Пълен протокол на разискванията

Сряда, 28 ноември 2018 г. - Брюксел

17. Разискване с участието на министър - председателя на Дания, Ларс Льоке Расмусен, относно бъдещето на Европа (разискване)

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione con il Primo ministro danese Lars Løkke Rasmussen sul futuro dell'Europa (2018/2734(RSP)).

   Thank you for coming, Prime Minister. It is a pleasure for us to have this debate with you. It is important for us to know the position of your country on the future of the European Union.

The European Parliament wants to be the heart of European democracy. We want to pave the way for a better Europe. We need to change this Europe, but to destroy this Europe would be a big mistake.

We are working hard. As you know, the European Parliament wants more power. We are the only democratic institution. For us it is important to vote on our budget for 2021-2027 before the European elections. For us it is important to achieve an agreement on the Dublin reform. For us it is also important to work on immigration through a strong action plan in Africa. On Brexit, we will vote on a report – we will be ready by January, but this will probably be held in February or March – on the agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union.

Thank you very much for coming. You have the floor.

   Ricordo che aprirò il sistema per il catch-the-eye da allora sino dopo l'intervento del Primo Ministro Rasmussen, quindi per registrarvi bisogna premere sul pulsante.

  Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark. – Mr President, let me begin by quoting from the Danish debate on the European Union: ‘The European Union has too much power!’, ‘The European Union is not for the people!’ These are statements – made by Danish citizens – during our citizens’ consultations on the future of the EU. I bring up these statements today not because they are shared by me or because they are shared by the majority – far from it, but because these are views that are not uncommon in Denmark or the rest of Europe. I bring up these statements because I care. I care about my country, about Europe, about our Union: a Union born from the ashes of war and division turned into the greatest and most successful peace project in the history of the world.

My grandfather witnessed the First World War from a distance. My mother witnessed the Second World War up close. To her, the golden stars were not only symbols of peace; they were also a reminder of the opposite: fear, destruction, war. She was born on the island of Bornholm and she witnessed the Russian bombardment after Denmark had regained freedom in May 1945, so she witnessed the burning fire when bombs fell from the sky. To people like my mother, the Anthem of Europe was the anthem of peace, but to my daughter and my sons, war in Europe is a long time ago. It’s a story, not a memory. To them and to younger generations, bringing peace in the past will not be enough to justify our Union in the future. This puts new pressure on the European Union. How should we respond? We must keep reminding people of what we have achieved together in the past, but we must also listen – listen to what the people of Europe want the EU to be in the future. If we don’t, we risk jeopardising European solidarity.

Brexit is a case in point. We must respect the choice of the British people, but we also need to learn from this choice. For forty years, the people of Britain were told how European cooperation was holding them back, but in fact, Brexit has revealed how European cooperation was solving problems that the Brits now have to deal with on their own: securing open borders, frictionless trade, peace and security. In Britain, the Government perhaps forgot to tell people about the results in Europe, forgot to tell people about what we have achieved together, and perhaps, along the way, they forgot to listen to the voices of concern, too – before it was all too late.

Many of you would maybe claim that the Danes, too, are reluctant Europeans. You saw how the Danes rejected the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, rejected the Euro in the year 2000, and, in 2015, rejected the ability to fully participate in cooperation on Justice and Home Affairs, but you would be greatly mistaken to cast the Danes as being in opposition to the European Union. In fact, the share of people supporting the EU is larger in Denmark than in most other European countries and the share of Danes who believe their voice is heard at European level ranks 2nd among all 28 Member States.

How can that be? Part of the reason is that in Denmark, we have a long tradition of discussing the European Union. Not as much as I would like, but politicians from left to right have, in fact, promoted this debate for the last 30 years. This has given everyone, including myself, a much more pragmatic view on our Union. Perhaps this is also why Danes are not swayed by distant dreams of a future that might be. Grand ideas of the ‘United States of Europe’ fall on deaf ears. We are concerned about finding down-to-earth solutions to present-day problems, to making the EU work better. As a people with a thousand-year long tradition for trading, Danes recognise a good deal when they see it, and the EU is a good deal. The Single Market is a tremendous benefit to our economy which cannot be understated. The EU is also a close-knit political community of nations that share and seek to protect the same fundamental values, a Union of nations that solve their problems through peaceful means. That is a good deal.

Denmark belongs in the European Union, but, at the same time, Danes are proud of their unique model of society. Over the course of this past century, Denmark has developed one of the best welfare states known in history. People pay a large share of their income to ensure that every citizen, regardless of gender, race or origin, has a fair chance to succeed. For the most part, our model of society is well protected under the EU Treaties and in EU regulations.

In fact, the EU has helped to strengthen our economy: estimates say that real wages in Denmark are 10 percent higher than they would have been had we been outside the EU. The freedom of movement ensures that our businesses have direct access to half a billion consumers and that Danes can work and deliver services all over Europe.

However, in certain key areas, I have a hard time defending and explaining the EU rules. For instance, our high levels of child benefit payments – financed by Danish tax payers – are made available to all workers in Denmark, regardless of whether their children actually live in Denmark or not. This is, from a Danish perspective, not fair, and it is a challenge to the Danish model of society, which is based on a shared sense of solidarity and on our ability to ensure a sustainable balance of rights and responsibilities. The EU must guarantee the freedom to move, but freedom of movement must also be fair and freedom of movement must not be abused.

During this very fall, a number of third-country truck drivers – technically employed in another EU country – were found to be working permanently in Denmark under horrible conditions, apparently under the pretext of the freedom of movement. Stories like this hurt the image of the EU and we need to work together to ensure that they are not repeated and that rules are strongly enforced for the benefit of the people.

In some cases, the solution is for the EU to step down, to interfere less; yet, in other areas, the EU needs to step up. In four existential areas, I hear our citizens calling for more cooperation. Our time will be defined by our ability to solve these issues – together in this room and in the Council.

The first issue is migration. This is a challenge that will not disappear anytime soon, but even if the challenge is still here, we could all do a better job of explaining to citizens that the EU and the Member States have already achieved quite a lot: for instance, a 95% drop in arrivals since the crisis of 2015. However, more needs to be done. We have to break the cynical business model of human traffickers. We must develop European policies which remove the incentive for those with no real need for protection to embark on a dangerous journey towards Europe. Common solutions are necessary, but not all European solutions are equally good. I continue to believe that redistribution of asylum seekers is not the right way to solve the problem, but make no mistake: Denmark is willing to take responsibility and support those frontline Member States in need. We support a more flexible – yet mandatory – mechanism of solidarity and we are ready to put actions behind our words. In 2019, we will significantly enhance our contribution to Frontex. We already rank among the top four when it comes to financing the EU Trust Fund for Africa. We are among only three or four European Member States who actually have managed to allocate 0.7% of GDP to aid, and we are actively exploring further contributions.

Speaking of Africa, I believe it is time for Europe to start rebuilding our partnership with the nations of Africa. Our two continents are bound to each other: what is good for Africa will also be good for Europe. Europe has flourished because of decades of international trade liberalisation by the EU. There is no reason why the same benefits cannot be applied to Africa. That is why I believe we must help Africa in building a true African free trade area which can serve as the bedrock for future African jobs and prosperity. While pushing for further progress on return and readmission, our aim should be to create a full and equal partnership.

The second issue where increased EU action is essential is the fight against climate change. Almost three years ago, Paris, the City of Lights, turned into the shining city on the hill as the world agreed to save the planet from climate breakdown. Two months earlier, at the UN Assembly in New York, I had the privilege to co-chair the very UN meeting where we adopted the Sustainable Development Goals. These are two historic agreements offering new hope for future generations. Denmark is determined to act in support of both agreements. During the last 17 years, we have tripled our consumption of green electricity. On windy days, all of our electricity is produced by windmills, and we are well on the way to reaching our goal of net zero emissions by 2050. I was happy to learn earlier today that the Commission has adopted the same vision of carbon neutrality for all of Europe. Decades ago, a political decision on renewable energy was taken in Denmark and it has proven to be a good deal for Danish companies. They were forced to innovate and now we all profit: businesses as well as the environment. Recently, my government has launched a new vision. In 17 years – in 2035 – every single new car bought in Denmark must be an electric car or another type of zero-emission car. It is a big ambition that will not be easy to reach, but it is precisely this kind of decision that I believe will foster innovation, and I will push hard to make this a European policy. Make no mistake about it: if we set ambitious goals for the green transition at European level, we will motivate our own industry to be frontrunners – to the benefit of all of us in Europe, and not least to the benefit of our children and grandchildren. Today, the EU has become the global voice of the climate and green transition. We need to live up to that responsibility and I urge everyone in this room to work to that end. Now is not the time to slow down.

The third issue where more EU action is needed is on expanding and modernising and implementing the Single Market. That is, after all, the backbone of our European cooperation. Our internal market needs to be brought up to speed. I can be blunt: the internal market is no longer only about physical goods at physical borders; the modern economy is much more than that. Today, services, and in particular digital services, constitute an increasingly important part of our economy; goods and services are intertwined in global value chains. The Single Market must match this development: it must be digitally competitive, data must flow freely, every corner of the Internal Market must be digitally fit – from production to consumer protection. As legislators, we have to stimulate innovation, not kill it in regulation. The digital transformation of the Internal Market is a huge challenge, but the US and China will not wait for Europe.

Finally, the fourth issue where the EU needs to do more is on free trade. Europe itself is a testament to how trade liberalisation brings both prosperity and peace among free people. It is our duty to safeguard free trade, even when we find ourselves under historic pressure. In the US, the land of dreams, they are now dreaming of less free trade, of fewer international obligations, of barriers to trade and perhaps even of breaking up the international rules-based trading system. We must not allow that to happen and it has become increasingly clear that only Europe will be able to prevent it.

My fellow Europeans, I started my speech by saying that the European Union must be justified by more than the memory of division and war, but that doesn’t mean that we should forget about the past. In contrast to my parents, I didn’t witness the two world wars; I witnessed the Cold War, but I also witnessed the end of it 28 years ago. On 2 October 1990, my wife and I fastened the seatbelts in our wrecked Volvo and headed for Berlin. We took the ferry to Rostock and we reached the Brandenburger Tor at midnight, just in time to witness the official reunification of Germany. In my old passport, there are two stamps from that trip: one from 2 October saying ‘Rostock, DDR’, the other from 3 October saying ‘Rostock, Bundesrepublik Deutschland’. To me, these stamps prove that even the deepest wounds can be healed and that Europe must always strive to fulfil its potential – together and in peace.

  Valdis Dombrovskis, Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Prime Minister Rasmussen, honourable Members, good after midday.

Before moving today’s discussion on the future of Europe, let me come back to the point which President Tajani raised at the beginning of this plenary, namely concerning the situation in Ukraine.

Escalating tensions in the Azov Sea over the past days have led to the seizure of Ukrainian vessels and shots being fired at them by Russia, as well as injuries to a number of Ukrainian servicemen. These developments are unacceptable and we expect Russia to immediately release the vessels and the crew and to ensure the medical assistance needed is given to the Ukrainian servicemen. International law obliges the Russian Federation to ensure unhindered and free passage of all vessels through the Kerch Strait. Therefore we expect Russia to restore freedom of passage at the Kerch Strait.

As you know, the EU does not and will not recognise the illegal annexation of the Crimean peninsula by Russia and condemns its aggression towards Ukraine.

High Representative Federica Mogherini has been in touch with several partners since this escalation started, and will continue to engage on this issue with a view to a broader international response. The EU’s Political and Security Committee also met earlier this week to discuss the situation and the next steps.

(Applause)

Mr President, now let me move to today’s discussion on the future of Europe. Speaking on behalf of President Juncker, who is on his way to Buenos Aires for the G20 meeting, allow me to start by thanking Prime Minister Rasmussen for taking part in today’s debate on the future of the Union.

At the start of this year we celebrated 45 years since Denmark joined the European Union. In that time Denmark has given the Union so much, from its effective social model, its growth-friendly business environment and its well-functioning social dialogue to the richness of its culture.

It was Denmark that pioneered a successful model for labour markets, combining flexibility with a high degree of social protection. In a political sphere Danish leadership was also as visible. As a Latvian I well remember that Denmark was among the first countries to recognise Latvia’s restoration of independence in 1991; it was a concrete expression of European solidarity.

This support continued and together with other Nordic countries, Denmark provided important political backing for the accession of the Baltic states in 2004.

This leadership role has continued since the crisis. For instance, in the post-crisis period Denmark was quick to implement difficult but effective public spending controls. Crucially this was achieved by still maintaining the second highest level of social protection spending in the EU. This serves as a good example of how prudent fiscal policy is compatible with the delivery of high-quality public services.

More recently, Denmark has been working hard to further improve competitiveness and increase productivity. Ultimately it is productivity gains that will allow for continued improvements in living standards. That too is a lesson for all countries to draw on.

These are good economic times. Europe’s economy is now entering its sixth year of uninterrupted growth. Employment has risen to a record level of 239 million people and unemployment has fallen back to pre-crisis levels, helping more than 10 million people out of poverty or social exclusion.

But we cannot become complacent. External risks are there and mounting while at the same time important reforms remain incomplete. The current economic sunshine is an opportunity for us to finish what we have started before the next storm arrives.

Completing reforms is not just a matter of individual countries. Building a stronger, more democratic and more united Union will require us to stay close and build trust with one another. As President Juncker said in his State of the Union address, Europe succeeds when it speaks with one voice.

Now more than ever, global events highlight the importance of this message. The reality is that European nations have neither the size nor the means to shape global affairs on their own and the strength is only going in one direction. By 2060, no single European nation will have more than 1% of the world’s population.

This is why European countries, big or small, pool and share their sovereignty to build a stronger form of common sovereignty. As part of the world’s largest single market, and a bloc which accounts for a fifth of the global economy, each country is better placed to defend its national interests and to ensure fairness and prosperity for its people.

This pooling of sovereignty begins with a single market, a concept that Denmark has embraced and made the most of since 1973. Last week we presented the communication to highlight the achievements of the single market over the past 25 years, but we also stressed the need to improve and deepen it for our future prosperity.

This is why we have set out our road map for deepening economic and monetary union. A strong economic and monetary union is vital to the stability and prospects of the euro area, but as the Prime Minister has often said, it is equally important for the European Union as a whole.

In that spirit, Denmark has played an active and positive role in the debate on strengthening our economic and monetary union, but now it is time to move from debate to decision in order to strengthen the resilience of the euro area. This means completing the banking union, which Denmark might decide to join soon, and completing the capital markets’ union on which the Commission adopted a report today.

Strengthening the single market and economic and monetary union also means strengthening the role the euro plays in the global currency system. Even if Denmark remains outside the currency area, its peg to the euro has given it a solid anchor for low and stable inflation and to reduce uncertainty in trade.

This is true for Denmark, as it is true for many other countries. Countries across the globe rely on the euro as a safe store of value. Around 20% of international reserves of foreign central banks are denominated in euros. Yet there is scope for the further development of the euro’s global political role.

Recent political events should serve as a wake-up call in this area. Now it’s time for us to take the initiative. The Commission will put out a communication and an accompanying act on this important issue next week.

Last but not least, if we want to be truly ready for the future, we need to invest in it now. We need to plan together with a common purpose. This is why we have focused our proposals for the new multiannual financial framework on areas where we can achieve more together and which are crucial to Denmark’s and Europe’s future.

Our proposal is balanced. As Denmark and others have called for, we have put forward programmes that are modern, more efficient and more focused on urgent priorities. For instance, there has been almost a three-fold increase in funding for migration and security to make sure that Europe can protect its citizens.

Funding for research and innovation, of which Denmark is one of the highest recipients, will be increased by 50% to reach EUR 100 billion. We have proposed a new digital Europe programme worth EUR 9 billion to support Europe’s digital transformation, and we will also ensure that 25% of the budget will support our climate and sustainable development targets.

But, just as we cannot delay or postpone our future, we should not lose time in agreeing on the resources needed to bring that future alive. As President Juncker said, there would be no better message, no greater symbol to Europeans that their Union will invest in the future and take its destiny in its own hands.

To conclude, when we think about the future of Europe, we should perhaps recall an old and wise Danish saying, ‘making predictions is hazardous, especially about the future’.

But there are two things I feel confident in predicting. Firstly if we are going to protect our citizens, harness the benefits of a rapidly changing world and create more opportunities for more prosperity, we will have to remain strong and united. And my second prediction is that Denmark will continue to play a positive role for shaping a better, stronger, European future.

  Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I would like to welcome the Prime Minister to the European Parliament. Denmark has been a member of the European Union for 45 years – Valdis Dombrovskis was referring to this – so that gives you a lot of knowledge and a lot of experience about the future of Europe and what the experience of the Danish people and Danish society on Europe has been in the last decades.

As you said, it was not always easy with Europe in Denmark and the Maastricht Treaty, but finally there was always a clear ‘yes’ to membership and to readiness to contribute to positive development. I was surprised when I saw the Eurobarometer data, which said that Denmark is a country where the people say that their voice counts the most in Europe.

So Denmark is in first place and public involvement in the European decision-making process is obviously working very well in Denmark. Congratulations on this because I think that the most important thing for the future of Europe is the bridge between the European decision-making process and the people of Europe. You said it: some call us bureaucrats and some call us elites. People have the feeling that, after the votes in the elections next year, nothing will have changed. Some people will have been removed, but nothing will have changed in the political direction. I think that is the key question.

When we talk about Brexit and the lesson we have to learn from Brexit, it is about getting sovereignty back. People want to have a say. People must know that their voice counts at a European level.

That’s why I welcome the ideas in this regard to make it clearer to people what we are doing here. I want to strongly underline that the most important issue for the future of Europe is – and I think all of us here in this plenary agree – the field of foreign affairs and defence.

Russia is giving us a concrete case at the moment where we have to give a proper answer as Europeans together. For us it is clear that the Ukrainians must decide about their way towards the future, whether they want to go in the direction of the European Union or whether they see their future more in the east. it is up to Kiev to decide. it is not for Russia, not for Moscow and not for Brussels, but for Kiev to decide.

I also want to underline that we urgently need a common voice in these fields of external affairs. We understand that unanimous voting is an old concept. We have to come to the majority decision—making process in this field to be stronger and more active.

Finally, on the Russian thing, I want to underline that, when Russia is still provoking Europe and European partners and friends, I think we also have to rethink the investments on Nord Stream 2. I do not think we should be more dependent on Russian gas than we already are now, and it should be a European decision-making process when we talk about Nord Stream 2.

We have a lot of these points on the table. I only want to mention the key issues. When we want to discuss a Europe for the future, we have to defend Europe. That’s why the Schengen question, the border protection issue – in my home region between Germany and Austria, but also in the Danish-German border region – is not something which is good for the future. That’s why we should invest in Frontex. Let’s protect the Bulgarian and the Greek border with Turkey. That would be much more efficient and would also bring the same effect.

Another element is to continue to convince – you had all of the decisions about Europol in your country where people didn’t trust cooperation on data exchange – and to strengthen the data exchange for more security and for the fight against organised crime at a European level.

Prime Minister, I thank you for your engagement in this regard to try still to convince the Danish people that it is in all of our interests to have this data exchange and, finally, to strengthen Europe. Yes, the single market is the future. In this period, frankly speaking, we did not do much to strengthen the single market, or only the digital single market but not the rest.

We have to be more engaged in this. You have the full support of the EPP. We have to create prosperity and that’s why free and fair trade agreements are the future of this continent. We have to do so. You have the full support of the EPP. Finally, let me switch to German.

Ich möchte nämlich am Schluss einen grundsätzlichen Gedanken anbringen: Die Sorge der Menschen, wie es weitergeht auf dem Kontinent, wird zum einen durch Populisten mit einfachen Antworten bedient, aber wir haben leider auch die Situation, dass einfach Schuldige gesucht werden. Der Antisemitismus auf diesem Kontinent nimmt zu, sowohl in meinem Land, in Deutschland, als auch in Frankreich, in Großbritannien, in vielen Staaten sind die Entwicklungen beunruhigend. Ich habe letzte Woche Auschwitz besucht. Man wird dort an diesem Ort still, es ist kalt dort, die Tötungsmaschine der Nazideutschen hat dort ihr unsägliches Werk vollbracht. Ich spreche das deswegen an, weil es auch der Gründungsimpuls für Europa war. Simone Veil war die erste Präsidentin dieser Institution und Auschwitz-Überlebende. Sie hat beim vierzigsten Jahrestag der Befreiung von Auschwitz in einer Rede gesagt, dass der Gründungsimpuls für Europa das „Nie wieder!“ war. „Nie wieder Krieg!“, so wie Sie es angesprochen haben. Aber auch nie wieder Rassismus, Antisemitismus, Ausgrenzung, kein Respekt vor den Menschenrechten. Auch das war das Gründungsmoment für die Europäische Union. Warum spreche ich das heute an? Weil ich in den Unterlagen gesehen habe, dass in Dänemark 99 % aller Juden den Holocaust überlebt haben. Dänemark hat gehandelt. In Dänemark sind die Menschen aufgestanden und haben den Juden einen Weg aus dem Land heraus ermöglicht und haben sie gerettet, die Bürgergesellschaft hat sie gerettet, die Werte hochgehalten, die Europa ausmachen. Ich finde das, gerade wenn wir über die Zukunft Europas reden, einen wichtigen Gedanken, dass Menschen, dass wir zu unseren Werten stehen, dass wir sie verteidigen, auch in dunklen Zeiten, und da ist Dänemark ein Vorbild.

  Jeppe Kofod, for S&D-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Kære statsminister, kære Lars Løkke Rasmussen, velkommen til Europa-Parlamentet. Tillad mig og tale på mit modersmål i dagens anledning. Fredens projekt, migration, klimaforandringer, det at få et velfungerende indre marked, fri og fair handel, alt sammen vigtige ting, som vi kan blive enige om skal styrkes i det samarbejde, vi står i.

Men det er også vigtigt at sige, at når der er utilfredshed blandt borgerne i Europa, skyldes det jo også, at der også er forfejlede politikker. Vi har set en globalisering igennem de sidste årtier, som har bragt mange positive ting, men også negative ting med sig. Vi har mistet kontrollen over områder, hvor borgerne med rette efterspørger, at vi tager kontrollen tilbage på demokratisk vis. Så nogle – liberale og konservative især – har jo hyldet globaliseringens vindere og lukket øjnene for dem, der betaler prisen i form af løntrykkeri og social dumping. Lad mig tage et eksempel: De sidste 20 år er selskabsskatten i EU-landene faldet fra 35 % til 22 %. Udviklingen fortsætter. Der er et skatteræs mod bunden. Apple, Facebook og Google har betalt under 1 procent af deres fortjenester i Europa i skat. Europas statskasser er blevet frastjålet over 400 milliarder kroner i skandalen Cum-Ex, Cum-Cum-skandalen, som vi har set i mange europæiske lande. Danmark alene har mistet over 12 milliarder kroner på de svindlere. De stjal af vores statskasse, banditter i habitter. Skat på digitale giganter, fælles bund under selskabsskatten i Europa, afgift på finansielle transaktioner, åbne regnskaber for multinationale selskabers datterselskaber, en konsolideret selskabsskattebase i EU, en EU-alarmcentral mod skattesvig og hvidvask, økonomisk kriminalitet. Alle disse konkrete løsninger på internationalt skattefusk, kæmper din regering – din regering! – aktivt imod på EU-niveau. Statsministerens egen skatteminister nægtede sågar og mødes med det særlige skattesnydsudvalg her i parlamentet, da vi inviterede ham. Så statsminister, i kampen mod international skattefusk er din regering alt for ofte, desværre ikke – og jeg begræder det – en del af løsningen, men en del af problemet.

Og kære statsminister, EU-samarbejdet handler jo netop om og samarbejde – det er vi enige om – og at finde nogle gode pragmatiske fælles løsninger. Og beslutninger træffes af dem, der er til stede ved bordet, det ved vi allesammen i dette rum. Derfor undrer det mig også, at den danske regering er så lidt aktiv i EU, som den er. Selv på egne helt erklærede mærkesager – og det blev også nævnt her i talen af statsministeren – er regeringen fraværende. Syv dage før valget i 2015 udsendte du, Venstre, Dansk Folkeparti, de Konservative og Liberal Alliance i en fælles erklæring under overskriften, jeg citerer; ”borgerlige partier vil sikre dansk velfærd i EU”. I gik til valg på – og jeg citerer; ”sikre dagpengeregler så EU borgere ikke fremover kan opnå fuld ret til danske dagpenge efter bare få ugers medlemskab af en a-kasse og fuldtidsarbejde i Danmark”. Nu må vi så konstatere, at regeringen ikke kan leve op til det valgløfte, man lovede før sidste valg, at man ikke har gjort de nødvendige anstrengelser i Ministerrådet, og at vi nu har den samme situation her i Parlamentet. Hvorfor skulle der gå hele 1266 dage fra Venstre, Dansk Folkeparti, Liberal Alliance og de Konservative lovede danskerne at begrænse mulighederne for eksport af velfærdsydelser, til de nu tager sagen op i Europa-Parlamentet, som vi hørte i dag. Det forstår jeg ikke.

Det der er vigtigt, hr. statsminister, det er, at vi har et stærkt Europa omkring de værdier, som kendetegner os velfungerende velfærdsstater, velfungerende demokratier og beskyttelse af borgernes rettigheder. Så det er mennesker før markedet. Det er, arbejder før aktiekurs, og det er, også klima før konkurrencehensyn. På den måde kan vi bygge et fremtidigt Europa, der respekterer borgernes bekymringer, og beskytte vores særlige sociale model i Europa. Det skal vi stå sammen om. Vi har brug for en ny kurs, og den ville jeg gerne have hørt noget mere om i dag.

  Anders Primdahl Vistisen, for ECR-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Velkommen til Europa-Parlamentet på vegne af ECR-Gruppen og Dansk Folkeparti, hr. statsminister. Vi har set meget frem til at høre din vision for fremtidens EU. Jeg kan forstå, at det drejer sig meget om EU som fredens projekt, og man kunne måske på den baggrund foranlediges til at spørge statsministeren, hvilke konflikter Danmark kunne have rodet sig ud i, hvis vi ikke var blevet medlem af EU i 1973. Men i dag er det mere nærliggende for mig at spørge statsministeren om forsvarsforbeholdet, som statsministeren og hans forsvarsminister jo fornyligt har sagt, vi skal afskaffe. Det kan jo undre, at man nu for ikke første, men anden – og heller ikke anden, men tredje gang kræver af danskerne, at de skal forholde sig til forbeholdene ved en folkeafstemning, selv om man hver gang har bekræftet dem. Men det, der mere undrer mig omkring forsvarsforbeholdet, hr. statsminister, det er, hvad Venstres logik er? Venstre vil – som jeg har hørt det – af med forsvarsforbeholdet, for at vi ikke kan deltage i en europæisk hær. Det er jo internt modstridende, og jeg kan forstå, at logikken er, at statsministeren finder, at hvis han bare sidder med ved bordet, så kan han forhindre etablering af en europæisk hær på trods af, at dette Parlament, Kommissionen, Tysklands Angela Merkel og præsident Macron alle er varme fortalere for projektet. Ja, sidstnævnte Macron har endda sagt, at initiativet delvist er rettet mod vores nære ven og allierede USA. Men, hr. statsminister, undskyld, jeg tror desværre, at din selvtillid er lidt rigelig stor på det område. Jeg tror ikke, at du kan vende tidevandet her i Europa, når det kommer til føderaliseringen, og grunden til, at jeg mener det, er netop det, du selv har bragt op i dag med velfærdsydelserne.

Det er jo sådan, at din en regering er løbet ind i det ene nederlag efter det andet, når det kommer til at bekæmpe velfærdsturisme, som ellers var en fælles ambition fra vore partier før sidste valg. Du har undladt at indeksere børnepengene, selv om den østrigske regering er gået ned ad den vej. Desværre vil du jo ikke løbe den samme procesrisiko over for EU-Domstolen. Og i forhold til kampen om dagpenge – danske dagpenge – hvor det før valget var en katastrofe, at der kunne gives fuld dagpengeret efter en lille måned, så tegner flertallet sig nu til, at det skal ske efter én dags arbejde i Danmark, og man i øvrigt må tage den her dagpengeret med sig til et andet EU-land i op til seks måneder. Så kære statsminister, jeg respekterer, at du gerne vil sidde med ved bordet, men det ser ikke ud til, at det nytter særlig meget for danske interesser, om du er der eller ej.

Man kunne så foranlediges til at tro, at den stribe af nederlag, som regeringen er løbet ind i dens EU-politiske mærkesager, der blev fremlagt før valget, havde fået statsministeren og hans parti til at reflektere over alle de positive følelser, man generelt har for EU-projektet. Det lader ingenlunde til at være tilfældet. Statsministeren har jo netop haft landsmøde i Venstre, og jeg kan forstå, at mantraet, der kom ud derfra frem mod EU-valget, var, at Venstre er Danmarks mest EU-positive parti, og ret skal være ret, sådan føler jeg egentlig også sagen her fra Europa-Parlamentets side. I sidder jo i den føderalistiske ALDE-Gruppe, I har støttet hr. Verhofstadt som gruppeformand for gruppen, I har støttet ham som Spitzenkandidat i den sidste EU-parlamentsvalgkamp, og I har endda støttet ham til formandsposten her i Europa-Parlamentet. Det var en varm støtteerklæring hr. Verhofstadt fik, forfatteren til bogen om Europas Forenede Stater. Det er godt med kærligheden i ALDE, og støtteerklæringen var, at hr. Verhofstadt havde de klareste visioner for Europa. Og hr. Verhofstadts visioner er klare! Der er tale om en ny EU-forfatning, der indeholder alt fra en fælles præsident, udenrigsminister, finansminister, direkte skatter, EU-hær, afskaffelse af alle nationale forbehold og tvangsfordeling af migranter.

Og hr. Verhofstadts visioner går endnu videre: Han har også sagt, at den yderste konsekvens af at tænke i national identitet er gaskamrene i Auschwitz, og endelig, at vort fædreland nu er Europa, vor nationalsang nu er glædeshymnen, vort flag er de 12 gule stjerner på den azurblå baggrund. Det må siges at være klare liberale visioner for Europa, hr. statsminister. Og jeg glæder mig til, at du og Danmarks mest EU-glade parti, Venstre, vil anfægte de synspunkter i valgkampen frem mod valget til Europa-Parlamentet i 2019.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I should like to say to Prime Minister Rasmussen, Mr Vistisen tried to tell you what a devil I am and that you are in fact working with the devil at the European level. But let me explain what I think about Europe – it’s not necessary to believe what Mr Vistisen is telling you this morning.

In fact I was very pleased that you were talking about your red Volvo. I don’t know, was it a 122 or a 140 or a 240? If it is a 140 or a 240 then it could have been made in Ghent, in Belgium, and that says everything about Europe today. The single market is what you are talking about. It’s a Swedish car, used by a Danish Prime Minister, built in Belgium to go to the Berlin Wall. And that is in fact why I’m so pleased about the way you talked about the future of the European Union. The future of the European Union is not the centralistic nightmare that Mr Vistisen is telling us it is. I am very much pleased by what you have told us today, namely that also Denmark is of the opinion that the worst thing to do today is to throw away the European Union, and that is exactly what didn’t happen in recent years, Mr Vistisen.

It’s a pity that Mr Farage is not here, because the first thing Mr Farage told us after Brexit was that the next domino stone to fall would be Denmark. After Brexit we should have seen immediately a Dexit! That is what he was telling us here two years ago, but we have seen exactly the opposite. There was no Dexit, and in today’s Eurobarometer the Danish people are in favour of the European Union; they like the European project. They are still critical towards the European project. I don’t think that every Danish citizen finds that everything is going well – certainly not Mr Vistisen! But anyway they are saying that they are not so stupid as to leave the European Union. Let’s reform the European Union: that is the message of the Danish people as I see it in the Eurobarometer. And I hear this not only in Denmark but in many countries of the European Union when we are talking about the future.

What we have to do now, Prime Minister – and this is in opposition to Mr Vistisen who wants everything as a conservative, so nothing will change for him, otherwise he is not a conservative – what we have to do now is to take the lesson of Brexit seriously. Not say ‘oh Brexit, it’s only the UK going out and let’s just go on the same way’. No, take the lessons from Brexit, because the UK leaving the European Union is not an enormous success, it’s a failure of the European Union. So we have to reform the European Union.

I want to mention two things. First, the so-called European army, as Angela Merkel called it. I think that Mr Weber has given all the arguments about why we need a foreign policy, why we need a European army – and Mr Vistisen, it has nothing to do with killing NATO – for me a European army is the European pillar of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and it is absolutely not in opposition to that. But we have to stop the waste of money on defence in Europe: we are spending 40% of what the Americans spend on their army but we are incapable of doing 10% what the American army does. We are spending three times more than the Russians on military defence in Europe – three times more! But I’m not sure, Prime Minister, that if the Russians come over our borders we will be capable of stopping them without American help.

My second point concerns the single market. We need the single market to complete it. You are totally right. We have a single market for Belgian chocolates. Very good. We have a single market for French champagne. Good also. We have a single market for German cars. Fine. We have a German market for Danish design. I’m not talking about IKEA now, I am talking about real design, especially in Denmark.

But we do not have a single market for the services of the future. We don’t have one for telecom, or for digital, or for the capital markets. That can only be realised when we have a single regulator in Europe. At one time we had one standard for mobile, you might remember, the GSM standard, a European standard. We had champions in Europe, Nokia, Eriksson... And now we don’t have European standards, and among the 200 biggest high-tech companies there are only eight Europeans. None of the 20 biggest high-tech companies in the world are European. So I want to support you in your endeavour to create this digital single market as quickly as possible and to do it with one regulator.

And finally, on the values, also there Denmark has to play a role, Manfred – we cannot go forward with illiberal tendencies in the European Union, and there also Denmark will play a key role.

  Philippe Lamberts, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I would like to welcome the Prime Minister to the European Parliament. When Denmark comes into the conversation, many good things spring to mind: the global champion of renewable energy, a world leader in development aid, a country that has the guts to confront Russia’s power plays by saying ‘no’ to Nord Stream 2 (and for that thank you), and a country where the social partners are strong and which invented flexicurity as a way to give security to workers and flexibility to employers, and not the other way round. Your country also gave us Margrethe Vestager, the most impressive Competition Commissioner for a very long time, a real liberal fighting rent-extraction, even when it gets in the way of sweetheart deals given by governments to multinationals.

Denmark, as a small country like my own, has a lot to offer to the European Union. You had four points. I have only three, but at least we have two in common. Let me start with the ecological and just transition. We share your view that it’s vital for Europe to be a world leader in that transition. We need to ensure that all societies operate within the boundaries that our planet has set for them. We also need to do it in a way that is good for everyone and not just for the happy few like we can see in France. it is an environmental imperative, a social necessity, a geopolitical aspiration, but also – and you mentioned this – an economic opportunity not to be missed.

One could expect Denmark to share in that aspiration towards leadership – and listening to you, I tend to believe this – and we praise you for pushing Europe to the most ambitious standards for instance on CO2 emissions for cars. Thank you for that as well. But your country – and this is a bit surprising – ranks fifth in Europe in terms of carbon footprint by household. If you don’t change political course, the non-renewable part of your energy mix is actually expected to increase, and thus your CO2 emissions would rise and not fall.

On the second point, migration, we believe that the European Union should assume its part of the responsibility in facing the asylum and migration challenge. We agree with you when you say that this is a place where more European action is needed. But, under your party’s leadership, Denmark is now joining hands with those who want to make Europe a fortress, slamming its door shut to those in need.

When you speak about tackling the root causes of migration, you are only focusing on the smugglers. Not only is your country reducing its development budget, because you claim – and rightly so – that it is 0.7% of GDP, but it used to be 1% of GDP. But it is now increasingly using this development budget to force beneficiary countries to lock their borders and take back migrants who might have escaped.

Prime Minister, when people forcibly leave their country, it is because they are fleeing wars, persecution, climate change, natural resource exhaustion or their social and economic conditions. If they turn to smugglers, it is for a lack of safe and legal ways to access safe countries such as ours.

Nowadays, the key words of EU asylum and migration policy are pushback and containment. We believe that we should welcome our fair share, while working on the real root causes. Of course Europe cannot solve all the world’s problems. But we can do much more to fight climate change, to have a fairer global economic system, and to promote democracy and the rule of law instead of supporting tyrannies, notably by selling them weapons and buying natural resources extracted with little respect for the local communities.

Let me conclude with a point that you didn’t tackle: the euro. Denmark is in the unenviable position of actually not being part of the euro, but having its currency pegged to it. We are disappointed that your country is now joining the camp of the naysayers who deny reality by claiming that the euro is safe and viable just by applying the current rules.

On the contrary, we are convinced that no monetary union is viable without strong financial solidarity, both in the private and public sectors. That means a fiscal union where common taxes fund a common budget and, possibly, basic elements of a common social safety net. It also means a full banking union that eliminates the doom loop between states and their banking systems. And of course financial solidarity comes with responsibility enshrined in rules.

But these rules need to be based on sound economic science, which is not always the case – far from it – and protect the general, rather than particular, interests. Indeed, mutual trust is badly affected when these rules are breached. Speaking of which, Mr Prime Minister, such breaches sometimes come from unexpected quarters, like when Danske Bank is exposed as one of the worst money launderers in Europe.

Mr Prime Minister, we share your European ambition. I’m not sure that we agree on everything, but I’m glad to see Denmark engaging. I’m sure that we are going to have lively debates because in this – we could hear this, for instance, from Mr Vistisen – we have strikingly different visions about the future of Europe. But you know what? I am confident that next year, during the European elections, those who are committed to discourse in our continent, to keep it as a beacon of peace, human rights, liberty and freedoms will prevail.

  Dennis de Jong, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Mr President, a big welcome to the Danish Prime Minister. I must confess that I have a bit of a weak spot for Denmark, coming from the Netherlands myself. I am thinking not only of the landscape and the windmills – the old ones but especially also the new ones are a good example – but also the people’s character. Danes are pretty stubborn, you can’t tell the Danes what to do and in that they are very much like the Dutch. I mean, they have the same sort of character.

I must say that, when you started, Mr Prime Minister, the reactions like ‘the EU has too much power’ or also ‘it is not good for the ordinary citizen’ sound like what I am hearing in my country. At the same time we have the, now famous, 84% of the Danes saying that the EU has brought Denmark advantages. I really am a bit puzzled how you could bring these together. Is the Eurobarometer representative or is your public consultation representative? What is the real opinion in Denmark at the moment?

Now, the other particular aspect of Denmark is all its opt—outs. To go through them one-by-one, you have opted out of EU citizenship. I have asked my Danish colleagues what that means – nobody knew – but perhaps it is relevant in the context of Brexit. It would be nice to know if there is a difference between how the rest of Europe will deal with British citizens after Brexit and how Denmark will deal with them, or is this just not a problem?

Then, on justice and home affairs you have an opt—out. In 2015, the Danes confirmed that they didn’t want an opt—in, instead of an opt-out. Again, the question of organised crime doesn’t stop at the Danish border. Do you think you will have another referendum shortly on this issue, and what is the general opinion these days on that?

Then on the opt—out on defence. It has been mentioned by others, we had a meeting in Copenhagen, hosted by you, of the Liberal prime ministers in Europe. Apparently, the European army was discussed there because at least the Dutch Minister of the Interior said, ‘yes, in the long term we are in favour of a European army’. Is that true? Do you share that opinion or what was the outcome of that meeting, because there’s a lot of confusion about it.

You have no euro but are pegged to the euro. I can see that Denmark is not doing so badly at the moment. My question there, again, is there still discussion on the euro? Do you think this is a better solution than being part of the euro yourself and having the euro instead of the Danish crown?

Just one or two minutes on the single market. I think that we can safely say that the single market, as such, brings economic benefits, but the point is always: to whom? And if we look at the general situation, then I think workers, employees, are generally of the opinion that the single market works better for employers, for the factor of capital, than for the factor of labour and work.

I’m just curious how you see this. If you see the new single market programme of the Commission, the word ‘employee’ doesn’t occur anywhere. So no money for the workers, whereas we also see Commission proposals for mobility of companies. But where is the voice of the workers? If your company, where you have worked for many decades, suddenly goes to another Member State, does the worker have to right to say ‘no, we don’t want that’? Do we give a golden share to the workers for these type of decisions are so important for their daily lives?

Also, this morning we had the transport trade unions at our group and I saw a documentary on 200 Filipinos being exploited in Denmark because of the freedom of movement of services. It was completely legal, this works via subsidiaries in Poland which hired Filipinos who are now being used all over Europe, and especially in Denmark.

How can we counter that, and make these practices illegal? And how can we counter the fact that, for example, Ukrainians are now working in the Polish construction sector, while Poles are working in the construction sector elsewhere in Europe? That’s not right. So I call for there to be a single market for workers too, what are your views about that?

  Laura Agea, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Primo ministro Rasmussen, Commissario Dombrovskis, questo è un'altra delle tante discussioni che facciamo sul futuro dell'Europa. Noi questo confronto ovviamente lo apprezziamo, lo apprezziamo davvero. Ma dovremmo essere altrettanto sinceri e dovremmo dirci e ammettere che l'Unione europea sta attraversando un momento di estrema difficoltà, una difficoltà che riguarda i cittadini; immagino riguardi in parte anche i suoi cittadini, ministro. Riguarda soprattutto le istituzioni che non godono né di ottima salute, né tantomeno di una buona reputazione e noi dobbiamo chiederci quali sono realmente le cause di questa situazione infelice.

I cittadini sono in grandi difficoltà. Ovviamente, le scelte che quest'Europa ha fatto negli ultimi anni – e soprattutto le scelte delle istituzioni europee – hanno veramente fatto danni irreparabili ai cittadini e al tessuto sociale di quest'Europa. Sono anni di politiche austere e anni di austerità che hanno causato disastri nel tessuto sociale; le politiche economiche e fiscali hanno messo in ginocchio non solo i cittadini ma anche le imprese e le politiche economiche sbagliate portano danni e ingiustizie.

Ogni tanto io seguo le domande che ci poniamo, i colleghi, i professori che si interrogano sul perché c'è tanta disaffezione da parte dei cittadini nei confronti delle istituzioni; ci facciamo delle domande, ci poniamo degli interrogativi, addirittura commissioniamo studi per capire che cosa in quest'Europa non ci piace. In realtà, la verità è sotto i nostri occhi: peccato che noi abbiamo dimenticato di confrontarci e di parlare costantemente con i cittadini.

Noi ci siamo e voi, soprattutto, vi siete rinchiusi in queste gabbie dorate, in questi palazzi dorati e non vi confrontate con la realtà; non parlate con i cittadini, perché i cittadini sarebbero in grado di dirvi quali sono le difficoltà che affrontano, quali sono i problemi e le sofferenze che oggi si trovano a vivere. È come se vi foste rinchiusi in una campana di vetro, nella quale non arrivano le parole dei cittadini che però negli Stati e nella nostra società vivono situazioni di grande difficoltà e noi dovremmo tornare a parlare costantemente con loro.

I cittadini vogliono un cambiamento sostanziale, immediato e radicale e io porto l'esempio del mio paese, dell'Italia. Noi stiamo cercando di cambiare radicalmente quella che è la realtà del nostro paese con delle riforme che siano veramente fatte per i cittadini, perché l'agenda dei governi non deve essere dettata né dall'austerità né dalle regole di bilancio, né dalle imposizioni, né dai trattati. L'agenda dei governi deve essere dettata dalle esigenze, dai bisogni e dalle sofferenze dei cittadini e noi stiamo cercando di realizzare il reddito di cittadinanza.

Credo che in tutti i paesi voi conosciate bene questa misura, una misura che voi avete già tranne l'Italia, che ancora non ce l'ha perché non c'è stato modo di realizzarla. Una misura di dignità che possa permettere ai cittadini di vivere in condizioni dignitose e rientrare nel circuito del lavoro, così come i giovani – e questa è una misura fondamentale. Noi stiamo cercando di riformare le pensioni: l'Europa ci ha imposto veramente la riforma delle pensioni che è stata realizzata dal precedente governo in maniera sostanziale e pedissequa con risultati devastanti per tutti i cittadini e nel tessuto sociale italiano. Abbiamo creato gli "esodati", abbiamo creato veramente una voragine e un disastro sociale.

Oggi stiamo cercando di mettere mano a questa riforma, imposta dall'Europa e realizzata in maniera prona dal precedente governo, che però è stato, tra l'altro, mandato a casa proprio sulla base delle riforme scellerate che ha fatto in questi ultimi anni e stiamo cercando di dare dignità con la riforma delle pensioni. Abbiamo creato un fondo per i truffati delle banche, perché i precedenti governi, con i soldi dei cittadini, salvano le banche private e ci sono cittadini che sono rimasti sul lastrico: hanno visto i propri conti correnti azzerati; oggi noi dobbiamo adoperarci per poter dare sostegno ai cittadini che sono stati truffati. Noi siamo sicuri che questi sono cambiamenti che verranno accettati perché solo attraverso questi cambiamenti sostanziali l'Europa potrà ripartire e ricostruire le proprie basi.

Noi ci crediamo profondamente nell'Europa e vogliamo restare in Europa, ma a condizioni sostenibili e sostanziali, cambiate per i nostri cittadini. Noi vogliamo un'Unione che sia un'Unione non solo di nome ma anche di fatto: un'Unione che fondi le sue radici sui bisogni e sulle necessità dei cittadini. Noi abbiamo apprezzato, per esempio, il voto di ieri sul no all'inserimento del fiscal compact nei trattati: è fondamentale. Questo è un accordo scellerato e il fatto che la commissione per gli affari economici e monetari ha detto un no così intransigente – e siamo assolutamente favorevoli a questo passaggio – è la dimostrazione di come le politiche dell'austerità stanno fallendo e si deve invertire la rotta.

Io credo che sia questo il cambiamento che i cittadini ci stanno chiedendo: lo stanno chiedendo in Italia, lo stanno chiedendo qui in Europa e, sicuramente, lo chiederanno fra pochi mesi con il voto delle europee. Sicuramente un vento di cambiamento, che sta soffiando non solo in Italia ma anche in Europa, porterà cambiamenti sostanziali il prossimo anno e forse, allora, il prossimo anno sarà anche molto più interessante sedersi qui e parlare del futuro dell'Europa, quando ci saranno condizioni diverse, una base diversa, fatta di bisogni reali e di un'agenda politica e veramente di riforme dettate sulla base dei bisogni e delle necessità dei cittadini.

  Nicolas Bay, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Premier ministre, votre pays a adhéré à la Communauté européenne en 1973, c’est-à-dire en même temps que le Royaume-Uni. À l’instar des Britanniques, les Danois ont su faire valoir leur singularité dès le départ. En effet, votre pays a négocié un certain nombres d’opt out, c’est-à-dire des exceptions au droit européen. Quand d’autres dirigeants livraient leur pays pieds et poings liés à la Commission européenne, vos prédécesseurs ont su préserver des pans entiers de votre souveraineté, c’est-à-dire de votre liberté en fonction de vos intérêts.

Ainsi n’avez-vous pas adhéré à l’espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice, la flatteuse et pompeuse appellation du système d’asile européen. Vous n’avez pas non plus adhéré, et vous êtes le seul État membre dans ce cas, à la PSDC, la politique de sécurité et de défense commune. Vous avez également obtenu une option de retrait lors des négociations sur le traité de Maastricht, qui a transformé la Communauté européenne en Union européenne. Vous n’avez donc pas adhéré à l’Union économique et monétaire et vous utilisez toujours la couronne danoise et non l’euro.

Proche de la Suède, culturellement mais aussi et d’abord géographiquement, vous n’avez pas commis les mêmes erreurs que votre voisin en matière de politique migratoire. En vous reliant à la Suède, le pont construit entre Copenhague et Malmö a sans doute contribué à vous éloigner de votre voisin, du moins de son prétendu modèle d’intégration des communautés immigrées. Malmö, le Molenbeek de Scandinavie, où près de la moitié de la population est d’origine immigrée; Malmö, où la criminalité a explosé, de la petite délinquance au grand banditisme; Malmö, qui subit régulièrement des émeutes du type de celles que la France a connues en 2005. Votre gouvernement a su prendre des mesures drastiques pour éviter une pareille désintégration de la société danoise.

Vous avez vous-même dénoncé l’émergence de zones de non-droit et, je cite, «de sociétés parallèles musulmanes». En septembre, vous avez encore plaidé pour le renforcement des frontières extérieures, alors que vous avez déjà rétabli le contrôle effectif de frontières intérieures. En octobre, votre ministre de l’immigration et de l’intégration a annoncé que le Danemark n’accepterait plus aucun réfugié jusqu’à nouvel ordre.

Cependant, après ce portrait flatteur, permettez-moi de vous dire qu’il y a tout de même quelque chose de pourri au royaume du Danemark. Loin de moi, bien sûr, l’idée d’offenser votre pays, dont je viens de faire un large éloge. Mais par cette phrase de Shakespeare, devenue proverbiale dans la langue de Molière, je voudrais pointer une forme de schizophrénie. Malgré toutes ces mesures qui vous placent, à bien des égards, presqu’à la droite de Viktor Orbán, vous appartenez toujours au groupe libéral fédéraliste de M. Verhofstadt et vous ne tarissez pas d’éloges pour Mme Merkel et pour M. Macron.

M. Macron est un ultralibéral et, en même temps, pour reprendre sa formule fétiche, un adepte du racket fiscal. Oui, il accable les Français de nouvelles taxes, alors même que la France est déjà l’un des pays les plus taxés – ou surtaxés – d’Europe. C’est ce même M. Macron qui dépense des milliards pour une politique migratoire qui est d’ailleurs diamétralement opposée à la vôtre.

Alors que votre pays ne fait pas partie de la PSDC, vous avez étonnamment soutenu l’idée macronienne d’une armée européenne. Seriez-vous prêt, Monsieur le Premier ministre, à placer des soldats danois sous les ordres directs de M. Juncker ou de celui qui lui succédera? Personnellement, je ne veux pas que des soldats français aillent verser leur sang sur ordre des bureaucrates non élus et sans légitimité de la Commission européenne.

Enfin, pas plus tard qu’hier, au Parlement danois, vous avez déclaré que le Danemark bénéficierait du pacte mondial des Nations unies pour les migrations. Pourtant, ce pacte est immigrationniste, il est rejeté par les États-Unis, l’Australie, Israël, l’Autriche, la Hongrie, la Pologne, la Bulgarie, la Suisse, la Croatie et sans doute beaucoup d’autres encore.

Aujourd’hui, l’avenir de l’Europe, c’est l’objet de notre débat, se joue à Budapest, à Rome et à Varsovie. Le tandem entre M. Macron et Mme Merkel, qui représente le fédéralisme et l’immigrationnisme, appartient déjà bel et bien au passé.

  Λάμπρος Φουντούλης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Πρωθυπουργέ, η συζήτησή μας σήμερα αφορά το μέλλον της Ευρώπης. Δυστυχώς όμως, αδυνατώ να συμμεριστώ την αισιοδοξία που διακατέχει πολλούς από τους παρόντες. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, αυτήν τη στιγμή, θεωρεί ότι έχει ξεπεράσει την οικονομική κρίση και περιμένει να έρθουν οι ημέρες της ανάπτυξης. Ή έτσι θέλει να παρουσιάζει την κατάσταση. Στην πραγματικότητα όμως, η Ένωση βρίσκεται στην αρχή μιας πολύ μεγαλύτερης κρίσης, και αυτό συμβαίνει διότι οι ηγεμονικές ελίτ της Ένωσης αδυνατούν -ή δεν θέλουν- να καταλάβουν την τεράστια απόσταση που χωρίζει τις δικές τους προτεραιότητες από εκείνες των ευρωπαϊκών λαών. Η νέα αυτή κρίση θα είναι κρίση πολιτική, η οποία όμως ευελπιστώ ότι θα φέρει στην εξουσία δυνάμεις που θα εκφράζουν τη θέληση των λαών και όχι των πολυεθνικών εταιρειών.

Τέλος, θα ήθελα να αναφερθώ και στο σημαντικό ζήτημα της λαθρομετανάστευσης. Η χώρα σας ακολουθεί μία πολιτική που κινείται στη σωστή κατεύθυνση και έχει καταφέρει σε μεγάλο βαθμό να σταματήσει τις επιπλέον ροές. Δυστυχώς, δεν νομίζω ότι αυτό από μόνο του αρκεί. Επιπλέον, πολλές άλλες κυβερνήσεις χωρών, συμπεριλαμβανομένης και της ελληνικής, αρνούνται να υιοθετήσουν παρόμοιες πολιτικές παρά το γεγονός ότι οι χώρες αυτές είναι σημεία εισόδου στην Ένωση. Εάν δεν αντιμετωπιστούν τα φλέγοντα προβλήματα της καθημερινότητας των πολιτών από εθνικά σκεπτόμενες κυβερνήσεις, προβλέπω δυστυχώς πολύ ασταθείς ημέρες για την Ένωση.

  Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Prime Minister of Denmark. – Mr President, I would like to thank everyone for sharing their views with me. It is not easy to respond because you brought many issues to the table.

First of all, I would like to thank the Vice-President of the Commission for your very kind comments about the Danish society model, flexicurity, etc. I think that is in response to some remarks given by good colleagues here, that is one of the reasons – because you asked me, which is right, the Eurobarometer or the people’s consultations – I think that’s probably the secret why the Danes are still so open-minded towards this idea of European cooperation and the single market, it is due to our social model. The fact that we, perhaps better than many other countries, have managed to redistribute what we have achieved from being a part of this more and more global economy.

I think that should be a lesson learned, but not necessarily something we should then reinvent in a European context because countries are different. But it should be something that should inspire each of the 28 – unfortunately soon 27 – member countries to look inwards. How can we secure sound fiscal policy? How can we introduce flexicurity? How can we strike a balance between high taxation and at the same time citizens’ freedom to choose within services provided to the public, etc.

I think that’s exactly why both figures are right. The Danes are reluctant in certain aspects and are pragmatic and not as warm-blooded as perhaps you will find in other countries, and that is why political leaders will not make speeches like my good friend Guy, but at the same time, they share these values. That is, I think, an important point to make.

Now, if you will excuse me, I will turn to my mother tongue in order to respond to some of the Danes present here today.

Og det står lidt i kontrast, hr. Vistisen og hr. Kofoed, når man ligesom portrætterer det billede af den danske regering. Der blev sagt, at der skulle gå 1200-et-eller-andet dage, før jeg bragte temaerne omkring mere fairness i den frie bevægelighed op i Europa Parlamentet, og det er jo rigtigt i den forstand, at det er første gang, jeg optræder i Europa Parlamentet. Jeg har jo heller ikke været inviteret før, jeg er ikke medlem, så jeg har jo ikke rigtig haft mulighed for at komme lige her før. Men det er jo ikke et rigtigt billede at tegne, at der ikke har været arbejdet med den sag, og hele denne sag handler jo altså om, hvordan vi – inden for visionen om den frie bevægelighed – sikrer, at befolkningen føler rimelighed, og at vi undgår løntrykkeri, social dumping, noget af det vi har set på den dansk-tyske grænse. Det har der været arbejdet med, og det er jo rigtigt, hr. Vistisen, at vi jo ikke har haft den store succes. Jeg var selv glad ved, at vi op til den britiske folkeafstemning jo rent faktisk begyndte at nå nogle resultater. For under indtryk af en britisk folkeafstemning om brexit eller remain lykkedes det jo faktisk i Rådet at lave et kompromis, som betød – under den forudsætning, at briterne stemte remain – at nogle af de danske prioriteter, f. eks omkring indekseringen af børnechecken, kunne sættes igennem. Det er jo sådan set bare en ekstra grund til at beklage udkommet af den britiske folkeafstemning, og jeg bliver nødt til at sige, også i dette rum, at vi kommer til at genbesøge nogle af disse spørgsmål. Og det bør vi jo gøre allerede i forbindelse med forordning 883, hvor jeg har noteret mig, at der nu er opbakning her i Parlamentet til, at der kommer en generaldebat i Parlamentet om den forordning. For vi skal finde de balancer, der gør, at vores befolkninger stadigvæk omfavner den frie bevægelighed. Og det gør de ikke, hvis man optjener retten til dagpenge allerede efter én dag. Det gør de ikke, hvis man kan hjemsende en børnecheck, der modsvarer mere end en månedsløn, til børn, der bor i et andet land, hvor leveomkostningerne er langt lavere end i f.eks Danmark. Og her er der en kæmpe opgave for Parlamentet, som jeg håber, man vil gribe ud efter. Jeg har jo lyttet nok til debatten allerede nu til at kunne konstatere, at der jo ikke i Parlamentet er konsensus om alting, men der ligger en vigtig opgave for Parlamentet her.

Så kunne jeg godt have lyst til at sige en bemærkning omkring de spørgsmål og kommentarer, der har været rejst fra forskellige sider, om en europæisk hær, den nye sikkerhedspolitisk situation, etc.

We are living in a different security situation, that goes without saying: a more aggressive Putin to the East – and I totally share what the Vice-President said about Russia’s aggression in Ukraine – but it’s not only about Russia, it’s also about what we experience in the Middle East, in Turkey, a US President who is not as engaged in world policy as one perhaps could wish, and we have to respond to this. But we have to respond to this in a clever way, and introducing this vision of a European army as something very operational, something that is kind of in competition with NATO, that’s not, at least in my opinion, the right way to respond.

We need to uphold this strong transatlantic defence cooperation. With the UK leaving the European Union, I think the rest of us together will represent less than 20% of NATO’s total capacity. So the idea that we should, among ourselves, be able to do something which can compete with the NATO alliance, that’s not a good idea, but that’s not what is proposed either. So I think we should be careful in the way we use words.

My perspective is that it is absolutely necessary that Europe steps up – it’s about spending but it’s also about closer cooperation. But by doing so we have to be sure that we do not duplicate capacity that already exists in the NATO framework. So we should stick to the idea of added value, and that’s not a European army in the sense that I think people will interpret the idea if you just say ‘a European army’. It’s all about closer cooperation in the defence industry, it’s about closer cooperation when we, for instance, go in and stabilise things after wars in neighbouring countries.

And the reason why I have called for a debate in Denmark about this defence opt-out is exactly this. We are known as a country who always participates and steps up. This is the case for aid: we haven’t reduced our aid actually, due to the growth in our economy our aid budget is increasing year on year. We are always ready to contribute soldiers to the NATO framework, and if we develop in the future a different division of labour between NATO and Europe, then it will be from my perspective a disaster if Danish soldiers wearing a NATO cap can do the tough missions but then if we turn the tough missions into soft missions and stabilise nations – talking about nation-building within the European framework – then Danish soldiers have to return home.

That’s exactly why I raised this debate about a possible referendum sometime in the future about this defence opt-out. Not joining a European army under the leadership of Juncker, as was said, but a stronger cooperation between national defence capacities within the European Union.

Given the time, I think I should bring this to a conclusion and just respond perhaps to one very concrete question about the Nord Stream, which is in my eyes, or in my opinion, linked to this discussion about the new security situation in Europe. And that’s why I have been asking again and again and again – and I really hope that the Parliament will give a big push towards this – for us to discuss this infrastructure project at a European level, because it is definitely a project which comes with some geopolitical implications as well. And honestly speaking, I must say that I think it shouldn’t be up to Denmark, squeezed in between countries who have already given a clear ‘yes’ to this line, to take the final decision. So what we need is a European answer to that challenge.

I think I will limit myself to these short comments and I’m looking forward to this catch-the-eye element.

(Applause)

Procedura "catch the eye"

  Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – Hr. Formand! Først vil jeg sige tak til statsministeren for en flot tale, tak for det udsyn, der ligger specielt på klima, bæredygtighed, energi. At så statsministeren sådan blev overfaldet lidt indenrigspolitisk, det må vi jo så tage, som det kommer. Nu er der jo tradition for, her i salen, at når vi har statsministre fra Danmark, så bliver de overfaldet af Dansk Folkeparti. Nå, men til det jeg vil sige omkring klima, bæredygtighed og lignende: Jeg er glad for de momenter, der kom i talen i dag. Der er et sted, hvor jeg gerne vil høre, om statsministeren er enig. Det drejer sig om Europas bygningsmasse. Vi bruger 40 % af vores energi i vores huse, 75 % af Europas bygninger er energiineffektive, derfor er der behov for, at vi får gjort noget ved den eksisterende bygningsmasse for at nå klimamålene. Derfor ligger der nu nogle langsigtede planer om, at EU medlemslande får øget renoveringsraten af vores bygninger i Europa, så vi også kan nå klimamålene, samtidig med at det jo faktisk er den billigste måde, man overhovedet kan skære CO2 af. Og endnu engang velkommen!

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule prim-ministru - aștept să vă puneți căștile, o să vorbesc în limba mea, măcar pentru faptul că sărbătorim o sută de ani.

Domnule prim-ministru, am încercat să fiu prezentă la toate prezentările făcute de toți șefii de stat și de guverne, pentru că vreau să înțeleg ce viziune și ce viitor al Europei dorește Consiliul, doresc șefii de stat și de guverne. Trebuie să recunosc că din discursul dumneavoastră eu am înțeles că subliniați foarte clar că Danemarca are drumul ei, că vreți mai departe cele opt excepții, că, în același timp, doriți mobilitatea forței de muncă, dar vorbiți de dumping social. Singura țară care poate să facă dumping este Danemarca, dacă primiți un lucrător din țara mea și nu îl plătiți la salariul din Danemarca. De asemenea, tot contradictoriu, spuneți de faptul că doriți să ascultăm cetățenii și să fie solidaritate, dar vorbiți de alocațiile pentru copii, care ar trebui scăzute pentru că sunt cetățeni din alte țări care vin la dumneavoastră.

Sincer, eu vreau vă întreb foarte concret, nu ne-ați spus nimic: care este viziunea dumneavoastră legată de noul cadru financiar multianual? Nu ne-ați spus nimic: care este viziunea dumneavoastră referitoare la pachetul de mobilitate, lucruri foarte importante care ne preocupă pe noi. Nu ne-ați spus nimic: cum vedeți dumneavoastră viitorul Europei, dacă să punem condiționalitatea de stat de drept? Sigur, dumneavoastră nu aveți teamă de o rezoluție: țara mea a avut o rezoluție. Nedreaptă, de fapt.

  Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – Mr President, I would like to say to the Prime Minister: you mentioned Brexit and I would like to take you up on the subject.

Today the UK’s economic institutions have projected the impact of Brexit on the British economy, and it is a disaster. Less known is the fact that there will also be a significant impact on the European economy.

You mentioned that there were numerous referenda in Denmark, that there were special deals for Denmark, there were opt-outs for Denmark. On 8 December the British Parliament will decide on the new deal. It is possible that the new deal will be rejected. Mr Prime Minister, this would be your hour because you could lean on Brussels and make sure that Brussels offers Britain a new deal. A new deal, possibly, on freedom of movement, which will enable the remainers to get some more dynamic support in Britain, and it will offer the Brexiteers a face-saving way out. So it increases the chances of a second referendum.

I think one thing we can learn from Denmark: a democracy which ceases to learn, ceases to be a democracy.

  Morten Helveg Petersen (ALDE). – Hr. Formand! Tak til statsministeren og velkommen her til Europa-Parlamentet. Jeg er – ikke overraskende – helt enig i, at EU selvfølgelig er vejen frem for Danmark, at EU er utrolig vigtig for Danmarks fremtid. Men en offensiv dansk EU-politik kræver, at EU prioriteres i Danmark. Det gør det ikke tilstrækkeligt i øjeblikket efter min bedste mening. Lad mig nævne et par eksempler: Danske ministre er blandt de mindst flittige, når det gælder om at møde op i EU’s Ministerråd, viser en undersøgelse for tænketanken EUROPA. Danmark har ingen stærke partnere i EU, viser en undersøgelse for European Council on Foreign Relations. De manglende venner betyder, at Danmark kæmper under sin vægtklasse på EU-scenen, hedder det i undersøgelsen. Og Danmark kunne være en grøn stormagt, der trak EU i en endnu grønnere retning, hvis vi ville. Derfor er min opfordring til statsministeren her i dag, at Danmark søger de reelle fælles løsninger på de reelle problemer. Min opfordring til statsministeren vil være, at Danmark afstår fra de bilaterale initiativer med Østrig på flygtningeområdet og søger de reelle fælles løsninger på de fælles problemer, vi står overfor, i fællesskab.

  Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE). – Hr. Formand! Velkommen her, kære statsminister, og tak for talen – hvis det holdt alt sammen, så tror jeg, at jeg kunne være enig i det meste af det. Jeg har et enkelt punkt, der ligger mig voldsomt på sinde. En meget stærk værdi i det europæiske fællesskab er humanismen. Og det er dejligt at høre, at du står fast på, at Danmark også skal underskrive traktaten i Marrakesh, at du ikke lader dig presse. Men jeg må sige, at jeg er meget foruroliget over at høre, at du måske ikke modstår presset for at introducere et nyt princip i vores asylpolitik, nemlig et skrub af-princip. I stedet for at fortælle mennesker, at når de er kommet her og har været her en tid, og børnene er her og så videre, så kan de få et liv. Børn kan få et liv. Så er der jo nu en tendens, desværre, i Danmark til og sige, at dem, der er her på en eller anden form for flygtningestatus, de skal vende hjem. Jeg håber ikke, det bliver en dansk position, og jeg håber i særdeleshed ikke, det bliver en europæisk position, og at du vil gå videre med den, men det er meget skræmmende, hvis vi kommer til og samle os først og fremmest om at bygge store mure, grænsekontrol og så sige skrub af til de mennesker, der kommer her, og som jo også har – ja undskyld mig – ret til et liv.

  Rina Ronja Kari (GUE/NGL). – Hr. Formand! Og velkommen til Europa-Parlamentet, hr. statsminister. Jeg har lyttet med særlig stor interesse til dine ord om at lytte til borgerne. For der er i sandhed brug for at lytte til borgerne og tage dem med på råd og sørge for, det bliver dem, der er i fokus. Derfor undrer det mig også, at du så kategorisk afviser folkeafstemninger. Det er jo netop her, vi kan få afklaret, hvad borgernes holdning er. Nu kan det godt være, at du har en eller anden form for særlig evne, sådan at du kan forudse, hvad borgerne mener, men helt ærligt, den eneste måde vi kan sikre os, er jo faktisk ved en folkeafstemning. Derfor bekymrer det mig, når du snakker om, at Danmark skal med i en bankunion, men fuldstændig afviser at spørge borgerne om, hvad de mener om bankunionen. Eller som når du i dag taler om, at vi skal have flere handelsaftaler, på trods af at de møder stor modstand, netop fordi de begrænser vores demokrati, og fordi de udsætter kernedele af vores velfærd, for at blive ødelagt. Derfor, hr. statsminister: Gør nu alvor af dine egne ord, spørg nu borgerne, hvad deres egen holdning er, hold en folkeafstemning. Tak!

  David Coburn (EFDD). – Mr President, George Orwell said if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever. The EU has tried to stamp the jackboot down on Britain with this recent so-called Brexit deal for democratically daring to leave. An attempted enslavement of the very nation that fought the Nazis and liberated Europe.

The EU is supposed to be about government by consent, not force. I asked the Parliament when we voted on an arrangement for Lake Lugano’s Italian-Swiss border why the same arrangement could not be made for Northern Ireland. No answer. Well it is because the EU are using the tragedy of Ulster as a bargaining chip. Well that’s not government by consent with friends.

In reality, I tried in vain to explain to Mr Barnier that the UK constitution explicitly forbids one Parliament binding another. The deal must be fair to stick. Well, he obviously hasn’t got that message through – obviously I got it wrong.

When the Brexit deal fails in the UK Parliament and we have a World Trade Organisation deal, a totally liberated UK economy will take on a command economy – Europe – and we will win. We will see that happen. A potentially despotic EU army controlled by unelected bureaucrats, more EU isolationism and regulation. Crazy immigration, a false currency, mass unemployment as you isolate your greatest trading partner, London, the financial centre of the world with which you can never compete.

The future of Europe is one of a division like the Berlin Wall. On one side we will have those countries outside the EU, particularly in the Anglosphere and its free enterprise, which will prosper and grow as it always has.

On the other side will be a command economy – the EU. Once again plunged into poverty, darkness and held back from real progress like the Soviet Union. It is the EU folly, along with the absence of a proper relationship which will cause Europe to collapse.

We should try to part amicably as friends. Orwell’s picture of the future is probably accurate. The EU, however, should not think too soon, that theirs is the boot rather than the face.

  Presidente. – Ognuno è libero in quest'Aula di dire ciò che pensa. Io spero che le sue profezie non si avverino perché altrimenti sprofonderemmo tutti. Ma non credo che sprofonderemo e, anzi, spero che tutti quanti noi potremo vivere a lungo.

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Πρωθυπουργέ, καλώς ήρθατε. Ο τρόπος με τον οποίον αντιμετωπίζουμε τα σημερινά προβλήματα προδικάζει και τις μελλοντικές εξελίξεις. Με βάση αυτήν την πραγματικότητα, θα σας θέσω δύο ερωτήματα. Πρώτον, ποια είναι η θέση σας σχετικά με την αντιμετώπιση του σοβαρού προβλήματος της λαθρομετανάστευσης; Αναφέρατε προηγουμένως ότι η αναδιανομή όσων ζητούν πολιτικό άσυλο δεν είναι η λύση. Είστε δηλαδή υπέρ της άποψης ότι οι παράνομοι μετανάστες πρέπει να παραμένουν στις χώρες εισόδου; Με άλλα λόγια, η Ιταλία και -κυρίως- η πατρίδα μου, η Ελλάδα, θα πρέπει να σηκώσουν το βάρος των εσφαλμένων και τραγικών λαθών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, που διόγκωσε το πρόβλημα αυτό, και να γίνουν μόνιμοι καταυλισμοί δυστυχισμένων και εξαθλιωμένων ανθρώπων;

Το δεύτερο ερώτημα αφορά την αρχή της ομοφωνίας. Θεωρείτε ότι η κατάργηση της αρχής αυτής και -ουσιαστικά- η απαξίωση της ισχύος της ψήφου των μικρών χωρών, όπως είναι και η δική σας, που θα δημιουργήσει την Ευρώπη των δύο και τριών ταχυτήτων, είναι το ιδανικό πρότυπο και μέσο για τη δημιουργία της Ευρώπης του μέλλοντος έτσι όπως την οραματίζονται όσοι αγαπούν την πατρίδα και το έθνος τους;

  Christel Schaldemose (S&D). – Hr. Formand! Kære statsminister, kære Lars, velkommen her til Europa Parlamentet. Selv om vi ikke er enige om alt i politik, så synes jeg det er dejligt og se sit lands statsminister her. Jeg er også rigtig glad for, at du lagde vægt på det her med den frie bevægelighed og den fair bevægelighed, da du fortalte om situationen med chaufførerne nede i Padborg. Men jeg kunne godt tænke mig at få dig til at prøve og folde det lidt mere ud – hvad er det, du forestiller dig, vi rent faktisk kan gøre for at løse det her? Vi taler om EU i fremtiden: Hvad kan vi gøre på det sociale område? Er du tilhænger for eksempel af en social protokol, som kan ligestille arbejdstagerrettigheder og fri bevægelighed? Det er jo en måde og gøre det på, selv om det ikke ligger ligefor. Det er en hamrende vigtig sag for os. Jeg tror, det er ret afgørende for, at vi får løst de forhold, for at få befolkningens opbakning til, at vi fortsat skal være stærkt engageret i vores europæiske samarbejde, så jeg er meget spændt på at høre din holdning til det.

  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Panie Premierze! Panie Przewodniczący! Chcę postawić, ze względu na ograniczony czas wypowiedzi, trzy krótkie tezy. Mam nadzieję, że pan Premier się do nich odniesie.

Po pierwsze, odczuwam, że najwięksi przeciwnicy Unii Europejskiej są jednak wśród euroentuzjastów. Ci którzy nie widzą wad, ci którzy nie widzą mankamentów, ci którzy nie widzą przeszkód, koniec końców muszą doprowadzić do kolizji. Przeciwników po skrajnej lewej, czy skrajnej prawej stronie doskonale rozpoznajemy, wiemy czego chcą i potrafimy się z nimi uporać.

Druga kwestia to widzenie wad. Dobra inwentaryzacja to jedynie szansa na sukces. Natomiast brakuje nam narzędzi do tego, aby z tego kryzysu, krótko mówiąc, wyjść. I trzecia, ostatnia teza. Dziś nie stoimy w miejscu, jak twierdzą niektórzy teoretycy. My albo maszerujemy, albo wręcz biegniemy, ale niestety w miejscu. I to jest gorsze od stania, bo stojąc, nie marnujemy energii. My niestety marnujemy energię, nie poprawiając swojej kondycji.

  Ramón Jáuregui Atondo (S&D). – Señor primer ministro, por este salón de plenos han pasado ya veinte primeros ministros de la Unión Europea. Todos han dicho cosas muy importantes sobre el futuro de Europa, pero si hubiera que establecer un común denominador, un valor común de lo que han dicho es que afrontamos retos tan grandes que solo podemos afrontarlos juntos.

Si hubiera una frase que pudiera resumirlo bien, sería algo así como «debemos hacer mejor lo que solo podemos hacer juntos». Bajo esta idea, el Parlamento Europeo viene expresando la reclamación de que se superen dos problemas fundamentales para el futuro de Europa.

El primero es que haya que hacer más aportaciones al marco financiero de los próximos siete años. ¿Está su país dispuesto a hacer más aportaciones económicas para una Europa que tiene que afrontar todos estos retos de los que le hablaba?

Y, segundo problema: la unanimidad. ¿Está su país dispuesto y a favor de superar la unanimidad para establecer mayorías absolutas que permitan ser más ágiles, más flexibles, más eficaces a la hora de afrontar los retos del futuro de la Unión?

  Morten Løkkegaard (ALDE). – Hr. Formand! Velkommen hr. statsminister, velkommen Lars. Også fra Venstres side. Og tak til alle mine udemærkede danske kolleger for at have startet valgkampen her i rummet, jeg synes, det er rart at blive mindet om, at vi nu er i gang.

Jeg vil egentlig pege på, at det, der optager mig en hel del – jeg skal ikke gentage nogle af de mange spørgsmål og kommentarer og emner, der er blevet bragt op, som jo også er valgkampsemner – men bare pege på, at meget af en debat, der foregår, som bekymrer lidt, er en debat, som jo – og det kan man jo også høre illustreret her – er en debat om mere eller mindre. Der er også et par af mine kolleger, der ligesom har fået gjort det til et spørgsmål om mere eller mindre EU, hvilket jo er en forfejlet – helt igennem forfejlet præmis for en samtale, så jeg kunne godt tænke mig, at du, hr. statsminister, måske ville sige et par ord om, at det jo måske i virkeligheden handler om et bedre EU, og ikke mere eller mindre EU. Hvis du kunne elaborere lidt på det, for det synes jeg, debatten fortjener, inden alle går i det sædvanlige selvsving med at gøre det til et spørgsmål om mere eller mindre EU.

Og så en enkelt bemærkning til hele den diskussion, der i øjeblikket kører om forordning 883: Jeg synes, det er helt rigtigt at understrege, at vi har en særlig forpligtelse her i huset, fordi vi jo netop er i en situation i Rådet, hvor det ikke nødvendigvis er særlig hjælpsomt, det der foregår. Så hvis du måske kunne uddybe den situation, der er, for at kunne gøre det klart, også for andre medlemmer i huset her, at vi har en særlig forpligtelse til at sørge for, at den debat ikke skrider fuldstændig af sporet.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D). – Premjere, labai dėkingas už labai nuosekliai išsakytą savo poziciją dėl Danijos šalies, mes Jums tikrai pavydim ir pavydim tam tikrų dalykų – kad dar šiandieną kai kuriuose klausimuose esat nepriklausomi.

Tačiau pirmiausia aš norėčiau Jūsų paklausti. Aš esu iš Lietuvos, iš vienos Baltijos šalies. Mes, kaip Baltijos šalys, Europos Sąjungoje esame gana ne tiktai aktyvūs ir ištikimi tiems bendriems principams, už ką esam pasirašę.

Pirmiausia, ką darytumėt mūsų vietoje, kada mūsų pragyvenimo lygis – ir Jūs žinote dėl ko, todėl, kad mes turėjome kitus kaimynus ir kitokią savo praeitį šešiasdešimties metų – kada mūsų valstybės pragyvenimo lygis yra mažas ir kada mūsų įmonės negali mokėti tiem vairuotojam tokio atlyginimo, kaip Jūs kad mėginate mums pasakyti? Antra, ką darytumėte, kada didžiosios šalys Europos Sąjungoje apeina susitarimus bendrus ir apsirūpina dujom per Nord Stream I, Nord Stream II? Ką darytumėte, kada mūsų kaimynas pastoviai, kiekvieną kartą, grasina, ir mes esame kiekvieną vakarą išsigandę, kad nebūtų tam tikros invazijos, kas buvo, kas taip atsitiko keturiasdešimt pirmais metais? Aš labai sveikinu Jus, kad keturiasdešimt penktais įgijot nepriklausomybę, tačiau mes ją gavome tiktai devyniasdešimt pirmais metais.

Tai, Premjere, jeigu Jūs atsakysite, kad „nežinau“, aš būsiu labai patenkintas.

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – Hr. Formand! Jamen også jeg vil gerne sige velkommen, hr. statsminister. Når man hører Anders Vistisens tale til dig, så vil det jo nok undre en del her i huset, at det jo er dem, du deler politisk dyne med i det daglige. Man kan jo blive helt bekymret for, om du egentlig lider af Stockholmsyndromet, men ellers vil jeg sige, at vi, Radikale Venstre, jo er et åbensindet parti, og vi er jo også asylvenlige, så hvis statsministeren skulle få brug for hjælp en dag, så diskuterer vi gerne det.

Jeg vil gerne som en af dem, der normalt plejer at kritisere dig, have lov til at kvittere for både, at du står her i dag, og også regeringens holdning til Marrakeshtraktaten, trods interne skærmydsler og pres fra Dansk Folkeparti om ikke at underskrive den, og for støtte til, at vi begynder at diskutere forsvarspolitik i EU. Selv din tale i dag handlede om, hvad vi skal i EU, i stedet for at vi hele tiden i Danmark taler om, hvad vi ikke skal. Men det er altså ikke løst med fire fikspunkter, hvis vi vil skabe opbakning til det europæiske samarbejde. Det kræver sammenhæng i forsvars- og sikkerhedspolitik, fælles skattebase, så vi kan gøre op med alt det snyderi, der foregår i den finansielle sektor, fælles migrationsregler – hvad gør regeringen for at afblokere den situation, der er i Rådet i øjeblikket, hvor tingene er låst fast på asylpakken? Det kræver også social lighed, en vis social lighed, hvis vi skal have opbakning til den frie bevægelighed. Så kræver det forsvar for demokrati og retsstat, og så kræver det, at vi får nogle børnerettigheder i EU. Og der er det, jeg gerne vil spørge statsministeren: Hvad gør den danske regering i Rådet for at fremme disse sager?

Statsministeren siger, at man skal lægge hovedet til jorden og lytte til folket, Ja, men det er også fint nok, Churchill svarede bare, da han fik at vide, at han skulle lægge øret mere til jorden, at ”så er det vanskeligere for folk at se op til mig”. Jeg kunne godt tænke mig, om den danske statsminister stod lidt mere op i den danske EU-debat i stedet for altid og ligge og rode nede på gulvet sammen med Dansk Folkeparti. Men tak for fremmødet her i dag.

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). – Arvoisa puhemies, te, herra pääministeri sanoitte, että meidän pitää kuunnella kansalaisia. Me varmasti teemme sitä joka päivä, me Euroopan parlamentin jäsenet. Te sanoitte myös, että meidän pitää kertoa saavutuksista. Sitäkin me teemme.

Mutta en kuitenkaan usko, että menneillä saavutuksilla voitetaan koskaan lisää kannatusta, vaan meidän täytyy pystyä löytämään tämän päivän kuumiin kysymyksiin ratkaisut ja meillä täytyy olla jonkinlainen käsitys tulevaisuudesta.

Yksi näistä asioista on maahanmuutto. Täällä on tänään keskusteltu tästä, mutta valitettavasti minun täytyy sanoa, että Tanska ei tässä kelpaa kyllä esimerkiksi siitä, koska teiltä puuttuu humanismia. Teillä on pragmatismia mutta humanismia ei kyllä juuri ole. Mutta uskon siihen, että se, mitä sanoitte nostamalla Afrikan puheenvuoronne keskiöön, niin se on se ydinkysymys. Kyllä Afrikka on Euroopan unionin kohtalonkysymys. Meidän täytyy yhdessä pohtia todellakin kaikkia niitä asioita, joilla voidaan auttaa Afrikkaa, ja nähdä se kumppanina eikä pelkästään minään kehitysavun kohteena. Sitäkin tarvitaan.

(Fine della procedura "catch the eye")

  Lars Løkke Rasmussen, Danmarks statsminister. – Hr. formand! Tusind tak for de mange kommentarer, de mange spørgsmål, mange af dem jo fra danske engagerede medlemmer af Europa Parlamentet. Jeg skal prøve at nå at svare på så meget som overhovedet muligt.

I forhold til den grønne omstilling, er Bendt Bendtsen jo inde på – og det synes jeg er klogt – at man også skal række ud efter de lavt hængende frugter, og de er jo til og få fat på. Og der er jo ingen tvivl om, at en større indsats mod energieffektivisering og energirenovering er en del af det. Der er sådan set meget, der kan gøres, hvis alle europæere vaskede med 10 grader lavere temperatur, end det, vi almindeligvis gør, så svarer det til den samlede kapacitet fra alle tyske a-kraftværker – altså hvis vi vaskede ved 30 grader i stedet for 40 grader – og tilsvarende kan man omkring energirenovering lave tilsvarende regnestykker. Det viser vel sådan set bare, at vi i den grønne omstilling skal tage alle instrumenter i brug, og det, du peger på, Bendt, er jo et af dem.

Så vil jeg gerne sige til Grapini, som skaber et billede af, at jeg skulle være imod, at folk, der for eksempel arbejder i Danmark, ikke har de samme rettigheder som danskere, der arbejder i Danmark. Det er ikke. hvad jeg siger! Det er klart, at hvis man kommer til Danmark, og man har sine børn med sig, så skal man jo kunne arbejde og leve under de samme vilkår som alle mulige andre. Jeg taler om det forhold, hvor man ikke har sine børn med, og hvor den danske børnecheck, der sådan set er tilsigtet at skulle dække de omkostninger, der knytter sig til at have børn i det danske samfund, sendes til andre lande, hvor leveomkostningsniveauet er langt lavere, og pengene derfor rækker længere. Det er den situation, jeg taler om.

Så spurgte Grapini også til mine synspunkter omkring MFF, og det kunne blive et meget langt foredrag. Jeg vil bare sige ganske kort, at under en rimelig ramme, 1 % af BNI, som vil være et stigende budget, givet at der er vækst i Europa, vil vores prioriteter jo være, at vi investerer i nye områder. Det er blandt andet udvikling, forskning, innovation, men det er også – for at give en bemærkning til det allersidste spørgsmål fra det finske parlamentsmedlem – en mere holistisk indsats i forhold til hele den udfordring, der knytter sig til migration i alle former, og flere har været inde på det: Margrethe Auken har været inde på det, Jens Rohde antyder det, flere andre er inde på det, og jeg tror altså, at tiden er kommet, hvor vi har brug for at tale om disse ting i en sammenhæng og være lidt klare, når vi taler om disse ting. For der er en ekstrem forskel på en ung afrikaner, der sådan set, helt naturligt, kan man sige, søger lykken i et velstående Europa for at forbedre sin livssituation, og så den individuelle forfulgte, der er reelt på flugt, kontra den interne bevægelse i Europa på et arbejdsmarked. Og der er en tendens til i debatten – muligvis ikke her, men så andre steder, hvor jeg deltager i debatten – til at blande det hele sammen i en stor pærevælling.

Jeg er varm tilhænger af den frie bevægelighed i Europa. Danmark vil ikke kunne fungere, medmindre vi havde det privilegium, at man ville kunne trække på arbejdskraft, der kommer andre steder fra. Engang imellem viser der sig også nogle problemer. Jeg er varm tilhænger af, at vi skal gøre en indsats i forhold til og bekæmpe, i forhold til og sikre folk, der på flugt. Det er jo derfor jeg er stolt af at komme fra et land, hvor vi, som kun en håndfuld lande i hele verden, øger FN’s målsætning 0,7 i udviklingshjælp. Derfor er der jo brug for – og hr. Jens Rohde spørger til, hvad vi så gør i Rådet – der er jo brug for, at vi udvikler en samlet strategi, som ikke kun handler om at beskytte de ydre grænser, som ikke kun handler om at lave udviklingshjælp i Afrika, som ikke kun handler om at understøtte en egentlig fri markedsøkonomi i Afrika, der har potentiale til, i spejlbillede af Europa, at udvikle et Afrikansk indre marked. Men det kan ikke kun handle om det. Det er nødt til at handle om det hele på én gang, og det er den eneste måde, hvorpå vi får alle ombord. Det er også derfor, at jeg har det synspunkt i forhold til hr. Morten Helveg og andre, der har været inde på spørgsmålet omkring reallokering og solidaritet, at vi jo er nødt til og arbejde med et afsæt i virkeligheden, og virkeligheden er den, at det ikke lader sig gøre at lave en reform af Dublinsystemet, der hviler på en obligatorisk reallokering. Det lader sige ikke gøre, det kommer til og splitte Europa. Og så må man jo med det afsæt pragmatisk diskutere, hvad man så sætter i stedet. Det, man kan sætte i stedet, er jo en anden form for forpligtet solidaritet, som ikke kun handler om at tage imod folk på flugt, men som handler om og yde et andet bidrag på en anden måde et andet sted. For hvis ikke vi får skred i udviklingen af dette koncept, som både handler om at beskytte Europa og række hånden ud til Afrika, og som også handler om at sikre midlertidighed til de mennesker, der midlertidigt flygter fra noget, en mulighed for og vende tilbage, så får vi ikke håndteret den samlede udfordring, som er kæmpe, kæmpe stor, og måske i virkeligheden den største, vi står med.

Jeg må så sige til Ronja omkring folkeafstemning og demokrati: Den danske deltagelse i Den Europæiske Union hviler jo på ikke bare en, men flere folkeafstemninger. Efter den danske befolknings nej til Maastricht, blev der så indgået i Danmark et nationalt kompromis, som også blev sendt til folkeafstemning, og det er derpå, vores forbehold hviler. Og det siger sig selv, at hvis der skal ændres på de forudsætninger, som danskerne har sagt ja til i Maastrichttraktaten på, så skal der selvfølgelig en folkeafstemning til. Men det kan man jo ikke trække til et synspunkt om, at en hvilken som helst justering af samarbejdet, som ikke er dækket af de danske forbehold, så kræver en folkeafstemning. Jeg abonnerer ikke på det synspunkt, at vi skal have årets folkeafstemning for at tage stilling til, om vi så stadigvæk ønsker, at vi skal være med. Jeg siger også dette som en bemærkning til Hekel og overvejelserne om en new deal, hvis og såfremt man i det britiske underhus ikke når frem til en beslutning om at støtte den aftale, der er indgået, og Danmark her qua vores historik skulle byde ind og sige, at så finder vi bare en anden løsning. I min læsning af det, så er den aftale, Theresa May har indgået, jo at sammenligne med det, vi gjorde i Danmark, da danskerne tilbage omkring Maastricht sagde nej til Maastricht, nemlig at vi definerede vores nationale bud på, under hvilke omstændigheder, vi så kan have en relation. Det gik vi til en folkeafstemning om, og det vandt vi, og det vil ikke være en farbar vej, hvis det skal genforhandles successivt. Så jeg tror, at jeg må sige, at jeg er på linje med Juncker og alle kolleger i Rådet, der har sagt, at nu har der været et langt kompliceret forløb, hvor hvert et komma i en meget, meget kompliceret aftale har været vendt. Det er ligesom den konstruktion, der ligger på bordet, og det er så den, man må tage stilling til.

Så vil jeg godt måske afslutningsvis sige, når det Litauiske parlamentsmedlem spørger mig, hvordan jeg ville se på tingene, fra f.eks. et Litauisk perspektiv i lyset af, at der er forskelle i levestandarder. Og det er også et svar til Christel Schaldemose og andre, der har berørt spørgsmålet om den frie bevægelighed og rimeligheden i tingene – Jens Rohde også, hr. Morten Lykkegaard såmænd også. Grundlæggende handler det jo om, som en forudsætning for den frie bevægelighed, at sikre sig, at når man ligesom bevæger sig et andet sted hen, så optræder man på de samme vilkår, under de samme betingelser som dem, der var der i forvejen – altså når vi snakker løn og ansættelsesforhold. Hvis man ser på Danmark som en showcase her, så må man sige, at der, hvor vi er udfordret, er jo ikke der, hvor folk flytter ind i Danmark for kortere eller længere tid, og siger: ”Jeg tager et job her”. Hvis vi kigger på deres dækningsgrad overenskomstmæssigt, så er det næsten på niveau med danskerne i al almindelighed, det er ikke der, problemerne opstår. Problemerne opstår i relation til service, problemerne opstår i relation til transport. Og de problemer, vi har set på det seneste, er netop linket til det. Det bliver vi jo nødt til og gøre noget ved, og det bliver vi nødt til at angribe helt konkret, og her har Parlamentet jo også et arbejde, der skal gøres. For det handler jo om at sikre sig mod, at man kan bruge postkassefirmaer til i virkeligheden proforma at vinde nogle rettigheder til at krydse grænser. Det handler om at stille nogle krav til, på hvilke lønvilkår man kan køre rundt. Det handler om og sikre sig, at man ikke i forhold til transportsektoren får en masse undtagelser fra det almindelige servicedirektiv. Det er jo et helt praktisk stykke arbejde, der skal gøres, og som vi må arbejde sammen om, hvis vi skal sikre os befolkningernes opbakning. For min egen læsning af den danske befolkning er, at den er ikke imod den frie bevægelighed, den er imod de situationer, hvor man oplever, at man under dække af den frie bevægelighed i virkeligheden tilbyder mennesker løn og vilkår, som vi ikke ville acceptere at tage på vores egen krop. Det er jo det, det handler om, og det er et stykke praktisk arbejde, der skal laves.

Så tror jeg bare, at jeg vil slutte af med at sige tak til Jens Rohde for de pæne ord. Og så lige måske en enkelt ting om FN-papiret, den globale migrationspagt, som jo ikke er en traktat, og som ikke er nogen Marrakeshtraktat, men som er et FN-papir, som så skal diskuteres i Marrakesh. Og jeg vil bare prøve og sætte det ind i en sammenhæng at slutte af på. Det kan jo ikke nytte noget, at vi introducerer et internationalt samarbejde, hvor standarden bliver den, at man kun deltager, hvis alle mener det samme som en selv. Og det er jo lidt den skygge, jeg synes, man ser kaste sig ud i det europæiske landskab, i hvert fald i en tendens, og som man også fornemmer på et par af indlæggene her i dag. Vi vil have det, ligesom vi vil have det, ellers vil vi ikke være med. Det er jo imod hele konceptet, og jeg taler selvfølgelig ind i en aktuel dansk debat, men jeg taler også ind i en europæisk debat. EU er jo en drøm, men det er jo også en realitet, noget vi skal forholde os praktisk til. Og det kan ikke nytte noget, hvis vi deler os i de lejre, hvor man enten ligesom skal anprise hele projektet med alle sine herligheder, for ellers er man nok ikke en sand europæer, og eller også skal man kritisere alting. Vi er nødt til og have den balancerede tilgang til det, at når vi taler om grænseoverskridende problemer og om at løfte europæisk velstand, også i en global konkurrence, der bliver skarpere og skarpere med et mere og mere selvbevidst Kina, med et USA der i nogen grad vender ryggen til sig selv, så skal der et samarbejde til! Og der har vi allesammen en forpligtelse til, at få den dialog i gang med vores borgere, hvor vi får sagt – for jeg tror sådan set godt, vi alle sammen forstår det – at hvis alting skal være vores egen løsning, så bliver der ikke noget at samarbejde om.

Det er den tunge opgave, og det er også der hvor jeg synes – og derfor vil jeg gerne takke for, at jeg måtte komme her i dag – at hele idéen om at prøve at iværksætte en europæisk debat med europæerne på nationalt niveau og forankret her i parlamentet har noget for sig. Det er ikke gjort med det, vi skal også levere på det konkrete indhold, men vi er nødt til at starte der, hvor vi får sagt, at der er intet alternativ til et samarbejde, andet end at vi vender ind i os selv og glider baglæns velstandsmæssigt etc. Og med de ord vil jeg sige tusind tak, hr. formand, fordi jeg måtte være her i dag.

  President. – Thank you very much, Prime Minister Rasmussen. Thank you for your participation in this very important debate on the future of the European Union.

  Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 162)

  Eva Maydell (PPE), in writing. – If we are to reflect on the Future of Europe, we must take stock of what we have achieved. European citizens enjoy freedom of movement in the biggest single market in the world, education opportunities under the Erasmus programme; and solidarity in times of crisis.

Nevertheless, the unity of our union is put into question. I believe we need to learn to live in this new environment, where the European idea will be under attack and it will need to compete with other less liberal and less globalist ideas for the future of the European continent. What is more important, we need to learn to defend the European idea, by providing real solutions to the public’s fears like migration, security and climate change while upholding the values our Union is based on.

In the physical world, strengthening the Schengen area, the eurozone and the accession of the Western Balkans will ensure security and stability for our continent. In the digital world, in spite of setting the highest existing standard for data protection with GDPR, Europe should also be a digital frontrunner with investments in new technologies and innovations, and ethical AI.

  Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner (ECR), kirjallinen. – Viimeisten vuosien aikana Euroopan parlamentissa on käyty useita keskusteluja miljardiluokan veronkierto- ja rahanpesutapauksista. Tänä syksynä käsittelyssä on ollut tanskalaisen Danske Bankin rahanpesuskandaali. Tanskalaispankin Viron-yksikössä pestiin rahaa jopa 200 miljardin euron arvosta. Ensimmäinen vinkki rikollisesta toiminnasta tuli Venäjän keskuspankilta jo vuonna 2007, mutta toiminta sai jatkua vielä vuosikausia. Kukaan ei ollut halukas puuttumaan rikolliseen toimintaan ja rahanpesun valvonnassa epäonnistuttiin totaalisesti.

Tapauksen ilmiantaja britti Howard Wilkinson oli kuultavana marraskuun lopulla parlamentin talousrikoksia, veropetoksia ja veronkiertoa käsittelevässä TAX3-erityisvaliokunnassa. Wilkinsonin esittämien todisteiden mukaan Tanskan rahoitusvalvontaviranomainen on tietoisesti sulkenut silmänsä ongelmilta ja jopa kokenut velvollisuudekseen auttaa kotimaansa pankkia sen vaikeassa tilanteessa. Valvontaviranomaisen tehtävä ei varmasti ole auttaa kotimaansa pankkia vaan valvoa sitä. Mikäli Wilkinsonin antamat tiedot pitävät paikkansa, vaikuttaa rahoitusvalvontaviranomaisen toiminta ammattitaidottomalta ellei jopa korruptoituneelta.

Rahanpesun torjuntaa, viranomaistoimintaa ja tietojenvaihtoa eri maiden välillä tulee tehostaa. Toivottavasti pääministeri Rasmussen ja kollegansa tekevät kaikkensa, jotta vastaavanlaista ei enää tapahdu yhdessäkään EU-maassa. Kun pankkimaailmassa havaitaan rikoksia, on erityisesti toimintaa valvovien viranomaisten velvollisuus puuttua niihin välittömästi.

IN THE CHAIR: MAIREAD McGUINNESS
Vice-President