i problemi ma che in realtà è stato solamente la sublimazione di un sistema antidemocratico a discapito delle libertà dei cittadini e dei popoli europei.

Io vi chiedo se vi siete mai domandati come mai, quando ai cittadini europei è stato consentito di pronunciarsi direttamente su questioni relative all'UE, spesso l'esito è stato ben diverso da quello che vi aspettavate. L'ultimo Eurobarometro dice che meno della metà degli italiani vede vantaggi nell'UE ma il 60 % sostiene questo governo che voi osteggiate. Cosa volete fare? Rispettare la democrazia e le libertà dei popoli o togliergliele definitivamente?

Ormai per voi le lancette della storia scorrono inesorabili. Chi ha sostenuto quest'idea fallimentare di Europa verrà spazzato via dal voto popolare. Per lunghi anni in queste aule ci avete ostracizzato, deriso, ammutolito. A maggio ci prenderemo la nostra rivincita. Lo shock politico che vi cancellerà permetterà all'Europa, quella vera, di risorgere dal baratro in cui le vostre scelte scellerate l'hanno portata.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Karoline Edtstadler, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, thank you for inviting the Presidency to your monthly topical debate.

The Council has not yet discussed the evaluation of the Lisbon Treaty as such. The Council implements the Treaty with a view to achieving results. We believe our focus should be on delivering results for our citizens, in particular, right until the end of the present term. Be assured that the Austrian Presidency will be focused on this.

On this I would simply note that the ordinary legislative procedure, which is now generalised after Lisbon, works well – and I would like to thank the European Parliament for the good cooperation – and that the relations between the Council and Parliament on the whole have indeed improved.

Beyond this, there is certainly a debate about the evaluation of the Treaty and, more generally, about the future of the Union. We appreciate that Parliament has been working on several reports on certain aspects of the Treaty. I am sure that in today’s debate a variety of views will be expressed, based on respective political perspectives.

That said, I will listen to your debate attentively. Thank you for this opportunity.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of The Commission. – Mr President, frankly, I prepared for a debate about the Lisbon Treaty. I was waiting for Mr Zanni to go onto the Lisbon Treaty. He went onto many things, very interestingly, but not onto the Lisbon Treaty. I will stick to my brief anyway.

The Treaty is a reflection of what Member States collectively want and require from the EU. They have come together and pooled sovereignty because they see there are challenges that no one Member State can address acting alone. As Jean-Claude Juncker said in the State of the Union address this year, and I quote: ‘European sovereignty is born of Member States’ national sovereignty and does not replace it. Sharing sovereignty – when and where needed – makes each of our nation states stronger.’ End of quote.

Too often the discussion on sovereignty is a pretext for the question of how we can stop things, but the real question we should ask is: how can we act effectively and legitimately in the face of challenges or crises? I also want to react to some of the things Mr Zanni said. There is no imposition. Every single Member State has signed and ratified the Treaty. You can’t afterwards say, ‘I’ve signed and ratified, but I will not apply the Treaty’. We are based on the rule of law and that means that this Union can only function if we can accept that those who sign and ratify the Treaty also apply the Treaty. If we have a problem with that, the Commission can intervene and at the end of the day, it’s the Court of Justice that will rule on this. That is the essence of how we constructed the European Union after the Second World War. Creating the impression that this is an imposition from outside is, I think, fooling your own people and it is irresponsible. It can create a certain feeling of ‘we’re being dictated to from outside’, but it is not a reflection of reality, and it is also hiding away your own responsibility. You have a responsibility vis-à-vis your colleagues in the Council, vis-à-vis the European Parliament, vis-à-vis the Commission, but you certainly have a responsibility vis-à-vis your own signature, your own ratification, and I think we should be talking about that more.

I also believe that if you look at the number of Treaty changes we have seen over the years, you see that, given the complexity of the challenges and the complexity of working together and having to tackle issues no Member State can tackle on its own, the need for decision through qualified majority voting (QMV) has increased. I hope we can use the coming time to look into areas where QMV can be increased, especially in foreign policy. If you have to take decisions on international human rights, or if you have to take decisions on commercial issues, I think QMV could be a helpful instrument. Again, and I come from a country where the temptation of thinking that the veto was the best thing you had has sort of waned. People understand that a veto can only give you the instrument to stop something temporarily, but it doesn’t give you the opportunity to act, to actually do something proactively, and so I think the discussion of QMV will have to move forward.

On issues such as taxation, there is no way we can muster enough strength against the huge corporations that can negotiate tax deals with individual Member States that de facto mean they don’t pay any taxes if we don’t do this at the European level. We need to do this at the European level, and for that I think QMV would be important as well.

I also want to mention briefly the task force on subsidiarity and proportionality that Jean-Claude Juncker created last year. Yesterday in the Commission work programme, we set out in broad terms how we believe the task force needs to respond to the questions that were put on the table by Member States, by national parliaments and by other stakeholders such as regional and local authorities. We will prepare this for the Bregenz conference that will take place soon. The core of the issue is that we need to make sure that all those who in the end have to work with legislation are also involved in preparing the legislation, helping us to evaluate the legislation, to make sure that we avoid duplication, to make sure that we avoid unnecessary complexity. It is now also my experience that the issue is not, in general, should competences be returned from the EU level to Member States? We've challenged everyone to give us some examples, and the examples are few and far between, but not really very concrete.

The real issue we need to tackle is: how do we legislate? How do we do this? Can we not do this in a way that is less complex, that will help local and regional authorities to have ownership of these processes? Where can we evaluate existing legislation to make sure that we take out what is no longer necessary etc.? We should get out of this logic that the only thing we could do is do less. We need to do things Europe needs to do, and we need to stop doing things that are nice to do. We only need to do what we need to do. I believe that if we start from that premise, we will understand that there is a tremendous amount we still need to do, and I couldn’t end my intervention without referring to the momentous decision this Parliament took today to embrace the plastic strategy. It is now up to the Council to do something that a vast majority of Europeans want us to do, and they want us to do it now.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Danuta Maria Hübner, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I will speak on the Lisbon Treaty as well. I believe that it has brought immense progress to the functioning of the EU in terms of efficiency, democracy and also transparency. But it maintained and enhanced the system of intergovernmental policy coordination, which was very different from the Community method, and for many of us this has been a disappointment. As a result, important policy decisions and actions are based on the voluntary commitment of Member States, with all its consequences. We saw during the time of ‘polycrisis’ that this working method does not work when key challenges are at stake.

The Committee on Constitutional Affairs has proposed – and the whole House accepted when voting through a series of reports last year – the logic to first explore fully the potential of the Lisbon Treaty and only then to reflect on the changes to the Treaty that would be necessary to attain desiderata the boundaries of the Treaty of Lisbon do not allow to be pursued.

But we all know that today unanimity makes Treaty revision virtually impossible. There is a long list of issues on which the Union has moved forward, building on the unexploited treaty potential – PESCO is a recent example here – but the list regarding unused Treaty potential remains even longer: the passerelle clause that has never been used; the European Parliament’s right of inquiry and its right of legislative initiative; reinforcement of the rule of law framework; transparency of Council legislative decision—making; and accession to the ECHR.

Without doubt, within the Lisbon Treaty framework, we can move forward on completing reforms of the EMU. All we need is the political will. In this House we have called for the use of QMV in the Council, but also for the general use of the ordinary legislative procedure. Eventually all decisions, including on the MFF, should be taken by QMV, even if a very high one in some particular cases.

So yes, indeed, we can clearly use the existing unexploited potential of the Lisbon Treaty to improve the governance of the Union and its institutional set—up. I believe that this will make the Treaty of Lisbon more relevant to the challenges that our policy—making will face in the years to come.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Richard Corbett, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I too thought Mr Zanni had turned up for the wrong debate, but then he moved very quickly onto the old clichés about the European Union becoming some sort of centralised superstate. We hear a lot about false news these days, but really, this is a false narrative. Just look at the facts: this Union, its central administration, the Commission, has fewer employees than the city of Leeds in my constituency. Its budget is scarcely 2% of public spending – 98% is national. No legislation can be adopted without the approval of both this elected Parliament and national ministers – members of national governments, accountable to national parliaments – meeting in the Council. It’s not actually possible for this Union to act in areas that the Member States don’t want it to act in. It’s in those areas where we need joint action.

I was Parliament’s rapporteur on the Lisbon Treaty. It was a series of reforms to make the Union work better and to improve its accountability, a series of reforms that needed the grand slam of ratification by every single Member State to get through, so again, a very high level of consensus about it. What did it do? Firstly, it made our Union work better. As Mr Timmermans has mentioned already, more majority voting, fewer vetoes, but a qualified majority still needs a very high threshold in the Council. It has allowed the European Council to choose who chairs its meetings, instead of having a Buggins’ turn rotation with a new President every second meeting. It allowed us to have one external representative – the High Representative – instead of two as we used to. It rationalised our work, but it also made the Union more accountable. Prior scrutiny by national parliaments – every legislative proposal goes to them first. They have an eight-week period to look at it before we begin on it.

Election of the President of the Commission by this Parliament; the Council to meet in public when adopting legislation; the whole budget subject, and others which I can’t list because of lack of time; many other democratic improvements.

This narrative is false.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Richard Sulík, za skupinu ECR. – Základným problémom Európskej únie je nedodržiavanie pravidiel a dohôd.

Schengen, Dublin, Maastricht, Lisabon – prakticky každá jedna zmluva bola niekým významným spôsobom porušená. Pripomínam článok 125 Lisabonskej zmluvy, podľa ktorého každá krajina ručí za svoje záväzky sama, v prípade Grécka to neplatilo; článok 123 Lisabonskej zmluvy, podľa ktorého Európska centrálna banka nesmie vykupovať verejný dlh, medzičasom tak spravila za nepredstaviteľných 2500 miliárd eur. Pri nedodržiavaní pravidiel je obľúbeným riešením Európskej komisie vymýšľať nové pravidlá, u ktorých rovnako nedbá na ich dodržiavanie. Pravidlá Paktu rastu a stability boli celkovo porušené vyše 150-krát. 150-krát a pán Juncker a jeho predchodca pán Barosso nepristúpili k sankciám jedinýkrát. Naopak, keď pán Juncker dostal pred dvomi rokmi otázku, že prečo Francúzsko po ikstýkrát nemusí dodržiavať tieto pravidlá, odpovedal: „Preto, lebo je to Francúzsko.“ To sa mu teraz vracia ako bumerang. Z Talianska prišiel návrh rozpočtu, ktorý je pre ostatné členské krajiny čistou provokáciou, spolu s komentárom, že pána Junckera už nikto neberie vážne.

Samozrejme, že správanie Talianska je výsmech všetkým ostatným členským krajinám, preto apelujem, v prvom rade, dodržiavajte, prosím vás, pravidlá, až potom vymýšľajte nové.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Dita Charanzová, za skupinu ALDE. – Pane předsedající, Lisabonská smlouva je právem považována za přelomový moment v rámci evropské integrace. Především proto, že umožnila fungování EU po historickém rozšíření o země bývalého východního bloku v roce 2004. Umožnila také nové formy spojení členských států, a to včetně posílené spolupráce v oblasti obrany. Dnes, téměř 10 let od její reálné účinnosti, si však musíme nastavit zrcadlo. Opravdu jsme přiblížili Unii blíže občanům? Jsme akceschopnější? Zapojujeme více národní parlamenty do rozhodování? Opravdu se striktně řídíme principy subsidiarity a proporcionality? Mně osobně z toho plyne jediný závěr – Evropa, která si nyní prošla několika krizovými momenty, potřebuje reflexi. Nemůžeme pokračovat, jakoby se nic nedělo, dávali bychom tím všanc celý evropský projekt. Byla bych velmi nerada, aby jediným reálným výsledkem Lisabonské smlouvy byl brexit.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Klaus Buchner, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Wir brauchen Europa. Aber wenn wir Europa erhalten wollen, müssen wir es dringend reformieren, wir müssen es demokratischer machen.

Das Parlament muss endlich die Rechte bekommen, die ein Parlament in einer echten Demokratie hat, z.B. ein Antragsrecht für neue Gesetze, z.B. die Möglichkeit, in der Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik Entscheidungen zu fällen. Schließlich sollte doch in einer Demokratie das Parlament das höchste Gremium sein.

Die Kommission muss eine gewählte Regierung werden, und der Europäische Gerichtshof muss sich darauf beschränken, die Einhaltung der bestehenden Verträge zu garantieren. Er muss nach den bestehenden Gesetzen urteilen und darf nicht die Gesetze verändern oder weiterentwickeln.

Dieses mangelhafte Demokratieverständnis war einer von mehreren Gründen für den Brexit, und auch viele überzeugte Europäer wünschen sich dringend Reformen in der EU. Wir brauchen Europa, aber wir brauchen ein demokratisches Europa.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jiří Payne, za skupinu EFDD. – Pane předsedající, v Lisabonské smlouvě není nastavena rovnováha moci, vzájemná kontrola institucí, kterou jinak běžně používáme na úrovni spolků, ústav států i mezinárodních organizací. Začněme od Komise: podle čl. 17 odst. 1 Lisabonské smlouvy „Komise podporuje obecný zájem Unie“. Všimněte si, v celé Lisabonské smlouvě není řečeno, že by Unie měla sloužit lidem, slouží sama sobě. Můžeme to doložit i dalšími citáty. V čl. 17 odst. 3 se píše, že „členové Komise jsou vybíráni tak, aby byli naprosto nezávislí“. Naprosto nezávislými na občanech členských států, na normálních lidech. Výslovně se tam píše: „Komise vykonává své funkce zcela nezávisle. Členové Komise nevyžadují ani nepřijímají pokyny od žádné vlády, orgánu, instituce ani jiného subjektu.“ To znamená, že Komise je zcela odříznutá od lidí. Politický systém, který nebere ohled na zájmy lidí, se považuje za autoritativní systém. Někteří argumentují, že přece členské státy rozhodují o tom, co Komise smí dělat.

Rada: v Lisabonské smlouvě v čl. 4 v odst. 3 stojí: „Členské státy usnadňují Unii plnění jejich úkolů a zdrží se všech opatření, jež by mohla ohrozit dosažení cílů Unie.“ Takže státy nesmějí prosazovat své vlastní zájmy a zájmy svých občanů v Unii. Na tomto místě budu citovat předsedu Evropské komise, pana Junckera. Ke shromáždění předsedů vlád řekl: „Přestaňte naslouchat svým voličům.“ Můžeme takhle pokračovat dál, dokázali bychom, že Lisabonská smlouva je totalitní systém obdobný těm v komunistických zemích.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Patrick Le Hyaric, au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Monsieur le Président, d’abord, le traité de Lisbonne est dès le départ entaché de violation de la souveraineté des peuples, dès lors que son frère jumeau le projet de constitution européenne a été rejeté par plusieurs peuples, dont celui de France, des Pays-Bas et d’Irlande.

Malgré cela, on applique un traité qui codifie des politiques économiques et sociales ultralibérales, on fait de la concurrence de tous contre tous le guide de tous les choix, quitte à creuser toujours plus les fractures sociales, territoriales, le chômage, la précarité et la pauvreté. On met les budgets nationaux à la diète mais ce n’est pas pour cela qu’on réduit les dettes.

L’urgence, donc, aujourd’hui, est de refonder cette construction européenne en y associant les peuples pour un nouveau traité social, démocratique et écologique pour faire face aux énormes défis qui sont devant nous: construire l’Europe du travail, combattre l’évasion fiscale, taxer les mastodontes qui ne participent pas au bien commun dans l’Union européenne, défendre et créer de nouveaux services publics, utiliser la création monétaire de la banque centrale pour le développement humain et la transition environnementale, être acteur de la coopération mondiale du désarmement et de la paix.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Auke Zijlstra, namens de ENF-Fractie. – Voorzitter, in juni 2005 heb ik tegengestemd in het Nederlandse referendum over de Europese grondwet, nu bekend als het Verdrag van Lissabon. En met mij was de grote meerderheid van de Nederlanders tegen. Ik was toen ambtenaar bij Binnenlandse Zaken en bij mijn collega-ambtenaren heerste onbegrip. Waarom vond de bevolking machtsuitbreiding van Brussel niet goed? De Tweede Kamer besloot dat de bevolking te dom was om een gefundeerde mening te hebben en de grote partijen, waaronder die van commissaris Timmermans, negeerden dan ook de uitkomst.

Nederland trad toe tot het Verdrag van Lissabon in een enkelvoudige stemming. Dat was illegaal, want in strijd met de Nederlandse grondwet, maar ja, alles voor de Goede Zaak, nietwaar?

Een decennium later blijkt de bevolking visionair geweest te zijn. De EU heeft alles naar zich toegetrokken. Nederland gaat nergens meer over. Niet meer over grensbewaking, niet meer over migratie, niet over zijn eigen overheidsbudget, niet over vrije politieke discussies op internet. Ik zou zeggen dat – zeker met dat laatste – de Europese Unie trekken van de Sovjet—Unie begint te krijgen, maar ja, mijn juriste vertelde me dat belediging van de Unie strafbaar is. Onvoorstelbaar. Je kan dus niet tegen het Verdrag stemmen, maar je kan het dus wel beledigen. Je vraagt je dan af: word je dan veroordeeld door het Europese Hof, die andere tentakel van de Europese octopus? Had ik al 'visionair' gezegd?

Gelukkig blijkt het Verdrag zijn langste tijd gehad te hebben. Groot—Brittannië is er helemaal klaar mee. Hongarije, Polen, Tsjechië, Slowakije, Italië, allemaal hebben ze ruzie met de Europese Commissie. En daar komt straks Roemenië nog bij, Bulgarije. Spanje niet, ondanks het knuppelen van Catalaanse kiezers. Het bestrijden van de mening van de kiezer is namelijk wel oké. In Spanje, maar in Nederland dus ook. Wat dat betreft is er niet veel veranderd in het afgelopen decennium.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Συνθήκη της Λισαβόνας δεν τιτλοφορείται ως Σύνταγμα, αλλά συγκεκαλυμμένα αποτελεί ένα οιονεί Σύνταγμα και οι ευρωπαϊκοί θεσμοί το μεταχειρίζονται ως τέτοιο. Με τις υιοθετημένες πολιτικές και τις σολομώντειες, δημιουργικές ερμηνείες της Συνθήκης, η υφιστάμενη μορφή της Ένωσης είναι ασύμβατη με τον θεωρητικά επιδιωκόμενο σκοπό. Δεν έχουμε μία Ένωση δημοκρατίας και ασφάλειας, αλλά μία θεσμική επιβολή και επιβουλή εναντίον των εθνικών αρχών με ελεγχόμενες διαδικασίες όπου το ενωσιακό δίκαιο υπερέχει της εθνικής νομοθεσίας. Η Συνθήκη χρησιμοποιήθηκε για την απώλεια της εθνικής ταυτότητας των κρατών μελών και των κυριαρχικών τους δικαιωμάτων. Συνετέλεσε στον εκφοβισμό της Ευρώπης και θα συνεισφέρει στη νομοτελειακά επερχόμενη παρακμή, αν δεν τροποποιηθεί. Απαιτείται άμεση αναθεώρηση της Συνθήκης και παύση του επεκτατισμού των αρμοδιοτήτων που αναλαμβάνει η Ενωση. Επαναπατρισμός αρμοδιοτήτων στις εθνικές πρωτεύουσες, σεβασμός των αποφάσεων των δημοκρατικά εκλεγμένων κυβερνήσεων των κρατών μελών, αναγνώριση πως η Ένωση, όπως λειτουργεί, δεν είναι Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και ούτε πρόκειται να γίνει.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Elmar Brok (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Vizepräsident, Frau Ratspräsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Die Europäische Union ist mit Lissabon demokratisch geworden. Alle Institutionen sind demokratisch legitimiert – durch die Wahl des Bürgers, durch die Wahl dieses Hauses oder durch die Wahl der nationalen Parlamente auf der Ratsseite. Das gilt auch insbesondere für die Kommission; daran gibt es nichts zu deuten. In manchen Bereichen haben wir mehr Rechte in diesen Fragen als einige nationale Parlamente, und das sollte man nicht wegdiskutieren.

Sie dient dem Menschen, sie nützt, sie schafft Arbeitsplätze, sie vermeidet Krisen, sie hilft, mit Problemen fertig zu werden. Wir haben die Finanzkrise von 2008 überwunden und niemand ist bankrott gegangen – mit solidarischer Hilfe. Wir müssen die Instrumente verbessern. Dafür brauchen wir höhere Entscheidungsfähigkeiten und mehr Mitentscheidungsfähigkeiten. Deswegen muss die Passerelle genutzt werden. Deswegen muss hier auch der Rat handeln. Ich halte das heutige Verhalten des Rates für vertragswidrig. Auch in den Bereichen, wo Mehrheitsentscheidung vorgesehen ist, einigt man sich auf das Konsensprinzip und nützt nicht die Mehrheitsentscheidung. Dies halte ich für vertragswidrig. Es wird die Stunde kommen, wo wir dagegen klagen müssen, dass der Vertrag nicht genutzt wird, um dadurch Handlungsfähigkeit zuwege zu bringen – eine Handlungsfähigkeit, die wir brauchen, damit wir die Probleme von heute – bei Migration, innerer und äußerer Sicherheit, Klimawandel und bei vielen anderen Fragen – lösen können, zur besseren Situation unserer Bürger.

Die Bürger erwarten von Europa mehr Handlungsfähigkeit. Das ist der Hauptgrund für die Kritik heute an Europa, dass wir nicht liefern. Dafür brauchen wir verbesserte Entscheidungsstrukturen, die im Vertrag von Lissabon möglich sind. Das sollten wir, glaube ich, in verstärkter Art und Weise nutzen.

Ich meine, wenn hier gesagt wird „dient nicht dem Menschen“, ist gemeint, dass die Kommission unabhängig ist von Weisungen, von Lobbyisten und anderen, das ist gemeint, nicht der Stuss, den Sie, Herr Pagne, da vorne erzählt haben. Und diese Europäische Union dient den Menschen – der erste Satz der Charta der Grundrechte heißt: „Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar.“ Aber diese Würde des Menschen haben Sie mit Ihrer politischen Clique noch nie gewürdigt.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Maria João Rodrigues (S&D). – Mr President, I also know the Lisbon Treaty quite well because I was part of the team of the Portuguese Presidency in charge of completing the negotiation of this Treaty in Lisbon back in 2007.

Let me make a clear point. The problem we have is not with the Lisbon Treaty. The problem we have is with the kind of policies we need to implement in order to deliver better European solutions. Let’s be fair: when we focus on the Treaty, the Treaty has involved important progress when it comes to democracy. First of all, the fact that this Parliament has extended co—decision in many, many new areas. This is really deepening European democracy. Second, the Lisbon Treaty could pool sovereignty where this is needed: when we address climate change; when we negotiate trade agreements; when we affirm our monetary sovereignty. In all these areas we need stronger European sovereignty. This does not go against national sovereignty. This is to strengthen our control of the situation.

I am now addressing the part of Parliament and those Members of the European Parliament who are taking a position against the European Union and the treaties of the European Union. You are wrong. This is not the problem, and the solution is not to withdraw from the treaties. The solution is to change policies in favour of more economic and social convergence and more tax fairness. That’s for sure. So this is the way to go.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! No to jest tak, że staramy się mówić o traktacie lizbońskim praktycznie z dwóch skrajnych pozycji. Jedni mówią: traktat lizboński jest wspaniały, cacy, jedziemy dalej; inni mówią, że jest beznadziejny i należy go podrzeć i wyrzucić do kosza. Ja tak nie uważam.

Problem dzisiaj Unii Europejskiej polega na tym, że traktat lizboński często nie jest przestrzegany, i mam wrażenie, że realna władza w Unii zupełnie nijak się ma do ustaw traktatu lizbońskiego, że tak naprawdę dzisiaj główną pozycję w tworzeniu polityki europejskiej mają dwa główne państwa w Unii Europejskiej i nie jest to bynajmniej jakoś zakorzenione w traktacie lizbońskim.

Oczywiście ten traktat należy poprawiać, bo kompetencje między szefem Komisji Europejskiej a przewodniczącym Rady nie zostały sprecyzowane. Pamiętamy w tym Parlamencie wojny między panem Barroso a ówczesnym przewodniczącym Rady i to, że ich tutaj czasem nie było, bo się nawzajem bojkotowali. To trzeba zmienić.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  António Marinho e Pinto (ALDE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, em tempos de avaliação do Tratado de Lisboa, uma conclusão que se destaca: estamos muito longe das promessas e esperanças que ele consubstanciava. Citando um poeta português, falta cumprir a União Europeia.

Se na economia a integração avançou com o mercado único e na sua configuração política também, embora com hesitações e contradições, nos domínios da justiça e dos tribunais, que são o outro polo do binómio Estado de Direito democrático, nada se passou de relevante.

A justiça, sobretudo a justiça criminal, é um valor demasiado importante no processo de integração e coesão europeias para ser deixada ao cuidado exclusivo dos Estados—Membros. Um Estado só será Estado de Direito se for Estado democrático e só será democrático se for também Estado de Direito.

É, pois, urgente a transformação do Eurojust numa Procuradoria-Geral da União, a criação de um tribunal europeu com competência exclusiva para julgar um catálogo de crimes transfronteiriços na União Europeia.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL). – Monsieur le Président, c’est une souffrance pour nous quand on parle du traité de Lisbonne car ce traité, c’est d’abord une violence, une violence faite à la démocratie, puisqu’il s’est assis sur le «non» au référendum français.

Ce traité, c’est aussi la mise en cause de la souveraineté budgétaire des États, c’est la préférence pour des règles absurdes – penser à Berlin, plutôt qu’au bonheur des gens – ; c’est la soumission à l’ordolibéralisme qui ferme la porte, partout en Europe, au progrès social. Et dans sa pratique ce traité aura organisé la mise en cause des services publics, la captation des biens communs, il aura organisé l’austérité sans fin et pris soin de faire de l’Union européenne, un paradis pour les lobbies et pour les évadés fiscaux.

Jean-Claude Juncker disait qu’il ne peut y avoir de choix démocratique contre les traités. Pour ma part, je dis qu’il ne peut y avoir de démocratie et de progrès dans ces traités européens.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, je velmi zajímavé poslouchat tuto rozpravu, protože zaznívají zde názory, snahy Lisabonskou smlouvu zrušit až po snahu výrazně jaksi posílit federativní charakter Evropy a tuto smlouvu novelizovat. Jako politický realista si myslím, že ta smlouva v zásadě funguje a domnívám se, že v tuto chvíli není příliš politické vůle k nějaké významné a výrazné změně. To znamená, za sebe říkám: „Pojďme se současným zněním Lisabonské smlouvy pracovat.“ Uvažovat o velkých změnách je podle mého názoru v tuto chvíli politicky nereálné, ale snažme se věci, které třeba dosud nebyly úplně využívány a jsou ve Smlouvě obsaženy, lépe využívat. Třeba konzultační role národních parlamentů při přijímání nové legislativy. To je oblast, kde máme velké mezery a kde by ta smlouva mohla být do budoucna lépe využívána. Já tam vidím samozřejmě věci, které podle mého názoru nejsou příliš dobré – posílení kvalifikované většiny. U hlasování v roce 2015, u kvót, se ukázalo, že to byla politická chyba. Ale jsou to drobné věci, které není nutné měnit.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mercedes Bresso (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, onorevole Zanni, non tema: noi europei, noi proeuropei cogliamo la sfida anche delle prossime elezioni europee. Non ci sarà una maggioranza antieuropea in questo Parlamento.

Certo, anche noi vogliamo cambiare il trattato di Lisbona, ma in meglio. Occorre conferire sovranità all'Unione europea nei campi in cui gli Stati non sono più in grado di gestirla da soli e questi campi sono molti, dalla moneta, alla politica economica e al quadro delle politiche sociali, alla giustizia, alla difesa e alla politica estera, alla sicurezza, a cui voi tenete molto, e poi il mercato unico, naturalmente, l'ambiente, la protezione dalla globalizzazione.

In tutti questi campi noi pensiamo che il trattato di Lisbona permetta di andare avanti, di andare avanti applicandolo pienamente, ma pensiamo anche che siano possibili e necessarie modifiche ai trattati.

Molti hanno trattato il tema della democrazia. Per far funzionare bene la democrazia in Europa occorre che si arrivi pienamente alla codecisione. Qui mi rivolgo al Consiglio: la democrazia è voto a maggioranza, è capacità di prendere decisioni e di andare avanti, non di farsi bloccare dal voto all'unanimità. È anche quello, certo, dell'iniziativa legislativa del Parlamento europeo, è quello di un migliore rapporto con i parlamenti nazionali, che devono controllare l'applicazione delle norme europee da parte dei loro governi. È anche sicuramente quello di arrivare, attraverso l'uso della clausola passerella o le modifiche dei trattati, a un vero processo di codecisione.

E quindi io credo sia il momento, dieci anni dopo, di fare una riflessione, ma una riflessione seria, su quali siano le competenze proprie dell'Unione e su quali siano le competenze che devono restare agli Stati, anche restituendo ciò su cui si fosse eventualmente debordato.

Noi siamo certi che i proeuropei alle prossime elezioni vinceranno e, come dicevo, la sfida la cogliamo, la porteremo avanti e la vinceremo.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Joachim Starbatty (ECR). – Herr Präsident! Die Römer haben gesagt: Pacta sunt servanda – Verträge müssen eingehalten werden. Sie, Herr Kommissar, halten das Rechtsstaatsprinzip ja wie eine Gloriole vor sich hin; immer wieder nehmen Sie darauf Bezug. Aber wenn es in der Europäischen Union darauf ankommt, wird der Vertrag nicht eingehalten. In der Währungspolitik ist die No-Bail-Out-Klausel vom Tisch gewischt worden. Madame Lagarde hat gesagt: Wir mussten die Verträge brechen, um den Euro zu retten. In der Währungsunion wird nicht rechtsstaatlich gehandelt, sondern opportunistisch. Was müssen wir jeweils tun, um den Euro zu retten?

Wenn Sie auf die Politik von Herrn Draghi sehen, der auch gegen den Artikel 123 verstößt, indem er über Umwege Staatsanleihen ankauft – das wissen wir alles. Aber das ist keine Geldpolitik. Das ist der Versuch, die Eurozone mit falschen Mitteln zusammenzuhalten, und das sehen Sie immer wieder.

Heute Morgen haben Sie davon gesprochen, dass die Europäische Union vor großen Krisen steht. Ja, wir sind dabei, diese Krisen über diese Politik zu produzieren. Herr Timmermans, bleiben Sie beim Rechtsstaatsprinzip!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Evelyne Gebhardt (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Ich muss ehrlich sagen: Ich habe heute schon viel Absurdes und Abstruses gehört. Mir scheint fast, als wären die Verträge der Europäischen Union durch irgendwelche Marsmenschen gemacht und den Regierungen der Mitgliedstaaten aufgebürdet worden.

Das Gegenteil ist der Fall. Es sind die Regierungen, die diese Verträge so gemacht haben, wie sie heute sind. Wir als Parlament damals haben noch ganz andere Vorstellungen gehabt, wie wir das machen könnten. Deswegen: Das eigentliche Problem in der Europäischen Union sind nicht unsere Verträge; das sind diese Populisten, die Spaltung in die Gesellschaft hineinbringen wollen, das sind diese Regierungen, die unwillig sind, endlich mal eine Politik im Sinne der Europäischen Union zu gestalten, und die nur an sich selber denken und dabei nicht an ihre Bürger und Bürgerinnen, sondern wirklich nur an sich selber und nicht an das Fortkommen der Europäischen Union.

Es ist an der Zeit, dass das Verantwortungsbewusstsein aller Politiker und Politikerinnen geweckt wird und sie diese Gesellschaft wieder zusammenbringen und nicht immer nur mit Parolen, die leer sind, auseinanderdividieren, spalten, sodass wir am Ende gar keine Möglichkeit einer Zukunft mehr haben. Wir müssen unsere Politik ändern.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Branislav Škripek (ECR). – Ja som veľmi rád za túto dnešnú debatu. Podľa mňa sa musíme opýtať, či Lisabonská zmluva je skutočne Zmluva o fungovaní Európskej únie alebo prakticky takmer ústava, ktorá ale nebola právoplatne schválená občanmi Únie.

Všetci vidíme, že zámer stále užšej Únie, stále viac Únie – že táto myšlienka má trhliny.

Preto my v Európskom kresťanskom politickom hnutí, ktoré je stranou v Európskom parlamente, považujeme za kľúčové pozmeniť Lisabonskú zmluvu redefiníciou na silnú konfederačnú štruktúru a miesto federácie. Veríme, že potrebujeme reformovať Európsku úniu tak, aby sa vrátila naspäť k svojim žido-kresťanským koreňom zameraním sa na základné a primárne úlohy. Nechceme viac Európy, ale lepšiu Európu. Princípy ako subsidiarita, solidarita a diverzita majú byť pretkané s hodnotami, ako je sloboda, správcovstvo, zodpovednosť a ľudská dôstojnosť.

Ale predovšetkým chcem zdôrazniť, dajme konečne v našej legislatíve aj miesto Bohu a pomenujme ho ako najvyššiu autoritu nášho Európskeho spoločenstva, lebo stanoví absolútne hodnoty dobra a zla.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Patrizia Toia (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io voglio ricordare ai colleghi che hanno promosso questo dibattito che più volte in quest'Aula e nelle commissioni ci siamo interrogati sul significato del trattato, sulla possibilità di utilizzarlo fino in fondo per le potenzialità che ha, su come cambiarlo – penso alle relazioni Brok, Bresso e Verhofstadt: sono certa che voi avete dato un grandissimo contributo a questo lavoro, perché non è nello spazio di un dibattito, ma in questo lavoro costruttivo che si porta il proprio contributo. Non mi pare di avere visto segni della vostra presenza in quel lavoro.

E per questo io penso che il dibattito di oggi sia del tutto strumentale. Colleghi, l'avrete imparato qual è il gioco per i populisti, gli antieuropei o gli euroscettici, di volta in volta: è quello di indicare sempre un nuovo bersaglio, oggi il bersaglio è il trattato, ieri era la Commissione, domani sarà l'euro, dopodomani Moscovici o Juncker o la BCE, nella quale ieri avremmo avuto la possibilità di inserire un nome italiano, a proposito del nostro paese.

Allora io penso che questa sia la strumentalità di un dibattito, si vuole dimostrare che in Europa, con il trattato di Lisbona, non c'è democrazia, non c'è prosperità, non c'è sovranità in politica estera. Io invece penso che ci sia, perché io non voglio un'Europa ancella di Putin e di Trump, voglio un'Europa sovrana a nome di tutti i suoi popoli nella politica estera.

Allora io penso che questo dibattito abbia un limite, che io voglio qui svelare, che è un tentativo, lo vedremo anche nei prossimi giorni, è l'Europa...

(Il Presidente toglie la parola all'oratrice.)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospodine predsjedavajući, Lisabonski ugovor neprilagođen je političkoj realnosti Europske unije. Znamo kako je nastao i da je riječ o minimalno korigiranom europskom ustavu koji su narodi Europe odbili.

Ugovor je, kao takav, praktički okvir za europsku federaciju koja ne postoji i stvorio je pravno-politički vakuum u kojemu se institucije Unije međusobno sukobljavaju zbog moći i utjecaja. To se osjeti pred svake izbore, ali i nakon njih, kada se sastavlja Komisija i slažu njezini prioriteti. Nadmetanje za moć među EU institucijama na trenutke paralizira Uniju. To ne može biti dobro.

Treba nam jasni okvir, jednostavniji i učinkovitiji, ali da bismo se oko njega usuglasili, moramo prvo dogovoriti smjer Europske unije. Budući da mnogi i u ovome domu zagovaraju daljnju političku integraciju i, posljedično, europsku federaciju, a sve je više nas koji se tome odlučno opiremo, sumnjam da ćemo uskoro postići konsenzus.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Christine Revault d’Allonnes Bonnefoy (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, je suis convaincue d’une chose: les nationalistes menacent la construction européenne. Leurs mensonges, la politique du pire qu’ils mènent, leur emprise sur la société, font que de plus en plus d’Européens perdent confiance.

Ils corrodent nos esprits, fragmentent nos sociétés. Leurs mensonges et leurs arguments fallacieux ne produisent que de la peur, de la haine et de la violence.

Alors que faire, mes chers collègues? Pour les vaincre, nous devons d’abord les exposer à la lumière, tels des vampires, montrer leur vrai visage. Dans la délégation socialiste française nous scrutons leur vote: renforcer le contrôle des armes à feu pour lutter contre le terrorisme, ils votent contre; la protection sociale des chauffeurs routiers, le principe «à travail égal, salaire égal», ils votent contre; des mesures pour l’égalité entre les femmes et les hommes, ils votent contre; toutes les mesures pour lutter contre la pollution, y compris le plastique aujourd’hui, ils votent contre; le renforcement des frontières de l’Union européenne, ils votent contre, mes chers collègues!

Ils prétendent protéger, ils détruisent. Voilà leur vrai visage, regardez-les à chaque vote et vous verrez que l’extrême droite conduit à la ruine des Européens.

Un autre futur est possible, je ne parle pas du libéralisme, mais bien d’une troisième voie, celle du progrès social, de l’humanisme, de la solidarité et elle est incarnée par les socialistes.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marek Jurek (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Traktat lizboński ma swoją prehistorię. Ta prehistoria to odrzucenie Konstytucji dla Europy przez Francuzów, przez Holendrów – rodaków pana przewodniczącego Timmermansa. W historii traktatu lizbońskiego mieści się i to – to przede wszystkim Richardowi Corbettowi dedykuję – że Gordon Brown niestety zrezygnował, tak jak przywódcy innych państw europejskich z przeprowadzenia referendum. Gdyby wtedy odbyło się referendum brytyjskie, nie mielibyśmy dzisiaj brexitu. Ale ten traktat jest obowiązującym prawem. Niestety to prawo nie jest traktowane jak prawo przez tych, którzy mają je wykonywać. My dzisiaj słyszeliśmy pana przewodniczącego Timmermansa: kwalifikowana większość byłaby przydatna, my słyszymy jak pani Sophia in 't Veld pracuje nad mechanizmem nadzoru demokracji, my słyszymy, że art. 7 jest niewystarczający. Panie i Panowie Posłowie, w klasycznej koncepcji rządów prawa władza zadawala się tymi kompetencjami, jakie posiada, a nie myśli o tym, jak je powiększyć. Prawo to sposób regulacji, w wypadku traktatów, stosunków między państwami, a nie narzędzie do powiększania swojej władzy.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alfred Sant (S&D). – Mr President, as a member of the Convention on a European Constitution, held 16 years ago, I well understand how the Lisbon Treaty was shaped to carry over the main conclusions of that failed constitution. Yet it had been intended to transform the EU from a top—down construct to one that directly related and responded to the concerns of European citizens.

The Lisbon Treaty aimed to strengthen the bottom—up dimension of the Union and make citizens feel it was really theirs, so the functions and powers of the European Parliament were increased. Today, the members of this parliament, mindful of their increased powers, try to make them stronger. Members of this parliament diligently work on new proposals and laws intended to promote the welfare of all citizens. Still, EU institutions, this parliament included, are even now seen by citizens as top—down arrangements.

Many in this parliament fear, as we have just heard, that in the next European elections abstentions will be numerous and so—called populist extremist parties will achieve a record success. We need a radical evaluation of how this state of affairs has developed – one that does not rely on the repetition of exhausted pro—European creeds and dogmas.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). –Senhor Presidente, é preciso lembrar que o Tratado de Lisboa, aprovado durante a Presidência portuguesa de 2007, foi um passo importante na construção europeia, que superou vários anos de impasse institucional, permitiu valorizar a cidadania europeia e os direitos fundamentais, reforçar o Parlamento Europeu e a democracia e simplificar os processos de decisão das nossas instituições.

Tive a honra de participar no Conselho Europeu que aprovou o Tratado de Lisboa e na cerimónia de assinatura que teve lugar no Mosteiro dos Jerónimos. Não ficaram resolvidos todos os problemas mas também sei como difícil foi chegar àquele acordo político.

Por isso, dez anos depois, mais do que um novo complicado processo de reforma dos tratados, do que precisamos é de aproveitar todo o potencial por explorar do Tratado de Lisboa para melhorar o funcionamento das nossas instituições e reforçar o projeto europeu.

O Tratado de Lisboa não é o problema, continua a fazer parte da solução.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ramón Jáuregui Atondo (S&D). – Señor presidente, quiero recordar que el Tratado de Lisboa fue una inteligente solución al fracaso de la Constitución, pero quiero recordar a mis colegas que el Tratado ha sido ratificado por el pueblo europeo, porque muchos países lo habían aprobado ya —la propia Constitución Europea—.

En ese sentido, quiero recordar que el Tratado de Lisboa representa en sí mismo una solución a lo que ha sido una tormenta perfecta de la Unión Europea. Europa ha pasado una tormenta perfecta en los últimos años, y el Tratado de Lisboa ha servido para navegar por esas aguas turbulentas de crisis económica, crisis migratoria, terrorismo, etcétera.

Es más, ha servido y sirve. Es más, tiene recorrido, porque todavía hay que profundizar en él. Y, es más, tiene que ser cambiado en algunas cosas que la experiencia nos está demostrando que reclama cambios. Para quienes creemos en Europa, para los que queremos Europa, para los que nos sentimos europeos, es un instrumento perfecto que queremos preservar.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Péter Niedermüller (S&D). – A lisszaboni szerződés egy olyan időszakban született, amikor az Európai Unió tagállamai az alapelveket illetően lényegében mindenben egyetértettek. Az első alelnök úr utalt arra, hogy ezt a kormányok kivétel nélkül elfogadták, ratifikálták. Ma azonban másfajta időket élünk, ma vannak olyan tagállamok, tagállami kormányok, amelyek a közös európai értékek helyett az illiberalizmust és a populizmust éltetik, és azt mondják, hogy az európai értékek és hagyományok most már nem fontosak számunkra, a Nyugat hanyatlik és hasonló badarságokkal gerjesztik, terjesztik az egyre erősödő Európa-ellenességet, Európai Unió-ellenességet. Azt gondolom, hogy ez képtelenség, hogy a Tanácsban tagállami miniszterelnökök saját önös érdekeik okán folyamatosan képesek megakadályozni olyan döntéseket és törvényjavaslatokat, amelyek egész Európa számára fontosak lennének. Azt gondolom, hogy ha komolyan vesszük a Lisszaboni Szerződés újragondolását, akkor ezen a ponton kell elkezdenünk a munkát. Világossá kell tennünk azt, hogy csak akkor van esélye Európának, ha minél nagyobb összefogásra, minél több területen, minél nagyobb összefogásra törekszünk és egyértelmű elutasítjuk a populizmust és az illiberalizmust.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I already said this morning that the origins of European integration is the wish of the European people to negotiate their differences around the conference table rather than on the battlefield.

But if you look at Europe today, the challenges we face are global challenges and the one question you can ask your citizens – and I am sure of the answer you’ll get – is, do you honestly think you can face the migration challenge on your own as a Member State? Do you honestly think nationalism is an answer to the challenges of economic change in the fourth industrial revolution? Do you honestly believe that being on your own will make you stronger in facing the challenges of President Putin or the challenges of a President Trump, who wants to change the international system? Do we honestly believe we will be stronger on our own? I don’t think there is a constituency anywhere in a Member State that truly believes that, and I’m afraid the British people today are learning this the hard way.

I believe that if we take that as a starting point, the way we transform our rules, the way we apply the Treaty to face these challenges and to come up with real results for our citizens, is going to determine whether we’ll get support for this. I think debates about abstract notions such as sovereignty are distracting people or they are causing alarm.

I do maintain that you can have a theoretical approach to sovereignty and to saying I want national sovereignty. Theoretically, technically, yes, national sovereignty, but I think it was Michael Heseltine who said that ‘a man alone in the desert is sovereign [too]’. He dies of thirst but he’s sovereign. Sovereignty should also be a material issue. Does it give you the power to act and to change things the way your citizens want things changed? Then the answer will be very clear: only if we act collectively can we shape the world according to the values we share in a world that is changing so fast. I wish that could be the starting point of our discussion about what we need in a treaty.

There are still ample opportunities in the existing Lisbon Treaty to move ahead. Let’s try and use those opportunities first, and if they are exhausted we can talk about treaty change. But we haven’t exhausted the possibilities that are on the table with the existing Lisbon Treaty. Let’s do a great service to our citizens and use those opportunities to actually change the world in the direction they want.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  President. – I regret that not all of us have utilised the time for evaluation of the Lisbon Treaty, which was the topic of this topical debate, but of course there is freedom to approach it in one’s own way.

The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 162)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marijana Petir (PPE), napisan. – Europska unija utemeljena je na ideji prema kojoj se odluke donose na razini što bližoj samim građanima, a što ujedno poštuje i nacionalne suverenitete njezinih država članica. Granice nadležnosti Unije određene su načelima supsidijarnosti i proporcionalnosti. Sve što se može ostvariti na središnjoj razini nacionalne države, njezinoj regionalnoj ili lokalnoj razini, treba se ostvariti tamo, kako je propisano ugovorima, a institucije Europske unije moraju osigurati da se to poštuje.

Nažalost, u posljednje vrijeme svjedočimo brojnim primjerima da se temeljna načela krše, nadležnost djelovanja Unije prekoračuje, a državni suvereniteti narušava. Osim što se tražilo aktiviranje članka 7. protiv nekih država članica bez valjanih argumenata, Parlament je u mnogobrojnim svojim rezolucijama i izvješćima zadirao u područja koja su u isključivoj nadležnosti država članica - kao što su to primjerice zdravstveni ili obrazovni sustav.

Takvim postupanjem dovodi se u pitanje opstojnost Unije jer se krši ugovor i ne poštuju se načela supsidijarnosti i proporcionalnosti.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Csaba Sógor (PPE), in writing. – The signing of the Lisbon Treaty took place at a time when members of national minorities in Central and Eastern European countries were still experiencing the positive effect pre-accession had on the respect for their rights. These citizens were also extremely enthusiastic about the prospect of the EU internalising the principles of the pre-accession when, for the first time in the history of the Union, the Lisbon treaty introduced national minorities as a protected ground in Article 21 of the Charter and also mentioned the respect for the rights of minorities among its founding values. The years that passed since then gave way to disillusionment in the heart of many citizens, as the EU not only restrained from adopting legal acts for their protection, but it also failed to sanction Member States when they started curtailing their already acquired rights. At a time when definite failures are daily experienced in the compliance with the founding values of our Union, it is time this glaring omission in the EU legal framework was set right. This is what more than 1 million citizens also requested using the novel ECI instrument of the same Lisbon Treaty.

 
Dernière mise à jour: 8 janvier 2019Avis juridique