IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

(The sitting opened at 9.05 a.m.)

  President. − The next item is the debate about the Council and Commission statements on the preparations for the European Council meeting (22-23 November 2012) with particular reference to the Multiannual Financial Framework.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am sure you have all read the publications that have appeared in the course of the past few hours. I think we are moving into a decisive phase in these negotiations. We have the Commission President here, as well as Minister Mavroyiannis as the Council’s representative, so I would like to say again that while the European Parliament has undoubtedly adopted some ambitious decisions, it is fully mindful of the responsibility to maintain the European Union’s performance capacities and ensure that the objectives and tasks set by the heads of state and government continue to be affordable for the Union.

I am assuming that the Council and the Commission will uphold these shared objectives, also in relation to the financial endowment that is to be provided for the European Union. I am sure that the Commission will abide by this course, although I am less certain that the Council has fully appreciated the critical nature of the situation. I hope that this will be elucidated during the course of today’s debate.

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, let me begin by thanking you for the opportunity to participate in this debate. As you know, this week’s extraordinary meeting of the European Council is convened in order to deal with the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020.

Over the last months the Cyprus Presidency and our trio of partners beforehand have invested a lot of time and effort into what is a very complicated and challenging file following last year’s Commission proposals.

The aim of the Cyprus Presidency was to maintain the momentum and mature the dossier, preparing the file for a full discussion aiming to reach an agreement this year. To this end, we held extensive bilateral consultations in July, followed by an issues paper and an informal General Affairs Council meeting in Cyprus. Then, we issued two non-papers on various issues covering macroeconomic conditionality, better spending, RAL, flexibility and corrections, trying to advance the discussion and provide solutions where possible.

Having taken into account the wish of Parliament to wait for the vote on the relevant interim report, we only introduced for the first time figures in late October in the negotiating box. This proposal was underpinned by difficult political choices, trying to pave the way for a balanced agreement. Overall, I believe that work in the Council in the past few months and the interaction with all institutions and stakeholders has covered some important ground facilitating the prospects for an agreement.

All along this process, we have worked very closely and constructively with Parliament. We met formally before and after each General Affairs Council according to the procedure agreed under the Hungarian Presidency. In addition, Parliament’s negotiating team was invited to participate at the informal ministerial meeting in Cyprus in August and also in an informal ministerial breakfast in Luxembourg last month. Of course, beyond these formal meetings, we have held many other informal discussions which have been very fruitful and conducive to advancing this file.

The negotiating team of Parliament also had an extensive meeting with the cabinet of President Van Rompuy in the framework of the bilateral meetings held between 5 and 12 November 2012. On 13 November 2012, the President of the European Council presented a draft set of European Council conclusions which include all the elements which will need to be part of an agreement. The text presented further develops the work carried out by the presidencies, differentiating in a number of aspects, something normal at this stage.

Last Monday we had an extensive meeting with Mr Lamassoure, Chair of the Committee on Budgets, and the negotiating team of Parliament, along with the head of the cabinet of President Van Rompuy and the competent Commissioners. This meeting allowed for a fruitful and productive exchange of views on the draft European Council Conclusions and for Parliament’s substantial input. We all know how important it is to get the EU’s future financial framework right.

The Presidency supports the President of the European Council in his determination to secure a deal later this week. This is essential for the credibility of the Union and for its ability to deliver to and on behalf of its citizens.

This package takes us towards an eventual compromise. The proposal reduces the original Commission proposal by approximately EUR 75 billion for the MFF itself and an additional EUR 6 billion for those elements outside the MFF. The draft conclusions do not contain options.

This Parliament has consistently sought to maintain the level of expenditure originally proposed by the Commission. Even if, on a personal basis, I may regret that this has not proved possible, we must all be realistic. Europe has been through one of the most severe crises, and despite significant efforts at both national and EU level, the effects of this crisis will continue to be felt for some time. We have no choice but to reflect this dire situation in the MFF and draw and assume the ensuring outfall.

We live at a time of severe constraint as a result of the need for fiscal consolidation. The negotiations on the European budget cannot take place in complete isolation from this reality, however uncomfortable that is. We need to cement together fiscal consolidation with investment in growth and jobs through an unavoidably tight MFF, which is our main investment tool.

Of course we are fully aware of the arguments on European added value, complementarity, synergy, economies of scale and how valid all those arguments are, but under the circumstances it was felt that these parameters could be appropriately addressed through the improvement of the quality of spending.

To reach a compromise we have to go below the Commission proposal. I cannot say now by how much exactly, but I believe that the latest proposals are not very far from where we are likely to end up. The conclusions put forward by the President of the European Council contain cuts across all headings.

As regards instruments outside the MFF and flexibility, the President has been guided by the principle that lower ceilings require greater flexibility in a seven-year framework. It is not therefore proposed to reduce the flexibility instrument. Furthermore, a contingency margin is part of the package.

You may have seen that the conclusions also put forward some proposals from the revenue side such as retaining the option of reforming the VAT-based own resource while the option of having the financial transaction tax as an own resource has also been kept on the table. Last, but not least, a reform of the system of corrections is proposed in order to make them more transparent and fair, within the limits of what seems to be achievable.

The whole day tomorrow will be taken up with bilaterals between the Presidents of the European Council and of the European Commission with all heads of state or government of Member States to test out the likely basis on which a compromise can be reached. The European Council will open tomorrow evening, with a discussion with you, Mr President.

I know that President Van Rompuy is committed to achieving a compromise. The European Council is therefore expected to last as long as it takes.

Let me conclude by saying that throughout this whole process the representatives of Parliament have been extremely helpful and cooperative. You will see that a number of your concerns have been addressed in the draft European Council conclusions. I am sure that all the institutions and the Member States will do their utmost to ensure that we reach a conclusion on this issue by the end of the year. The Cyprus Presidency stands ready to facilitate the agreement both amongst the Member States and with Parliament.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow and the day after, the European Council will meet in Brussels to discuss the future budgetary framework of the European Union for the period 2014-2020.

what is at stake is the prosperity and stability of Europe, its economic competitiveness and social cohesion. The goal is sustainable, job-creating growth, but as we all know, we cannot legislate for growth or create jobs by waving a magic wand.

From the Europe 2020 strategy to the conclusions of the European Council of June 2012, declarations calling for job-creating, sustainable development have come thick and fast. the question now is how the governments intend to match their deeds to their words.

The decisions on the European Union’s future budgetary framework are a key test of our credibility, because the European budget is our main instrument for investing in growth and job creation. We have plenty of other ways to promote growth, through the internal market and international trade, for example, but in terms of investment the main tool is the European budget.

The European budget alone can ensure the funding for a European dynamic that national budgets individually could not support. This dynamic is crucial for growth and jobs in Europe, because it creates a genuine European area of economic, social and territorial cohesion, education, research and innovation, and infrastructure.

Let us be perfectly clear: the governments will defend, first and foremost, what they see as their national interest, and it is for the Community institutions – the Commission and Parliament – to present the truly European dimension of the issues at stake. The Commission is still convinced that its proposals represent the general European interest and the interests of all the Member States.

The European budget is not, as is sometimes claimed, a budget for Brussels or Strasbourg. More than 94 % of the budget is spent entirely on European citizens. It is a budget for investing in the economy of all Member States, our regions, towns and countryside. It is a budget for achieving the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and for strengthening convergence and European solidarity.

It is thus essentially what enables improvements to be made at European level to the lives of our fellow citizens, above all through the cohesion policy, which is the ultimate policy of solidarity, but equally a policy for growth, economic convergence and job creation.

Cohesion policy has been able to adapt to the circumstances and has proved more necessary than ever in these times of austerity. It is a policy that serves both the beneficiary countries and the contributors.

In a third of the Member States, more than 50 % of public investment is cofinanced with cohesion policy funds. In some countries, the rate is as high as 75 %, or even 97 %.

These figures show just how important these policies are. Without Structural Funds, these countries – especially most of the new Member States – will not be able to guarantee jobs or press ahead with their fiscal consolidation or structural reforms.

However, these policies also benefit the contributing countries, and specifically the largest contributors to the budget, whose companies in turn benefit from considerable investment opportunities.

In many cases, there is clear evidence that more than 50 % of the Structural Funds allocated to cohesion countries flow back to the economies of the major contributing countries, because it is the companies in these countries that are able to carry out large infrastructure projects and provide the necessary technology. This really is a win-win policy.

Cohesion policy is not just a policy for the poorest Members: according to the Treaties, it is a policy of economic, social and territorial cohesion for the entire European Union. It is a goal for the European Union as a whole.

The budget of the European Union allows us to have genuinely common policies. As a result of the synergies achieved in this way, we can make savings while safeguarding the integrity of the single market. This is true of agriculture, for example, where 27 different national policies would be a lot more expensive than one common agriculture policy. Have we really thought about what would happen if there were no common agriculture policy? If we had market fragmentation in Europe as a result of 27 different national agricultural policies?

The CAP has always proved adaptable to new socioeconomic challenges, and is even now undergoing further reform. Europe needs a strong, up-to-date, competitive, innovative and green CAP more than ever, to meet the European public’s demands for food supplies and a healthy lifestyle, but also to help combat climate change and contribute to the sustainable management of our natural resources.

To those who say – and some do – that we must scale down our proposal because the Community budget must contribute to the vast fiscal consolidation effort under way in Europe, I say: ‘that is exactly what we are doing’. Pooling expenditure in our common policies represents added value and hence real savings, and it benefits, first and foremost, the European taxpayer.

To be quite clear, opposing this budget will not advance the cause of fiscal consolidation. It will, in fact, hamper it by sacrificing expenditure that brings greater synergies and efficiency, and promises greater returns. The European budget allows us to create a real European space that is much more than the sum of its parts.

Sharing costs enables us to develop other projects, too, such as the free movement of knowledge, which we call the ‘fifth freedom’. This is how we will achieve better results in the key areas of education and research, which are vital to a competitive Europe that can maintain or establish its leadership in the sectors of the future.

This is exactly what we are proposing in our ‘Erasmus for All’ programme, which will cost less than 2 % of the total budget but will make a huge difference to millions of young Europeans who will be able to study, train and work in another country.

It is also what we are proposing in the Horizon 2020 programme, to ensure that Europe remains a place of innovation and spectacular scientific breakthroughs.

A group of Nobel Prize winners in the sciences and winners of the Fields medal for mathematics have signed a joint petition, which they presented to me recently in Brussels. This petition, which was launched by 44 European Nobel laureates and six Fields medallists and has already collected the signatures of over 130 000 European scientists, predominantly young researchers, reminds us that a euro invested in research and innovation, which brings together the very best talent at European level, will often have a greater impact than a euro spent at national level.

These researchers and scientists applaud the globally recognised success of the European Research Council set up by the European Union. At a time when the European Union is starting to attract the best researchers in the world and young European researchers are deciding to stay in Europe, the worst thing that Europe could do would be to cut off the fuel to the jet engine of European research and innovation just as the plane is taking off.

The European budget also allows the Member States to finance projects that they would not be able to fund themselves, such as the large pan-European networks needed to ‘connect’ Europe.

You are familiar with our proposal for the Connecting Europe Facility to promote interconnected trans-European networks in transport, energy and digital technology.

Several of Europe’s leading CEOs, whose vision is European and global, not parochial and mean-spirited, have signed a letter calling for the budget to support this Facility. Why? Because they know perfectly well that without the European budget there would be no lever to carry out this investment in the infrastructure that is essential to the Europe we envisage.

There are also areas where, by pooling our powers, we can achieve better results, for example in justice and security, in the smooth running of the Schengen area, and in the fight against illegal immigration. Things cannot go on as they are now. Whenever there is a very serious problem of illegal immigration, people look to Europe and ask what Europe is doing about it. As we all very well know, however, Europe does not have the resources to tackle this problem unless we share national powers in this area.

What we are proposing, therefore, is better spending to achieve targeted results in our main priority areas. Some people are calling for cuts on all sides, on the grounds that it will not really make any difference to Europe. However, I can assure you that what might be a small amount for Europe as a whole can make an enormous difference to some of our policies and some of our countries.

What does each billion cut from the Horizon 2020 programme mean? It means 4 000 small and medium-sized enterprises deprived of financing for innovation to create jobs and growth; and 600 top researchers and their teams who will no longer be able to carry out their work, work upon which our future prosperity depends. It means, for example, the end of the Innovative Medicines Initiative in the health sector.

A small percentage cut for ‘Connecting Europe’ spells the end of European leadership in transport. It means abandoning our CO2 reduction projects, such as the carbon capture and storage project, and dropping our plans to develop connections re-linking Eastern Europe with Western Europe. If we make cuts, even small ones, to the already relatively modest culture budget, we will forfeit job creation in a key sector and stifle European creativity at a time when this is more vital than ever.

(Applause)

Making cuts to the Commission’s proposal to create a Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived might not have a major impact on the overall amount, but it will make a dramatic difference to the 116 million Europeans, including 25 million children, facing poverty and social exclusion.

(Applause)

Quite frankly, ladies and gentlemen, how do you explain to the people of Europe that when there are summits in Brussels to find hundreds of billions of euros to save the banks, we reach an agreement, but when it comes to a few million to help the poor, the negative voices outnumber the positive ones? What are they to make of that?

(Applause)

If we call into question the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund when there are unacceptable levels of unemployment in Europe, we will deprive millions of unemployed people of the chance to train and find work. We will also do away with one of the most innovative instruments for providing social support when companies relocate to other countries.

A few thousandths of a percentage cut to European Development Fund and humanitarian aid is a matter of life and death for the world’s most vulnerable people, because these are not just figures, but real people’s lives. Such a move would go against our values, but also our interests. I repeat: I am not just talking generally about values and interests here, I am talking about real people. For example, I recently visited a Syrian refugee camp in Jordan where UNICEF’s Executive Director told me that without European Union aid none of those young girls and boys would have access to education at all. The girls I saw there were studying in tents. Their towns had been destroyed by the Assad regime. They are pouring across the borders in their hundreds of thousands and Europe is there to help. Are we going to cut back our efforts now in the face of such tragedies?

Yesterday, Mr President, you hosted the President of Haiti here in Strasbourg. I also had the opportunity to receive him in Brussels. On behalf of the Haitian people, he thanked Europe, which, in spite of its economic difficulties, has not forgotten Haiti, a country completely devastated by the earthquake that killed over 300 000 of its people. He thanked Europe for giving Haiti’s children hope for the future.

In Africa, where we Europeans have a special responsibility, and in many other countries of the world, too, Europe cannot renege on its commitments to achieve the Millennium Development Goals.

That is the Europe I believe in, that we all believe in: an open, caring Europe, a Europe that is not about to turn its back on the rest of the world!

Ladies and gentlemen, giving the European Union the budget it deserves means giving ourselves the possibility of rebuilding the economy on new foundations. It also means keeping our promise that spending will be mobilised for growth and jobs, competitiveness and convergence.

That is why the Commission remains committed to its initial proposal. The Union budget must genuinely support our growth agenda, and I am pleased to see that, in general, our proposals are backed by this Parliament and by a majority of the Member States.

On 13 November, I joined Parliament’s President at a summit of the Friends of Cohesion in the European Parliament in Brussels. It was organised jointly by the Prime Minister of Poland and the Prime Minister of Portugal and was attended by representatives of 16 governments, the social partners, BUSINESSEUROPE and the European Trade Union Confederation. The social partners, which do not always agree, are in agreement on this. They are pushing for the EU budget not to be cut as it is essential for growth. The message from them was clear and unanimous.

That is why I called on the ‘friends of cohesion’ and the friends of ‘better spending’ to unite in a grand European coalition of the ‘friends of growth’. The greatest risk I see today is that the cuts will damage those forward-looking areas that are essential for growth. There is a paradox here: it is precisely because of certain demands by the ‘better spending’ group that we are busy cutting the overall budget, which in all likelihood will most jeopardise those policies that look to the future and enhance competitiveness.

I do not deny that the better spending agenda is crucial, and I have said as much to the cohesion countries, too. I am a fan of cohesion, but I am also a fan of better spending. Let us be frank: we must be critical of some types of European spending that have not always brought added value as far as competitiveness is concerned.

This is why we want to align cohesion policy with the Europe 2020 objectives for sustainable, intelligent growth, not just any form of growth. For this reason – and I know this is not very popular in certain quarters, but I have to say it – we are in favour of macroeconomic conditionalities in this area. We must align our various policies within the framework of the efforts being made for better economic governance. It is thus essential that our investment is efficient. The added value of every single euro is essential.

I do wonder, nonetheless, whether those who would also like to make deep cuts in administrative expenditure are really concerned about efficiency, in the sense of wanting to make the best possible use of the resources available, or whether their real aim is to weaken the institutions like the Commission and the Parliament.

(Applause)

A swingeing cut in expenditure that represents less than 6 % of the budget would have only a minimal effect on the overall savings being sought. We need – and this has to be said – an independent civil service in Europe, a high-calibre civil service to draft laws and develop projects to serve Europe as a whole.

Before I conclude, let me add two further points. First, the Commission is fighting for appropriate flexibility. It must be possible to adapt the budget, over the years, to changes in the economic situation. The contributions must therefore be real money, not virtual resources, particularly when we are currently facing a crisis in certain Member States that need to be able to make investment not in 2020 but in 2014, under the new European budget and even before that under the budgets for 2012 and 2013.

Secondly, the Commission reiterates its proposal for a system of own resources that is closer to the rules of the Treaty, which state that the Union budget should be financed from own resources. It is important that in the next few days the European Council indicates its willingness to proceed in that direction.

The main thing, finally, ladies and gentlemen, is that we all work together towards these objectives, in a spirit of loyal cooperation.

Of course, negotiation is all about making compromises. The Commission will go to the meeting of the European Council with this in mind, but we must remember that we need constructive compromises, compromises that strengthen Europe, not help to destroy it. Everyone has a role to play in this. What is important is that we have a budget that acts as a real catalyst for growth and job creation.

I would therefore ask the Heads of State or Government meeting in Brussels to listen to the voices of the Nobel Prize winners in the sciences, who remind us that the future of Europe depends on research and innovation. Listen to the voices of Erasmus students, who want the best possible education. Listen to the voices of the regions, business organisations and trade unions in their own countries, who tell us how essential investment is for recovery and growth. Listen to the voices of entrepreneurs, who are waiting for investment in infrastructure to connect Europe by means of transport, energy and digital technology. Listen to the voices of the people queuing at food banks, who cannot understand why, in this current social crisis, so many countries offer so little hope to the poor. Listen to the voices of the unemployed, who look to Europe to offer better prospects for the future. Listen to the voices of our international partners, humanitarian organisations, non-governmental organisations, who are asking that Europe remain engaged in the world, committed to development aid and to providing leadership in the fight against climate change and for sustainable development. Listen to the voices of children throughout the world, who say that without the European Union they would be without hope.

I urge the European governments to listen to the voice of this democratically elected Parliament, which represents Europe’s citizens. I urge them to listen so that we can build a stronger Europe, a Europe of growth and jobs.

  Joseph Daul, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office, President of the Commission, José Manuel, I do not know if I should make a speech: I fully support yours! I do not need to repeat it but I will just echo a few comments that you made and look at them in more detail, although I feel that you covered everything.

The only thing that has not been said is that with EUR 1.1 billion or EUR 1.13 billion, the budget that we have today, we can continue our policies; but below EUR 1 billion, we cannot do anything. I think that the Commission and Parliament have to stand firm in relation to what is happening now in the Council.

As you said, on the one hand, there are those who want a long-term budget that can meet the challenges ahead: because the European budget is an investment budget and not a budget of expenditure; because we need it to relaunch growth and job creation and, in my opinion, no Head of State or Government is opposed to that. Then there are those who want a reduced budget to make short-term savings. In these conditions, do we really need a summit this afternoon? We need to meet to discuss, but not to reduce, the budget.

The European Parliament’s position is clear, however; this position is now that of the majority in Europe and 517 Members of this Parliament voted for a multiannual financial framework (MFF) that is realistic and meets our ambitions. Sixteen Heads of Government are following this line and they met last week, as you said. If I were to give them one piece of advice, I would say: ‘be united at the Council and stand firm when it comes to defending our common budget’.

At the risk of repeating myself, those who see only a free trade area and a single market in Europe are lying to themselves and they are lying to their citizens. The European Union is, above all, a Community of values, including that of solidarity. Did you know that, through the European Stability Mechanism, the Estonians and the Slovakians are helping to fund pensions in Greece, which are even higher than their own? I wanted to highlight this – and it is not said often enough – because these countries believe in the added value of Europe.

Ladies and gentlemen, my group is convinced that the European Union needs a sound, solid, responsible budget because, with the crisis, it is the only way for certain Member States to make investments. In the Baltic countries, for example, a Prime Minister told me last week that without funding from Europe, railway lines will continue to be connected to Moscow, and not to Europe. That is not what European integration means. However, like us, the Baltic countries need these connections to Europe. To achieve the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy, we will need more than a trillion euros worth of investment in infrastructure networks. Yes, most of these investments will be private, but without European support, without cofinancing on our part, these projects will not see the light of day because of a lack of start-up capital.

Let us take another example: we decided to invest nearly EUR 270 billion so that all European households and all our businesses benefit from broadband between now and 2020. However, if we had waited for private investment alone to achieve this, we would only have reached EUR 50 billion. That would mean no broadband for Europe as we would be EUR 220 billion short. These investments are necessary for our businesses, however. They create jobs, they stimulate the economy, and they contribute to our competitiveness. The only way to get out of this economic crisis is to develop through investment.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are at a crossroads. Either we learn the lessons of these last 60 years and we work together to relaunch Europe around peace, solidarity and competitiveness, or we trap ourselves in selfish, nationalist positions and founder together.

The 16 Member States plus Croatia who met last week in the European Parliament demonstrated that there is a core of Member States who want to move forward together. We, in the European Parliament, are going to defend our position on the budget. We will defend the European aid programme for the poor, which you mentioned. The proposal to reduce this programme by EUR 400 million is unacceptable. We will not allow this programme to be touched, even if we have to make an effort on all the other budget lines. It is out of the question to sacrifice aid to our poorest citizens, especially since their number will grow with the crisis.

We have to fulfil this responsibility in order to support the NGOs that look after these people voluntarily. Removing this funding from the budget is not really a sign of solidarity; it is exactly the opposite. I am counting on this Parliament: we must not allow this position to be attacked.

We will defend the Europe in which we believe: not a sum of countries that pick and choose from the menu of common policies, but a real union of 27 that is united, responsible and prosperous.

We are at a crossroads. It is our duty, ladies and gentlemen, to stand firm if things do not move in the right direction, and it is also our duty to go beyond the selfish, national positions in our various countries to pave the way for the Europe of the future.

(Applause)

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, EUR 50 billion less; no, EUR 80 billion less; EUR 100 billion, EUR 200 billion: who is offering more and who is offering less? This is the question which appears to be uppermost in the minds of the European governments today. It is a shameful ‘race to the bottom’, with no discussion of the tasks on the European Union’s agenda. It is as if the European budget were a zero-sum game: what I give to you, I lose, and what you win, I lose.

There are plenty of companies from the net contributors operating in the cohesion countries, investing and creating jobs but also earning income, but this is conveniently ignored. It is not a zero-sum game, it is a united Europe to which we should be committed. It is a Europe with a specific agenda to fulfil. The President has pointed out that we should not only be talking numbers, we should also talking tasks, and I am grateful to him for that. That is what the Commission President has done. Mr Barroso, I encourage you to maintain your fighting spirit! If you keep fighting, we will have you firmly on our side and then, together, we will achieve a successful outcome.

Let me ask the Council this. What about Europe’s numerous young unemployed? How are they supposed to manage without Europe’s assistance? Is that the message we want to send out to them? Should we scale down successful programmes like Erasmus? Is that how we should prepare for the mobility that is required? Should research funding, which is already in short supply, be cut back even further? Is that our contribution to competitiveness? Should a European budgetary straitjacket now be introduced in parallel to the national budget restraint and the credit crunch? Let me make the point that we did not create the debt; it was the individual Member States that did that. Is this our contribution to growth?

President Barroso has already mentioned international solidarity, and especially our solidarity towards neighbouring countries. Are these concepts merely empty words? I would ask the foreign ministers to remain silent next time if they are not prepared to follow their words with action and financial assistance.

Have we set excessively high targets for development cooperation? We said that this is a policy area that Europe can now deal with, so national budgets can be reduced, but now cuts are being called for at the European level as well. That is the policy approach being advocated here. It is a policy that lacks courage. Yes, we need to make savings, but why are we not seeing the heads of government making savings in relation to the establishment of the European patent court, for example? Apparently, the court now needs three separate sites! What is more, Mr Cameron, the economiser-in-chief, is determined to host one of these sites in London! That has nothing to do with restraint!

Why are we not generating funds where there is scope to do so, for example through more efficient measures to tackle tax evasion and tax avoidance? The approach adopted here is one of extreme caution, but if tackled properly, it would yield enough funding for the European and the national budgets.

We should not confuse thriftiness with a lack of courage. In the European Parliament, we – my group and many fellow Members – are prepared to make savings. However, we also have the courage to commit to the tasks that lie ahead. We are not simply making demands; we want to play our part. That is not always popular here in the House, but we have the courage to do so. Let me say this to the members of the Council: we also have the courage to say ‘no’ when we are presented with bad compromises. We are prepared to vote for compromises, but not bad ones. The Council needs to understand that.

There is much more that I would like to say about the budget, but in response to recent events, I would also like to touch upon an issue which is causing us grave concern and which, perhaps, has an – albeit indirect – connection with the budget, namely the situation in Gaza. I think we would all be willing to contribute larger sums of money from our budgets if this helped to offer the people in Palestine, especially in the Gaza Strip, a brighter future, indeed, any future at all.

We would all like to see Israel pursuing policies which give more scope and leeway to the Gaza Strip and release it from the present stranglehold. However, let me make one thing very clear, and I say this quite deliberately: Hamas must stop targeting civilians in Israel at last. This is not helping the people of Gaza, it does not promote peace, and it does not give us Europeans any possibility of bringing influence to bear on Israel and encouraging it to pursue different policies at last, and by that I mean policies which would be beneficial to people in this region.

We want to help the people in the region, and international aid and the assistance from the European Union are essential here. Every day, we see new conflicts emerging in the world around us, and then these same heads of government and foreign ministers want to make cuts. Let me say this: I hope that the Egyptians will have the chance to help build peace, and by that I mean peace in the region, where peace is so urgently needed. That would also give Europe the opportunity to bring influence to bear, together with Egypt, and encourage Israel to pursue policies which give fresh prospects to the people of Palestine. However, Hamas should abandon its senseless policy of targeting civilians. That is something we cannot tolerate. That should be the clear message sent out from this sitting of the European Parliament today.

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

  Krisztina Morvai (NI), Blue-card question. – Do you think, Mr Swoboda, that it is fair to EU taxpayers that Israel destroys Gaza every now and then? Every couple of years the citizens of the European Union have to build it up again. Would it not be fairer to stop Israel killing innocent people in Gaza and stop the violence and stop the occupation as well?

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D), Blue-card answer. – (DE) Mr President, Ms Morvai, if you had listened attentively, you would have understood what I said about Israel and Gaza. Yes, we do want to use our budgetary resources so that whatever we build actually remains standing over the long term. There were two points to be made here, and I expressed both of them very clearly. The war must end. In the past, we spent too much money on building things that were later destroyed.

It is important to make that clear, but we should not draw a veil over the other aspect. For me, that means sending a clear signal to Hamas. We must work with Egypt to help bring peace to this region. That is important, also in order to ensure that the funds that we provide are not wasted but are used for our own region’s or our neighbours’ future.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, six years ago Tony Blair, who was then the President of the Council, when presenting the multiannual financial framework for 2006–2012 said in this House ‘never again must we repeat the negotiations on this framework in the same way’. But here we are again still talking about the same budget, a budget of more or less 1 % of Europe’s GDP, and we are still dealing with reluctant Britain.

The only difference now is that Mr Blair has been replaced by Mr Cameron and that the Labour Party is led now by Mr Edward Miliband who a few weeks ago – for purely populist reasons – made a coalition with the Europhobes of the Conservative Party to make a deal on the EU budget even more difficult, if not impossible. So there we are for the moment.

I will not talk about the details of this budget, but let me be very blunt: the whole debate on a little bit more or a little bit less than 1 % of the European GDP is completely ridiculous. First of all, the budgets of Member States like Germany and France are eight to 10 times bigger than the European budget. In recent years they have increased faster than the European budget.

The European budget is EUR 140 billion. Do you know what the total budgets of all the Member States of the European Union are? EUR 6 300 billion, EUR 6.3 trillion, that is 50 times bigger than the European budget of EUR 140 billion. The daily contribution of citizens to the European budget is 67 cents a day; that is less than a cup of coffee or, for Mr Callanan, less than a cup of tea.

Secondly, in the United States, the federal budget is 24 % of GDP. Switzerland is a confederation and has a budget of 12 % of GDP, and we cannot agree on 1 %. The European budget is smaller than the budget of smaller Member States like Belgium or Austria. I have the latest figures here: between 2000 and 2010 national budgets in the EU increased by 62 %, that is more or less twice as much as the European budget.

If we want to make a real federal European Union, which we will need to do for tomorrow, the least we can say is that 1 % will not be enough in the future. It is a good starting point, but it cannot be the endgame for the future if we want to really tackle the problems. If we want to overcome the euro crisis or if we want to have a general union, we will need more.

Finally, cuts in the European budget are seen in many of our Member States, and certainly in Britain, as the way to solve their budgetary problems. But the opposite is true. A strong European budget is the only way to overcome the budgetary problems of the Member States: pooling money at European level instead of wasting money at the national level. We have to be very firm on this, and politically this Parliament has to be ready to block a deal if it does not correspond to what was proposed by the Commission.

  Helga Trüpel, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – (DE) Mr President, Commission President, President-in-Office of the Council, here in the European Union, we are dealing with a banking crisis. Unfortunately, we are also dealing with a sovereign debt crisis, a political crisis, an institutional crisis, and, increasingly, a crisis in the public’s acceptance of the European Union as well.

Why is the next common budget for 2014-2020 so crucial for the future of Europe’s citizens? The answer is this: because it must express something that hopefully still exists, namely the shared European will to build a better future; in other words, a European commitment or a volonté générale européenne.

From my perspective, David Cameron has simply got it wrong. His logic is that the United Kingdom must make savings, so Europe must do so too, and to the same extent. However, this shows a complete failure to understand that there must be joint investment if we want to invest sustainably in the coming years and genuinely invest in the future. China, India and Brazil will not stand and wait. We have to act together if we genuinely want to assert our citizens’ interests. It is also a false argument, because the fact is that during the period from 2007 to 2013, the European budget grew by just 1.95 %, compared with much larger increases in all the national budgets. This is disproportionate if we genuinely want to press ahead with resolute European policies.

Let me reiterate a point made by previous speakers. We are not acting out of egotistical institutional self-interest. This is not about more money for its own sake. It is about securing the additional funding that we need to offer our citizens a better future. It is about generating new competitiveness in the European Union, and ensuring that there is no repetition of the mistakes made in the past, with the bubbles in Spain and elsewhere. It is about genuine and sustainable growth. It is about research and development. It is about sustainable, future-oriented investment. It is about combating youth unemployment, supporting the transformation of our energy systems, promoting technologies and products that reduce our carbon footprint, supporting organic farming, refurbishing the existing building stock, developing the literacy skills of many people in Europe, and investing in our creative industries, which often create more jobs than other sectors. It is about education, education, education, so it is about Erasmus, but it is also about the European film industry, for example. I mention this because we have the award of the LUX Prize later.

When Chancellor Merkel spoke to us two weeks ago, she made the following error in my view. She said that 27 Member States had agreed, jointly, to invest 3 % in research and development. This same lady is the leader of a coalition of net contributors in the Council, and their proposals to the Cyprus Presidency include a full 12 % reduction in R&D. This is political schizophrenia! This is not coherence; it is blindness towards the future. The European Parliament rejects this policy and these proposals from Cyprus and Chancellor Merkel, and does so by a large majority!

We must show that we are resolute in our commitment to shared investment. Of course, we need to answer the question of where the funds should come from, if not from contributions based on GDP, which, as Mr Verhofstadt has reiterated, is no longer a viable model. It causes major conflicts and results in an approach to negotiations which, in essence, aims to push everything down to the lowest level. That is why the introduction of the financial transaction tax and other new sources of own resources is crucially important. It will give us more political autonomy, more shared interests, and is also a justice issue. The banks must contribute to covering the costs of the crisis. We cannot simply carry on pumping money into the banks. They must take on a share of social responsibility and contribute to the European budget. That is why Commissioner Lewandoski’s proposal, his model for the financial transaction tax – with two-thirds going to the European budget, and one-third to the national budgets – is a very good model and creates positive incentives.

Yes, we must combat tax avoidance because Europe’s citizens rightly regard it as extremely unfair if those who are unwilling to pay, including the wealthy in Greece, are not pursued and made to pay their share. That is something that we should no longer accept. This is a social justice issue and we need to take action here.

My final comment is this. We are only willing to support a genuine agreement if the level of funding is truly in line with what is needed to perform our future agenda, and if there is more flexibility within the budget, as well as genuine own resources. If the Council does not show substantial movement here, we are prepared to say no, and we will do so – let me say it again – not out of egotistical self-interest but in the interests of Europe’s citizens!

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

  John Stuart Agnew (EFD), Blue-card question. – Mr President, I would like to ask the Greens’ spokesperson why we need organic farming. This is a system of farming that is 50 years out of date, that does not produce enough for us to eat and that guarantees that food will be more expensive. Why do you want to inflict this on the people of Europe?

  Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE), Blue-card answer. – (DE) Mr President, I believe that we do need a reform of agricultural policy. We should not revert to purely national agricultural policies; that would be a step backwards into national ways of thinking. I do not like words such as repatriation, or the emphasis on purely national interests. That is not a responsible policy for the 21st century.

Nonetheless, there is a substantial need for reform in our agricultural policy. Some of the direct payments to agroindustry are unsustainable, and we cannot continue in this manner. For that reason, however, we need a well-crafted second pillar and the resources that are necessary to initiate reform. That is what I am campaigning for, that is what my fellow Greens stand for, and I hope that we will be able to convince more people that we need healthy food and can continue to pursue a Community policy in this area.

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, for my Group this debate encapsulates everything that needs to change about the EU. We reject the knee-jerk response of most of the people in this Chamber that the solution to every problem that we have in Member States is somehow ‘more Europe’. So, increasingly, does public opinion.

I say to President Barroso that he and many other people in this Chamber have argued that the EU budget is there to promote economic growth. We have heard a lot of glib talk from all sides of this Chamber that it is an investment budget. If it was, perhaps on this side of the House we might support more bits of it, because nobody actually believes that it is an investment budget.

If it is an investment budget, how come 40 % of it is still spent on subsidies for farmers? What about the 6 % of the budget that is for administration costs? That is not about investment for growth either. Eight Member States – not just the UK – wrote to President Barroso saying that the EUR 2 billion cost of pensions for EU civil servants in the future was unaffordable and that reform was required. You completely ignored that letter.

Mr Barroso, how can you insist – and how can the rest of you insist – that we need more spending and more money at an EU level? Five per cent of the existing budget, according to the Court of Auditors, is either spent illegally or irregularly – something like EUR 5 billion. If that money was accounted for properly, if the Commission got its expenditure controls in place, then that would take up almost all of the increase that you are all asking for.

Let us ask about some of the existing projects. Is that all money well spent? How has doubling the number of EU agencies in the last eight years affected growth across Europe? What about the new ECB building in Frankfurt that cost several hundred million euros? How is that going to contribute to more growth in Greece? And what about our presence here in Strasbourg? That costs EUR 200 million a year. How is that contributing to growth in Member States? It is not, of course. Nobody seriously believes that it is.

Mr Barroso, the EU is not short of money. It just spends the money that it has very, very badly. Let us be quite clear about this. To meet your demands for more spending, virtually every contributing Member State is going to have to borrow that extra money. They are going to have to cut their public expenditure in order to send more money to the EU.

It is completely unsustainable, it is unhelpful, and many Member States will not stand for it. Can you seriously, in all good conscience, ask those Member States to borrow that extra money to make cuts at home so that we can all spend more money here in Europe?

It is time for the EU to spend the money that it already has better so that it creates growth in national economies. Instead of demanding yet more money, why not take the time to go through the existing budget, line by line, asking yourself whether this item of expenditure really results in more economic growth in Europe?

It is not just Conservatives who are saying these things, Mr Swoboda. Even some of the socialists, I am pleased to say, are starting to see the light. The UK socialists actually want a cut in the budget, not just a freeze, which is Mr Cameron’s position. They voted in the House of Commons for a cut. And what about your great, latter-day socialist hero, President Hollande? He fought an election – remember that? – on an end to austerity. What is he saying now? He said last week that ‘we must be ready to do better by spending less’. That is the great socialist hero that you tell us is setting an example for the rest of Europe to follow.

Let me say a word about new Member States. I think that enlargement has been one of the EU’s great success stories. I think that we have to accept that it will cost more money to support those Member States whose infrastructure was neglected in their communist past. That is why I believe that cohesion spending for new Member States should be maintained, even within an overall freeze or a cut in the multiannual financial framework.

The way to do that is through budgetary reform, so that cohesion policy is limited to helping those countries that need it most. It is ridiculous that 40 % of current structural and cohesion funding goes to the EU’s richest countries. Countries like my own should be freed to support our poor regions ourselves without funnelling the money through the inefficient mechanism of the EU budget. I agree with the proposals put forward by our previous socialist government that cohesion policy should be repatriated to the richer Member States and that money only be used to fund the poorer Member States who deserve that spending.

I am a bit of an optimist. I believe that a better budget – not just a bigger budget – is still achievable in the summit this week. I hope that Member States, with good grace and goodwill, will sit down and agree that we need better EU spending and not just more EU spending.

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

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D), blue-card question. – Mr Callanan, sometimes there are differences in the voting behaviour in this House and in the House of Commons, as in other parliaments. This is not unusual. But did you read Mr Miliband’s speech at the CBI? Do you agree with Mr Miliband that it would be a catastrophe for Britain to leave the European Union? Do you agree with Mr Miliband that it is a catastrophe permanently to threaten to leave the European Union? Do you agree with the CBI that it would be a catastrophe for Britain to leave the European Union? Do you agree with the financial services in London that it would be a catastrophe for Britain to leave the Union? If you can agree and subscribe to what Mr Ed Miliband said at the CBI Conference, I take your criticisms seriously, but first you have to agree with Ed Miliband on the necessity for Britain to stay in the European Union and to be a constructive partner of the other partners in the European Union.

  Martin Callanan (ECR), Blue-card answer. – I did not read Ed Miliband’s speech to the CBI conference. I am sure it was the usual socialist waffle. I am sure Ms Willmott has a copy of it there; maybe she can send it to me later.

Believe it or not, Mr Swoboda, I do not spend all my time sitting reading speeches from various socialist leaders, so I am not going to comment on what he had to say. I noticed you did not address the fundamental point that I made: the socialists in the UK are in favour of a cut in the EU budget.

Incidentally, the one Green MP that we have in our country, a Member who used to sit in their Group, voted for a cut in the European budget as well. So let us hear no lectures from the Greens either about increases in public expenditure in Europe.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, Prime Minister Cameron heads to Brussels tomorrow – I think, on ‘Mission Impossible’ – but it is a remarkable debate, in that the European Union is talking about taking another trillion euros from European taxpayers, despite the fact that the accounts have not been signed off for 18 years in a row. If this was a company, the directors, in this case the Commission, would all be in prison. But never mind; Mr Cameron will go and he will argue for a freeze, or what he means by a freeze, which is the same over-bloated budget with increases for inflation. And that actually is the very best that he can achieve in these negotiations. I have no doubt that, when he comes home, the UK taxpayer will have an even bigger bill.

This will not work because the public mood in Britain is now very clear: what our taxpayers are saying is that enough is enough. No longer do we wish to pay money to Hungarian companies involved in projects that improve the lifestyle and living standards of dogs. And our patience has completely snapped at such cultural absurdities as the EUR 400 000 given to the Flying Gorillas dance troupe who, using their own language of ‘rhythm, music and gibberish’ – they would fit in well here, would they not? – give performances such as the brilliant Smelly Foot dance, with an acoustic score that includes some ‘spectacular belching’. No, I am not making it up.

I think the British public are angry at the fleets of chauffeur-driven cars, at the extravagant buildings and the never-ending travelling circus that is the European Parliament. We pay GBP 53 million a day to be a member of this organisation for no benefit whatsoever.

Mr Cameron, when you come back from this Brussels summit, why do you not accept my challenge and let us have a proper full debate on Britain and whether it is worth staying a member of this Union or not. The last opinion polls over the weekend show that, by a majority of two to one, the British people now want us to leave this Union and not to pay you a penny piece.

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

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), Blue-card question. – I have just two very simple questions for Mr Farage. If you believe that this House is useless why have you run for election to this House to represent your constituents here? And why do you come to Strasbourg each month to take part in our debates?

  Nigel Farage (EFD), Blue-card answer. – There is a parliamentary tradition of MPs entering assemblies but wishing to use their position in the interests of secession. We saw it with the Irish nationalists in the 19th century. Indeed, Sinn Fein run for elections to the UK Parliament, and the Scottish National Party sit in the UK Parliament. We came here because we felt that the British public were not being told what was happening in Europe and how much it was costing. We have used our position here to try to get that information back to the British public. Given that now, by a majority of two to one, the Brits want to leave this Union, I would say that we are doing a pretty good job.

(Applause)

  Gabriele Zimmer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, listening to this line of argument, I find it very difficult to comprehend why you are working so hard to play down the value of the European Union. In my view, given the critical situation facing the European Union, what you are doing is simply engaging in smear tactics. I think it is unworthy of the House that speeches of this nature are being delivered here, when we have so little opportunity to rein you in.

I do not believe that you are genuinely representing the interests of the citizens of the United Kingdom when you unleash this kind of attack on the European Union and ultimately indulge in nothing more than nationalistic rhetoric and smear tactics.

I am sorry, but from my perspective, the situation is far too serious for that. Today, I heard a speech by Mr Barroso which I could actually agree with in many respects for the first time, although I noted the undertone, namely that this was a speech born out of desperation. It was a speech delivered against the backdrop of what is likely to happen at the summit over the last few days. Will our political leaders finally realise that they are the ones who are responsible for the functioning and, indeed, the survival and the future of the European Union, and that they need to find some common ground and take the important decisions that are needed?

The fact is that what has been submitted to us as the proposals for the budget, for the multiannual financial framework, will not help to strengthen the Union’s cohesion. The fact is that the current proposals are all based on drastic budget cuts. You are wrong when you say that what is being demanded here is an increase. Ultimately, what the Commission is additionally proposing merely balances out the extra tasks that have been assigned to the European Union and the challenges that the European Union is prepared to face.

Ultimately, no more money is being spent on administration or, indeed, on anything else, and it is quite simply a false argument to claim, as you do every time, that we need to make savings and focus on better spending first and foremost. If there are no resources available for better spending, your arguments fall wide of the mark.

Let me ask you this: how is the European Union meant to continue its campaign against poverty and social exclusion in future, for example, if the current proposals for the European budget for 2014-2020 already envisage a reduction in the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived, as they most certainly do? In de facto terms, this is a cut. You cannot simply say that what happens during the crisis in the European Union leaves you cold, when more and more people are falling into abject poverty and their livelihoods are at risk. You cannot say, ‘Oh well, Great Britain is 10 times more important to us’ in the belief that you can prevent this crisis from impacting on the most deprived people in your country as well. At that point, you will find that you are relying on European solidarity once again: and that means the solidarity that you are dragging through the mud today. Let me make that very clear.

I urge you – and I urge the German Government as well – to abandon this position, which erodes solidarity, and to give up these blocking tactics. By its actions, the Council is turning itself into a useless institution, and it will destroy the European Union unless different positions are adopted here at last, and by that I mean positions which have nothing to with narrow-minded, mean-spirited and nationalistic interests.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, there are several distinct questions apart from the obvious one of asking whether the EU should exist to spend any money at all. Is it spending money on the right things and the right recipients? Should it be the EU, as distinct from Member States, that spends that money? There are some items on which I would be happy for no money to be spent at all: the Year of the Citizen or the resettlement of economic migrants posing as asylum seekers.

There are other targets of expenditure which are perfectly proper, such as the support for industry or agriculture, but in these cases the function ought to be exercised by Member States. How much should each country pay and how much should each receive? The EU does not advertise itself as an instrument for the redistribution of income and wealth as an end in itself, although it does precisely that, in the name of social cohesion. Fellow nationals of a Member State have a sufficiently shared identity to regard the pooling of resources and support as perfectly justifiable. However, the pooling of resources and support further afield is often a stimulus for resentment and even aggression – not exactly what the EU would like to produce, which is social cohesion.

  Lucas Hartong (NI), Blue-card question to Gabriele Zimmer. – (NL) Mr President, we are here in the house of democracy and my question to my fellow member is whether I am only here to sing the praises of Europe, or whether I am here to represent the electorate in my homeland in a democratic system.

  Gabriele Zimmer (GUE/NGL), Blue-card answer. – (DE) Mr President, Mr Hartong, this is indeed about singing the praises of humanity and solidarity here in Europe. That applies to Members from your constituency as much as to Members from my own, or indeed from Mr Farage’s constituency.

  Ioannis Kasoulides (PPE). – Mr President, Member States make cuts so the Council’s logic is that cuts must be made to the EU budget and to the multiannual financial framework as well. Public opinion should know that the EU budget is always balanced without deficit. Member States make cuts in order to prevent or curtail deficit.

Secondly, this budget is, all but for six percent of administrative costs, a growth budget. Funds for agriculture, cohesion, research and innovation and Erasmus, are destined to be returned to the Member States with added value. It is hypocritical to talk about growth and, at the same time, target these guaranteed growth funds. Those who at least speak of more Europe must see this antithesis. This is the first message for the Council.

The second message has to do with the image of Europe. All the disappointment of the European citizens because of the euro crisis cannot withstand an impasse on the budget in the multiannual financial framework. All governments that believe in Europe must realise that neither can the friends of cohesion get as much aid as they would have wished, nor can the net contributors insist on the cuts they initially planned. As always, consensus must prevail.

Of course, Parliament reserves this right, provided for in the Treaties, if governments have abandoned any consideration of the common good fenced behind respective national interests. As for the government of the United Kingdom, the question is this. Will they opt out with grace for themselves or take all of us down with them?

  Göran Färm (S&D). – Mr President, this debate is not really about money. The budget corresponds to only about 2 % of European public expenditure; it has been falling as a proportion of the Member States’ economies for years and contrary to what Mr Callanan and Mr Farage believe, the main criticism from the Court of Auditors is not against the European institutions but on how EU money is handled by Member States.

The Member States who fight for cuts are the strongest ones; the ones who can pay if they feel that the Union is worth defending. No, it is not about money; this is a fight over the European model and the future of Europe. The reason why we Social Democrats, together with a huge majority of Parliament, defend the budget even in times of crisis is that the budget is the most significant expression of our fundamental policies. It is about European and even global solidarity. It is about creating a European added value and the basic idea that the growth we are striving for is not just any growth but is based on the principle of economic, social and environmental sustainability, is about green jobs and smart and inclusive growth.

These are fundamental things which will not be funded without the European Union. Let me mention just a few examples. Who will fund the completion of the single market including a modern cross-border transport energy and digital infrastructure if not the EU budget? Who will start breaking the vicious circle of austerity if we do not do it together? Who will provide the contribution to the innovative financial instruments including project bonds for funding investments? I mean, with all the restrictions on national budgets, on banks and financial institutions, only the European Union can do it. How can we respect our commitment to funding the Millennium Development Goals if not through the EU budget?

It is obvious that Member States under pressure will not even fulfil their commitments to allocate 0.7 % of GNI to development aid. We need the European Union for that. Against the background of new devastating research on the effects of climate change no Member State is big enough to mitigate climate change on its own. We must do it together and the European Union is the major global actor in this field. Even if some of us do not like common agricultural policies we must ask: who will finance the greening of agriculture and the greening of fisheries and the more sustainable development of those policies if we do not do it together? So this is not about money; it is about giving the European Union the chance to finally realise the role we all agreed on in the Lisbon Treaty.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE). – (DA) Mr President, we know very well that most countries highlight the fact that they pay as little as possible and receive as much as possible back again. We therefore run the risk that, during the negotiations in the coming days, we will de-prioritise common, forward-thinking investment in research, education, transport and energy.

One of the most exciting proposals that the Commission has come up with is a fund for investment in transport and energy, the Connecting Europe facility. I think it is important to defend this newly-created investment opportunity. Mr Daul has mentioned that the Baltic States have good railway links to Moscow. They clearly should have, because we will not have a railway that links them to the rest of Europe if there is no money in the Connecting Europe facility.

The resources side of things risks becoming even more Byzantine and complicated than it is at present, and we do not need that. We need in the future to have a simple, fair and transparent system for the EU’s own resources, without any special rules and rebates, and for its part my group will place a very, very great amount of emphasis on having a binding plan for this.

  François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, since the Treaty of Rome, Europe’s story has continued unabated. It is therefore up to all of us to continue to move forward. However, the budgetary proposals from the Cypriot Presidency and the President of the Council for the period 2014-2020 will do nothing but stop this progress in its tracks and backpedal, which would be disastrous for our future.

In light of the crisis, Parliament proposed maintaining the 2007-2013 budget amounts, only increasing them for the foreseeable effects of the new elements in the next budget period: accession of a 28th Member States and application of the new EU competences following on from the Treaty of Lisbon.

The Commission proposed a lower amount, based on the current budget amounts, arguing that the savings imposed by the economic situation had to be used to finance the extension of the Union’s tasks. That proposal is compatible with the European idea, given that we have to tighten our belts because of the crisis.

However, the proposals by the Cypriot Presidency and then Mr Herman Van Rompuy completely contradict the very principle of moving forward with European integration.

This conciliation is Eurosceptic because in the Council there is a political surrender to the blackmail of the most Eurosceptic countries. Our position in this Parliament is simple, however. Since Mr Cameron is threatening to use his right of veto, we would point out that the European Parliament also has a right of veto in fine on the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020.

We will not hesitate to ask our parliamentary colleagues to use that right of veto to obstruct the Council’s political resignation. Negotiations are starting. No one should forget that these are negotiations between 28 partners and that the European Parliament will have the last word.

  Jan Zahradil (ECR). – (CS) Mr President, this is an article about the European Parliament which appeared on one of the most widely read Czech servers and it is no Eurosceptic server, it is a normal information server. The article is entitled ‘The European Parliament pours more money into celebrating itself’ and it appeared two days ago. So if anyone here wants to talk about the budget, it should first of all be the European Parliament which sets an example and shows that it knows how to make savings, when necessary.

If we want to be credible, please let us stop our eternal travelling between Brussels and Strasbourg and save EUR 200 million annually, let us abandon the absurd projects, like the monument to ideological propaganda called the House of European History, and save another EUR 50 million. Let us abolish the European Parliament Information Offices in all the Member States’ capital cities, I do not know why they are there. I do not know why we have an Information Office in Washington. Perhaps we think we are a little bit like the American Congress? You can see that, if we take these steps, money will be saved. This is what we are talking about when we say we want better spending. Instead of setting an example, we hear Mr Daul, we hear Mr Verhofstadt, calling for confrontation, looking for conflict and looking for someone to accuse.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is not the way forward. If Parliament were to block any agreement, it would only make a fool of itself and I think that our reputation with the public is already bad enough, without agreeing to anything like that. Mr Schulz, if you are a responsible President of the European Parliament, you will not go down the road of confrontation, you will go down the road of compromise, try to find agreement and help the European Parliament not to make a fool of itself and set out on the journey proposed by, for example, Mr Daul or Mr Verhofstadt, because that is a journey to nowhere.

  Mario Borghezio (EFD). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the rosy picture painted by President Barroso contrasts with a reality that is plain to see: millions of workers protesting for job and wage security so as to be able to support their families and hundreds of thousands of small enterprises in difficulty. In Italy there has been a wave of suicides by small business owners, suffering side-by-side with their employees, because your friend Mr Monti only wants to help the banks and could not care less if the whole system of small and medium-sized enterprises, which has been so much a part of our country socially and industrially, disappears.

I would also like underline one case that could be seen as emblematic of a Europe that is standing by and watching the death of its industrial, productive and above all manufacturing capacity. Anomalies in European funding have been discussed, but there is one instance of funding that stands out from all the rest. You have awarded the brother of Totò Riina EU funding. The brother, in other words, of the boss of bosses of the Italian mafia. And you granted funding to another boss while he was still in prison. Well that is a disgrace! It is a disgrace that this European super-bureaucracy did not even notice that it was financing somebody with the surname ‘Riina’.

  Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL). – (PT) Mr President, while the Commission proposal was initially rather ambitious, in the hands of the Council or, in other words, of the governments, it has been transformed and has now become a shadow of its former self. The budget is about choices, in particular policy choices. We want choices that involve cohesion and solidarity. Although the following issues have already been mentioned several times, they are worth repeating: what will become of the Erasmus Programme? What will become of scientific research? What will become of investment to create jobs, if the Council’s proposal is adopted? What will become of the funds to support the poorest and most vulnerable in Europe? I must also ask: where in all this is the courage to resolutely implement a financial transactions tax? Where is the courage to ditch economic macro-conditionality and the restrictions of the Fiscal Compact? At a time when we need more and better Europe, our governments are effectively digging the grave of the Europe that they claim to be defending. For the sake of the present and future, the citizens of Europe will never forgive us if this Parliament and the Commission yield to this Council proposal.

IN THE CHAIR: MIGUEL ANGEL MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vice-President

  Lucas Hartong (NI). – (NL) Mr President, the real political work does not take place in Strasbourg. Tomorrow and the day after tomorrow the heads of state will meet to discuss the budget for the coming years. That decision is rightly theirs too, it is not a decision for Parliament or the Commission. The Member States foot the bills, so they also take the decisions. It is important to reiterate that, as most of those here forget it sometimes. I would like to thank the President-in-Office, Mr Mavroyiannis, who has made a good start on expenditure restraint.

My country, the Netherlands, wants to do more though and is prepared to use its veto if more substantial cuts are not made to the proposed multiannual budget. Similar messages are coming out from the United Kingdom, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Denmark and Austria. Luckily we have that veto, because if the citizens were left to the mercy of the Commission and Parliament, this unbridled spending of their money would simply carry on night and day. The proposals made by Mr Mavroyiannis and Mr Van Rompuy are a start, but we could shave several tens of billions more off the budget. The situation where the north-west pays and the south-east squanders the money must be consigned to the past. This completely misplaced solidarity must stop as soon as possible. Certain countries clearly need to learn that when it comes to budgets it is not about solidarity, but solidity.

On another point, Mr Swoboda, not a cent more should go to Gaza and Hamas, whose aim is to destroy Israel. Let the government of Gaza look after its own people for once, instead of European citizens having to pay for the rockets that threaten that state’s independence.

  Reimer Böge (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, if I may, I would like to reaffirm the contents of the interim report presented by Mr Kalfin and myself, as rapporteurs, in October, which was supported by an extremely large majority in this House.

Building on the Cyprus Presidency’s negotiating boxes, President Van Rompuy has now presented a negotiating box, so we have some movement, but in a direction which follows the Council’s logic, namely that further cuts are the simplest and the only solution, without sufficient regard for the consequences and without adequate consideration of the proposals that we have made. This is a shame, to say the least, and is increasingly looking like a missed opportunity for an agreement.

Let me clarify, if I may: we are in favour of better spending as well. We are in favour of structural reforms and, in the interim report, we make very specific proposals on this issue, because it is essential to talk about synergies and the avoidance of duplication in our work, but it is also essential to discuss aspects of subsidiarity intensively and try to establish clarity. Unfortunately, though, there are some Member States that regard the European budget as nothing but a cancerous tumour. As a result, many of the accusations being made lack any substance or rationale, and this is poisoning everything. If the European budget for 2008-2013 increased by 1.95 % annually, then we are doing very well: the figure for Germany was close to 2.5 % per annum, for France, it was almost 2.8 %, the figure for the Netherlands was 2.8 %, for Austria it was almost 3 %, Sweden was close to 2.9 %, and 2.5 % for the United Kingdom. We can certainly hold our own in the competition for stability and serious budget policies.

Mr Barroso, you have delivered a good speech, but I urge you to remain steadfast in the meeting with the European Council. Do not let them soften you up! I would like to voice a plea to the European Council. Please do not waste this opportunity to make proposals to Parliament that we can support with an absolute majority. Please give the Cypriot Presidency an adequate and flexible negotiating mandate so that we can achieve a sensible result by the end of the year, and by that I mean a result which takes our priorities on board. Let us be clear: as it stands, the Van Rompuy proposal is not a solution and will not secure the support of the European Parliament. In enhancing these negotiating boxes, please do not try to palm us off with token gestures!

  Ivailo Kalfin (S&D). – (BG) I believe that Parliament’s position is very clear as it was approved by almost 80 % of our colleagues at our October part-session. That position has nothing in common with what was subsequently proposed by the Presidency, and with Mr Van Rompuy’s position in particular. It is unacceptable for the European Parliament in its present form. Once again we are witnessing the European Council turning the discussion on the budget into an exercise in accounting, into a zero-sum game in which one has to win and another has to lose. This is not what the European budget is about. What Parliament is fighting for is an instrument for policies that are already determined. Who has determined these policies? The European Council itself. The same leaders who are now refusing to provide the finances to implement them. Who took the decision in June for a Compact for Growth and Jobs, which was supposed to be supported with EUR 150 billion? European leaders. Who took the decision and told young people that they will have more opportunities for free movement and training in Europe? European leaders. Who is promising developing countries that if they open their markets they will receive additional assistance? European leaders. Who is committing to fighting climate change? European leaders. We have made enough commitments. Their implementation, however, requires the corresponding budget. Therefore, when we talk about the budget we have to talk about the policies that have already been decided.

Here the English Conservatives, our colleagues, are concerned about English taxpayers and rightly so. Do they tell British taxpayers, however, how much English universities earn from the mobility of young people? How much English businesses gain from the common market, from common infrastructure? How many British researchers and scientists take part in common European projects? How many British companies spend public investment from the European budget? This is the other side of the truth that taxpayers should also be told. Let us really ask our regions, those in the developed, in the less developed, and in the most under-developed regions; if there are no European funds there are no public investments. That is a fact. If we limit them even further that would mean that the European budget does not solve the economic crisis but actually aggravates it. We do not want the European budget to be a procyclical measure. Furthermore, Parliament is equally opposed to it, i.e. to the macroeconomic conditionality that some Member States seek. Let us ask the non-governmental organisations working in the developing countries how many jobs are created in Europe and how much European companies themselves profit from the assistance for growth we give to developing countries. That is the other side of the coin.

Ladies and gentlemen, Parliament must take a decision on the European Council decision. I believe that if the European Council does not take into consideration our demands, there is no way that we could support such a decision.

  Jan Mulder (ALDE). – (NL) Mr President, the fact that the negotiations are starting to get very difficult is nothing new. The negotiations in the past were all extremely difficult too, but we always managed to find a compromise. Parliament has always adopted very reasonable positions. The problem, I think, is always with the Council. In the previous period and in the period we are in now, we have always made very clear agreements with the Council on better implementation of the budget. We have made agreements on accounting for the expenditure. The Court of Auditors is really taking things too far by issuing negative statements of assurance all the time. Most of these agreements have not been implemented.

We also made clear agreements about flexibility in the budget in the last period, something that Parliament finds necessary again this time. The Council has not complied with most of the agreements on flexibility. One of the things we need is to strengthen this in the new budget. It is so ridiculous that money is paid back to the Member States every year, and the Member States then complain that the bills that come in are far too high.

  Isabelle Durant (Verts/ALE). – (FR) Mr President, in every democracy in the world, the budget, be it annual or multiannual, is the most global and most significant political exercise and reflects a vision or a project.

Allow me to say a few words about the Council proposal. It is very much reduced; it is certainly better than the British proposal, but in relation to the Commission proposal, it is lower in all cases, even though – as we heard – the European budget only represents 2 % of the Member States’ spending. Is proposing that they give even less really going to take the strain off the national budgets? By giving less, will the national budgets really be better off?

Of course not! It is far from being the case, and will be even less so when we make progress on own resources. In this case, the Council will have to explain to the European citizens what projects can be supported when we have to make cuts across the board. It will have to explain that the Europe 2020 strategy is perhaps only window dressing, that research and innovation are a luxury, that economic regeneration in our regions will have to cope with fewer resources for cohesion. Good luck explaining all of that!

Good luck, too, explaining to the Europeans who still believe in the European project that that is how we are going to finance solidarity with the East, which we must do. Good luck explaining how we are going to finance solidarity with southern Europe, which we must do. Good luck to the net contributors as well! Do you think that the northern countries will behave better because of this reduction? Of course they will not. They all have an interest in seeing an improvement in the economies of their neighbouring countries. Indeed, it seems that British employers and European employers realised this at the eleventh hour.

You can ask a great deal of Parliament and we have done a huge amount of work in the Committee on Budget to really try to get a good, solid proposal. We want to be flexible, to revisit certain things, but you cannot ask us to go below the Commission’s proposal. Parliament will say no to that.

I think that the Council also has to be aware of the fact that, although there will be 27 of them at the discussions and they have to reach an agreement, there is a 28th partner here, which is not prepared to accept a proposal that is lower than the Commission proposal.

  Tomasz Piotr Poręba (ECR). – (PL) Mr President, tomorrow in Brussels, we shall see to what extent the new European budget will strengthen European solidarity and cohesion and to what extent it will serve the particular interests of the net contributors. To what extent there will be investment in our shared development, in rapid growth for the European Union, and to what extent it will be a budget of stagnation, a budget that reinforces the differences between individual European Union Member States.

It is understandable, ladies and gentlemen, that we should be talking today about potential cuts to the budget, about the budget amount. That is natural and entirely justified. However, far less attention is being paid, here and in the public sphere, to how the proposals on the negotiating table could prevent, weaken and restrict the future absorption of EU funding by European Union Member States. I am talking, here, about the end to VAT eligibility, about macro-economic conditionality, which will determine the absorption of EU funding. I am talking about capping, about the system of net corrections for projects, which means that, contrary to what is stated in the current financial perspective, future projects not subject to European Union supervision will be rejected by Brussels and have their funding returned to the EU.

Ladies and gentlemen, we must ask ourselves today whether the restrictive arrangements and rules included in the negotiating proposals that will be discussed tomorrow in Brussels do not simply serve to restrict the future absorption of EU funding under the new financial perspective. If that is the case, both new and old Member States should seriously consider substantially toning down these proposals and, failing that, countries such as Poland should simply exercise their right of veto.

  Marta Andreasen (EFD). – Mr President, what has happened with EU budget investment in the last seven years? Well, we all know where we stand today. Budgeting is not a field where the EU can claim success.

Why are we putting more money into agricultural funding that amounts, at present, to over 40 % of the budget? We are paying for farmers not to grow food, although the market is there. Have the billions paid out in structural funds to countries like Greece, Portugal or Spain stemmed the crisis there? No, they have not. If there was a serious will to use the budget to develop Europe’s economy, a major rethink would have taken place many years ago.

Instead, every year we are asked to top up the same old budget lines. The EU budget for the 2014-2020 period should be reduced drastically to allow Member States to decide where they want to put their taxpayers’ money. The UK should not only veto an increase, but should demand a significant reduction.

  Vladimír Remek (GUE/NGL). – (CS) Mr President, certain projects are key for the Union, that is why we discuss them so often. Yes, the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) nuclear fusion project and the European satellite system programmes, including the Global Monitoring for Environment and Security (GMES) and Galileo navigation systems are expensive projects, but, as I repeatedly say in this forum, even accepting the need for targeted expenditure of European money, I do not fully understand why we cannot recognise the need for budget financing for key investment programmes. Why do we cast doubt on our credibility and the Union’s undertakings towards its partners? If we do not, despite all the difficulties, support these exceptional projects now, it may be that we shall never take the vital step, never have the opportunity again. In my view, ITER, GMES and Galileo might make a contribution to solving the energy problems in Europe and have the potential to provide much needed employment. There are some indications that the European Council might decide on an acceptable form of budget financing. If so, I fully support this intention.

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). – (NL) Mr President, we are in for exciting times in Brussels. We are discussing hundreds of billions of euros for the next few years. Ideally, I would not like to see a cent go to the European Union and I hope – you have to stay pragmatic – that Mr Cameron gets his way and we stick at 800 billion, which is dreadful enough.

It is not just about the money though. It is also about where we all want to go with the European Union. There are actually only a few people in this House who have an honest view of the future of the European Union. There are the federalists on one side, who are very clear about where they want to go and that is the United States of Europe, and that is the way we are going if we do nothing.

Mr President, on the other side is a group, and I count myself among them, that is highly Euro-sceptic. They say: we do not want a federation and we have to do away with the EU. That is an honest view that makes sense to the citizens but the majority in this Parliament just keep lying to the citizens. There is no middle way. It is onward and upward or defeat for the EU. It is either a federal state or the dissolution of the European Union.

Mr President, I choose the latter option with my heart and soul, in the interests of Dutch citizens and out of respect for our centuries-old sovereignty. Away with the European Parliament. Away with the Commission and away with the European Union. Then there will no longer be any need for us to bicker over hundreds of billions of tax-payer’s money in times of crisis.

  Patrizia Toia (S&D). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, like many of my colleagues, I would like to ask the Council what its real intentions are in the light of this proposal. Do you want to reduce everything to a minimum and freeze the future? And is this the same Europe that will supposedly be relaunched with Mr Van Rompuy’s document on integration? Where is the consistency between Mr Van Rompuy’s two policy documents? Where is the consistency, from the point of view of ordinary citizens, between the measures announced in July on employment and growth, those great calls for hope and for the future of the EU that we heard from the Council, and this sudden violence done in the name of realism, aiming for mere survival? With these figures and these cuts how can we implement cohesion and the agricultural reforms in terms of concrete actions?

These are sincere questions that require a clear and honest answer, because there is evidence here of a type of institutional schizophrenia that Parliament and the citizens can no longer tolerate. Parliament wants consistency and credibility. The very first criticism that can be levelled is that the budget just does not add up. So much for growth and investment: this is the 2008 budget over again! Of course it must be conceded that Mr Van Rompuy, in heading 1a, overturns the quite scandalous suggestion by Cyprus. He also recognises the essential role of the budget in offering support to growth in some sectors, additional to the support offered by the national budgets.

But growth and innovation – clearly – should not be achieved at the expense of other sectors that also contribute to ‘growth’ and ‘employment’, such as cohesion policy, but also agricultural policy, which has created jobs and is ever more focused on innovation and protection of rural areas.

‘Growth’ and ‘employment’ also mean culture, training, the transnational networks, the Connecting Europe Facility, as well as solidarity and international development, human rights in the world and our contribution to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. What we are seeing however is the usual Council spectacle: no vision, no leadership, a Babel of conflicting and competing national interests, an inextricable tangle of vetoes, aspirations and general discontent. Unfortunately what is mainly missing is Europe!

  George Lyon (ALDE). – Mr President, astonishingly after last week’s budget vote in Westminster, we now discover that Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg are the real UK champions of larger EU spending. Why? Because our socialists, our Scottish Nationalists and our Green colleagues engaged in a crass act of political cross-dressing by joining the Eurosceptic UKIP camp and voting for deeper cuts in that vote. Can I say to them I think you need to be careful who you climb into bed with? You could be the ushers who unwittingly took the UK through the exit door.

The Van Rompuy budget proposals take us in the right direction. They reflect the tough economic times our constituents are facing on a daily basis and they could be the basis of an agreement. However, I am deeply disappointed at Mr Van Rompuy’s plans reduce Parliament’s flexibility to manage the budget more effectively. Parliament has made it crystal clear to the Council that a tougher budget must go hand in hand with greater flexibility, not less, a genuine mid-term review and prioritising spending on the EU 2020 objectives. Failure to deliver on that agenda will surely lead to rejection in this House.

  Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – (NL) Mr President, I actually wanted to address my remarks mainly to the President-in-Office, Mr Mavroyiannis, who is facing a whole session with all the Member States tomorrow and the day after. No doubt tomorrow this will involve more horse trading to keep all the Member States happy. Less money to a great many and then something on content to keep a few other countries on board.

Who will lose out from this horse trading? The content, the future. What is the EU budget for? The EU budget is for the future, for the real challenges facing the EU, and one of the most important challenges is the scarcity of raw materials, energy, food and materials. Those are the kind of issues that are the challenge for the future and our budget is really needed for that. For innovation, for energy infrastructure, for agriculture, for the Structural Fund, where we invest in energy-saving, in sustainable energy.

These are just the areas that are being cut now, the areas where we are getting cost-cutting now. All to keep countries happy which are only working on the amount of the budget and so the content loses out, as does Europe’s future.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD). – (LT) Mr President, I would like to draw attention to two important and specific aspects of the multiannual financial framework: funding the decommissioning of Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant and support for farmers in the Baltic States. As we meet here today in Strasbourg, Baltic farmers who have gathered for a meeting in Brussels say that Europe is insulting us and taking us for fools by allocating us payments that are four times lower. How long can this go on? We talk about a level playing field in all resolutions and directives so let us finally create one.

Lithuania undertook to decommission the nuclear power plant and has done so. The European Union undertook to finance its decommissioning but has not done this fully. Three times less money than is needed is to be earmarked for the decommissioning of Ignalina Nuclear Power Plant until 2017, while the further decommissioning, which may last until 2029 at the earliest, is not to be financed. I would like to stress that this is clear backsliding from the Treaty of Accession and the provisions contained in its Protocol No 4. In legal terms this may be seen as a violation of the Treaty of Accession.

  Herbert Reul (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I have heard some very clever speeches today, and some speeches that rightly explain why we, the European Parliament, and Europe need a specific amount of money. All the various tasks on the agenda have also been correctly and precisely identified. On the other hand, there is this competition, as I think Mr Swoboda called it, among the Member States to see who can save the most. I am not entirely sure whether this is the right way forward or the right kind of rhetoric at this difficult, indeed critical time. I could stand here and give a speech explaining why all this is important. However, I believe that we also have a responsibility to consider how we can find some common ground. What is the best way of moving forward so that we can reach an agreement, ideally in the next few days? The fact is that if European policy-makers fail to reach agreement at such a critical time, this will not only determine whether we have enough funds flowing into our budget. It will also have a wider impact on the markets, politics, and other countries. That is why I believe there is no alternative: we must give some thought to the steps that we need to take to move towards some common ground.

President Schulz said at the start that Parliament is showing movement on this issue and will continue to do so. It was a brief comment but in my view, it was a very clever one. The resolution before us shows that we are already thinking about how we can move towards common ground. It is not the case that all our spending in every area is essential and must be maintained at all costs. As with the national parliaments, there is bound to be some leeway. Questions like ‘how much’ and ‘which items’ are the really interesting questions.

I would prefer not to argue about the amount of money we receive and whether this should be a bit more or a bit less. I would prefer to discuss which tasks should be on the agenda and how much money we will need for them. Which tasks could be dispensed with, perhaps? Which processes can we look at critically? Is it always the right way forward for the stakeholders concerned – I am thinking of the agricultural sector, for example – if we simply hand out more cash and impose more conditions? It might, perhaps, be more sensible to impose fewer conditions, for this could result in more sparing use of funds in one area or another as well.

A compromise means that both sides have to show some movement. We will consider where we can make some concessions. It is not just about austerity in the Member States.

  Jutta Haug (S&D). – (DE) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, the extraordinary meeting of the European Council is now imminent and we are talking ourselves to a standstill in an effort to achieve harmony. The extraordinary meeting has one sole purpose: to develop the Council’s mandate for the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework. As part of the preparations, two inter-related negotiating boxes have been produced.

To put it bluntly, we are not satisfied, and we cannot possibly be satisfied with what has been presented. We are also annoyed, to put it mildly, by the Council’s conduct on budgetary issues, which can be described in one word: irresponsible! We can only repeat what we said in June last year, namely that we need a proper system of own resources which is worthy of the name. The Commission has taken a first small step, but this is not enough. There is almost nothing we need more urgently than these genuine own resources, for they would mean that the European budget would no longer be dependent on national contributions.

We need this independence to put an end to this untenable situation. There would also be no further logic to the arguments being advanced in some Member States. As Mr Reul has just said, the debate there is only ever about payments, contributions and spending. They never discuss political priorities, their priorities. They never tell us what they would like to achieve with the European budget. No ideas are forthcoming about the future of the European Union. The Council is not acting like a European institution. Instead, it has become a collection of 27 sets of national self-interest, where they all bicker like children

The budget is like a pie, and yes, there should be pie, but they squabble over which ingredients they should provide and how big their slice of the pie should be. Everyone wants to eat and no one wants to bake. It is appalling!

  Alexander Alvaro (ALDE). – (DE) Mr President, this is turning into groundhog day. Every seven years, we have renewed squabbling over money. As Jutta Haug has rightly said, the Member States bicker like children. Once again, we are becoming embroiled in discussions over whether there should be 5 % more or 5 % less for agricultural subsidies and essential investment in research and development, instead of talking about the priorities and where the European Union should be going in future.

The fundamental problem is becoming increasingly obvious. Our Member States are all egotists. The question is always: ‘What can I get from the European budget?’, not ‘What can I contribute in terms of added value to this budget?’. Instead of shared European interests, the EU is dominated by 27 sets of national interests.

Unless we manage to formulate some shared interests for the European Union, we will set the course for its ultimate demise. That is something that no rational Member of this House could possibly want. The multiannual financial framework must be seen as an opportunity to define these European interests.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). – (IT) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, President-in-Office of the Council, I would like us to recall what the European Union budget really is. The budget is not additional to national budgets, and to believe so would be to continue to conduct this debate on false premises, with the risk of fragmenting our efforts. The EU budget is synthetic and has the aim of multiplying the effects of the investments made by the individual Member States. It therefore creates more efficiency and effectiveness.

Resources that are removed from the EU budget raise national public expenditure: this is the underlying principle on which he have built the Union. If the EU is seen as an additional entity to the Member States, just as the EU embassy in non-EU countries is additional to all of the national embassies, then we are misleading ourselves. Therefore to believe that by saving in the EU budget, we are contributing to general saving and austerity is an unpardonable error.

Instead, what we manage to achieve with the EU budget is to allow individual states to make savings, to lower expenditure and encourage austerity. If we cannot acknowledge this fact – due to the sort of ‘soft’ nationalism every state has to show to its own public opinion – the result will be that we are constantly reducing the EU budget, which will always result in increases in the national budgets. In the end the individual Member States will spend the EUR 140 billion in any case, but with diminished efficiency, because the studies carried out by the Commission already show us that each euro yields 95 cents in the EU budget but only 50 cents in the national budgets.

  Catherine Trautmann (S&D). – (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office, President of the Commission, this summer our Member States reached an agreement on a growth pact. In the autumn, they are foolishly unable to agree on the resources for it.

Budgetary discipline is one thing, but it is the citizens who are paying the price of the crisis because of the loss of jobs. They are waiting for policies that promote economic recovery, reinvigorate the internal market and ensure greater solidarity.

That is why, like other Members – and I say this straight away to President Barroso – we cannot accept the Commission’s proposal as a ceiling; it is the absolute lowest level to which the European Parliament could sink.

The proposals of the Cypriot Presidency, like those of Mr Van Rompuy, are just not enough. They are not enough to enable us to achieve a balance that encourages regional development and regional fairness, between the agriculture and Cohesion Fund policies, for example. They are not enough for a number of activities that guarantee the European Union’s competitiveness, such as industrial policy, research and the Connecting Europe Facility. They are not enough to offer guarantees for young people, access to training, Erasmus funding, or consideration of all young people for lifelong learning, as well as lifelong learning for other groups, such as adults and older people. As Mr Barroso said, that is the fifth freedom.

Finally, there are no longer any resources for the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund or food aid for the most deprived. Ladies and gentlemen, I therefore ask you to make a real investment in infrastructure, in the economy, and in the future of our young people.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). – (FI) Mr President, here we are discussing the budgetary framework for the years 2014-2020. We do not have any room for error, and the EU ought to know how to invest. As things stand, it doesn’t. Young people are not a priority area for the EU; for example, 0.1 % of the EU money in this year’s budget is being spent on activities for young people and various youth projects. This really is very little.

In the budgetary framework now under discussion for the coming years, so little money will be aimed at projects for young people that I hardly dare mention it. It is the same amount as was given to European winegrowers in 2011. For just one year! I think the EU really must stop now and make young people a priority area; they are the future of the EU, and young people cannot be forgotten.

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). – (PL) Mr President, Commissioner, President-in-Office of the Council, I shall begin by addressing the statement made by Mr Mavroyiannis, on behalf of the European Council and the Cypriot Presidency, in which he said that we were living in difficult times, in times of crisis, and that it was impossible to disregard this crisis when planning the European Union budget.

Yes, it is an unquestionable fact that we are facing a crisis. However, many – the vast majority – would say that, if we are going to survive this crisis, we will not do it alone. We must act together, we must achieve a synergy effect, we must strengthen our Union, we must have more Europe in order to be able to tackle the crisis effectively. I would point out to Mr Mavroyiannis that we cannot have more Europe or a stronger European Union for less money. That is simply not possible. Mr Kasoulides made this point earlier, as did the Polish Prime Minister at the European People’s Party Congress in Bucharest. More Europe means more money. How should that money be spent? President Barroso has talked about that. The EU budget is an investment budget that can deliver more jobs and economic growth and help those areas lagging behind, in particular the new Member States – countries like Poland. Poland serves as an example of just how effectively this money can be used; of how European assistance can generate economic growth and jobs and help the European economy – not only the Polish economy, but the European economy as well. That is why I call on Mr Mavroyiannis (and, through him, on President Van Rompuy) to accept that there is no more room for cuts. Meanwhile, I would like to congratulate President Barroso on his outstanding speech today and to urge him to defend the budget presented by the Commission – a good budget – with the same passion, determination and persistence at the summit tomorrow and the day after.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D). – Mr President, it is obvious that we need a budget fit for purpose – a budget for the future rather than the past – and that does mean big changes. It means prioritising spending on areas strengthening innovation, jobs and growth, and ensuring we tackle the blight of unemployment across Europe, particularly for our young people. We have a tragedy unfolding and we must act to give them hope for the future.

We know that Europe needs change – economic and political change – but it is difficult to argue for change whilst at the same time wielding phantom vetoes and smashing alliances. All that achieves is frustration and a lack of credibility, even amongst our friends, undermining our position in Europe and ultimately damaging, not just those alliances, but the British interest too. Is that really what David Cameron wants? Does he really want to relegate Britain to the second division? Well, if that is what he wants, he has almost achieved it; and for what? Does he really think that it is in the British interest? Of course he does not, but rather he is fearful of taking on those in his party who would head us to the exit door. We can only make the changes we want by being at the table, playing a full part in decision-making and working with others to achieve our aims. That, Mr Cameron, is what you need to do if you really want to ensure a better future for us all.

Finally, can I say to Mr Verhofstadt and Mr Lyon – it is a shame that Mr Verhofstadt has gone – that you seem to have selective memory loss. Talk about hypocrisy. By all means criticise the British Government but, Mr Lyon, do not forget to include your own party and Mr Clegg. You are part of the British coalition government after all.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE). – (FR) Mr President, with this crisis that is having an extremely serious impact on Europe, I want to reiterate here that the only instrument we have that allows us to work collectively is the European budget. That is why it is crucial to preserve it.

We need a strong budget and a substantial budget because it is the only lever we have to invest at European level in growth and because it is also the only instruments we have to reduce inequalities between Member States, between regions, between European citizens, and I am thinking, in particular, of the most deprived among us.

I, therefore, believe that our Parliament has two battles ahead of it: the first is to obtain a budget that responds to the challenges, which are enormous in the current situation; the second – which is at least as important – is to ensure that in future the European budget is no longer a simple variable in the adjustments of the national budgets. We, in the European Parliament, must make every effort to establish an own resource for the European Union.

  Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, once again the defence of the general interest by the Commission and Parliament is clashing with entrenched national self-interest in the Council.

Given the prior acceptance of the legitimacy of both positions, it is essential to find a balance. There is absolutely no doubt as to the relevance of the next multiannual financial framework.

The Spanish delegation of the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and I, on its behalf, must reiterate that the Presidency’s proposal is, in our opinion, unacceptable. A cut of EUR 75 billion in relation to what was already an inevitably meagre proposal from the European Commission is futile and of no use to anyone. That is not the only problem: these new direct cuts in the agricultural and cohesion policies go beyond the ‘red line’ that Spain drew at the start of this work.

Ladies and gentlemen, now is not the time to debate a supposed dichotomy between austerity and growth. Some of us are making clear efforts and sacrifices to correct our deficit. Spain, however, like so many other countries, needs to grow, increase its economic activity and create jobs. With this budget, none of this will be possible; it is pushing us past breaking point.

Ladies and gentlemen, we cannot achieve more Europe with far fewer resources, especially if what we have is distributed unfairly. If that is the case, Spain will oppose a multiannual financial framework for the European Union that means, plain and simple, the end to any opportunities for growth and, above all, any remnant of solidarity, and that is precisely the direction that the European Council is taking. Luckily, that is not the path that the Commission has chosen, and I must thank it for its efforts to adapt a different approach.

In relation to this point – the need for the Union, the need for combined efforts – I want to thank Mr Barroso who, the other day in Cadiz, made a convincing declaration regarding the interpretation of the Treaties in the case of any potential secession within the Union.

He stated clearly and unequivocally, as guardian of the Treaties, that if part of a Member State secedes and becomes an independent state it will be dealt with as a third country and, therefore, it will be in no way affected by the statements and the effects of the Treaty.

I hope, Mr President, that this can be recognised and that the Commission’s sure and steady approach can remain alive as a guarantee for us all.

  President. − Ladies and gentlemen, as we are almost an hour behind, we are not going to use the ‘blue-card’ or ‘catch-the-eye’ procedures in this debate.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – (ES) Mr President, faced with the European Union’s worst crisis, the citizens represented here in this Parliament have the right to hope for a countercyclical budget that will help us to emerge from the crisis and simulate growth and jobs.

The Council’s proposal goes in the opposite direction. The European Union does not have a deficit or public debt, yet this budget makes it impossible to fulfil the ambitions laid down in the Treaty of Lisbon. It is unfair, it is completely unsupportive, it will increase inequalities and it reflects European fatigue.

It is bad news for the cohesion policy and, in particular, for the so-called transition regions. It is bad news for the future of the common agricultural policy, which is the heart and soul of the European project and which has an economic, a social and an environmental dimension. However, without money and without resources, not only can there be no common agricultural policy, there can be no reform of it either.

It is a blow to Europe’s future development and cooperation aid abroad, which shows Europe’s best side in the fight to reduce poverty. It is bad news for the ‘Connecting Europe Facility’ and for the trans-European transport, energy and telecommunications networks. It will also curb our ambitions in the area of freedom, security and justice.

In short, parliamentarism was first introduced to determine budgets and taxes. That is precisely why this Parliament has the duty to tell the Council in no uncertain terms that it either changes its proposal or this Parliament will have to vote against a budget that makes Europe look bad at the worst possible time.

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). – Mr President, I have just had to sit through a speech of the most breathtaking hypocrisy from the British Labour leader here, Glenis Willmott, displaying all the cynicism, opportunism, and shoddiness which led her Westminster colleagues to team up with Tory Europhobes and undermine David Cameron’s prospects for an acceptable Brussels deal.

Mrs Willmott – I see that she has gone – has a cheek to talk about smashing alliances when her party has sabotaged the chance of rallying round a sensible call for restraint in the EU budget in the form of a freeze.

Whatever fine speeches Mr Ed Miliband now makes, the fact is that British Labour’s hypocrisy has made the situation of British pro-Europeans infinitely worse. It is politically impossible to argue to EU citizens under pressure and losing their jobs that the EU budget should rise. So a freeze is the EU-friendly policy.

But there must be more flexibility, better targeting of spending for innovation and growth, rather than farm subsidies, and a mid-term review when, hopefully, economies are doing better. We have had no help whatsoever in that from the British Labour party, whatever Mr Swoboda tries to wriggle out of.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, this is the first time that the multiannual financial framework (MFF) has been debated in accordance with the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty. Unfortunately, in my opinion, these have caused difficulty and diminished the democratic dimension of the budget adoption. The MFF approval procedure and codecision oppose rather than complement one another.

The European Council does not respect the Treaty and proposes elements that should be subject to codecision. The Council and the European Parliament became blocked in the codecision procedure as there were no negotiations on the resources needed to implement European policies. The rotating European Council Presidency submitted one proposal and the President of the Council of the European Union another. This state of affairs and these proposals both undermine the Commission’s proposal.

In this period of crisis, the Member States are increasing national budget allocations for investment and job creation. This must be mirrored in the European budget, 94 % of which is allocated for investment. The Member States that are net contributors know that one euro invested in one region of Europe will bring benefits in other regions of the Union. Given that public funds were used for the financial bailout, public funds must also be used to support European policies that stimulate economic growth and job creation, and, by implication, financial prosperity.

The Council of the European Union adopted the Europe 2020 strategy with national and EU targets. The same Council must also ensure an adequate budget to meet these targets. I believe that the members of the Council are hesitating between a populist attitude, whereby they cut budgets, and a push for development, which ensures that the funds will return to the Member States.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D). – (HU) The Council is about to make the same mistake as it did when trying to manage the crisis. Instead of promoting economic growth and creating jobs, crisis management led to recession and record-breaking unemployment levels. So too, now, the planned large-scale reductions in the Union’s budget would cause further deterioration and widen the development gap. Some policy priorities need to be considered: it is important that the resources in the European Social Fund remain intact so that we can mitigate the serious social and labour market impact of the crisis. We must abide by our values and ensure that there are resources for common refugee policy, for integration of migrants, for supporting fundamental rights and the fight against discrimination. This is all about making a choice: either we put the principle of solidarity into practice and bridge the development gap, or we let the development gap widen further. Parliament cannot allow the latter to happen.

  Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, except for a few very odd colleagues, I would be surprised if my fellow Members of the European Parliament were satisfied today. In 2011, most of them voted in favour of a draft financial perspective, submitted after a year of budgetary work, which took into account Europe’s traditional policies and new policies, and which provided adequate financing for the European agenda for growth and employment.

Like Parliament, the Commission then presented a very adequate, if less ambitious, proposal, which at that stage took into account the Member States’ wish to reduce as far as possible their national contribution to the common budget. After that, the proposals from Cyprus and Mr Van Rompuy went from bad to worse, with a noticeable downward trend.

Now, just as the European Council is beginning, we are EUR 100 billion below the European Parliament’s proposal and EUR 75 billion below the Commission’s proposal. With such a precedent, the multiannual financial framework that might emerge from Brussels this week is going to reflect some very worrying realities.

The Council believes that the EU budget is a financial burden, not an instrument of economic policy. The Council refuses to analyse EU spending from the perspective of its European added value. That added value does not exist with this proposal. The Council is sacrificing agriculture and the cohesion policy to a simple calculation of the national net balances. The Horizon 2020 programme will again be worthless without sufficient funding: it will follow the path of the Lisbon strategy. With this proposal, the Council is giving in to the pressure of one Member State whose ambition is outside the European Union.

We hope that, with this precedent, the Council will be capable of changing its misguided strategy.

  Victor Boştinaru (S&D). – (RO) Mr President, I wish to stress that the European Parliament and the European Commission are united in protecting the interests of the European citizens, by providing a budget focused on development and investment, and I welcome the contribution of the President of the European Commission, Mr Barroso.

As rapporteur for the report on the Cohesion Fund, I must say that the logic behind some of the statements and the proposal of President Van Rompuy is simply shocking. On the one hand, he states that the cohesion policy aims to reduce disparities, but in his proposals, we note the following, which contradict this: a substantial reduction in the cohesion budget, a reduction in the cofinancing rates for the least developed regions of the European Union and, more surprisingly, punishment of the regions with a weaker absorption rate, and, alongside all these, the macroeconomic conditionalities constantly opposed by the European Parliament.

Mr Van Rompuy and the Council must understand that we cannot forgo the word ‘solidarity’ in Europe and that the European Union cannot exist with a rich, selfish centre and a poor periphery. I would like to remind President Van Rompuy about the role of the cohesion policy and, more importantly, the role of the European Parliament as co-legislator. If the Council returns the same unacceptable proposal, the European Parliament will most certainly reject this deeply anti-European budget.

  András Gyürk (PPE). – (HU) Mr President, Commissioners, ladies and gentlemen, the crisis in the European Union is very evident today, but it is equally evident that cohesion policy is one of the European Union’s success stories. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Reducing cohesion support would only make matters worse because it would aggravate economic and social tensions, further undermine political stability and reduce confidence in the institutions of the EU.

Allow me to cite the example of Hungary, Mr President. Over the past two and a half years the Hungarian government and Hungarian citizens have made strenuous efforts to ensure that the country can at last free itself from the excessive deficit procedure and avoid the risk of having its cohesion funds suspended. As the European Commission’s recent country report confirms, the Hungarian government’s successful crisis management programme has enabled Hungary, for the first time since its accession to the EU, to keep its budget deficit below 3 % for three years running. This result is a success both for the Hungarian people and for Europe. Hungary can at last escape from the blind alley down which previous governments had led it. To do this, however, it also needs the cohesion resources.

Ladies and gentlemen, the key to Europe’s success is solidarity, and the most successful instrument for solidarity to date is quite clearly cohesion policy. Let us preserve it and look after it.

  Luis Manuel Capoulas Santos (S&D). – (PT) Mr President, Commissioner, Minister, we ask European agriculture to provide our citizens with plentiful food at affordable prices and meeting the highest quality standards in the world. We also ask our farmers to work to protect the environment, biodiversity, and water and soil quality, and to lock up carbon and combat climate change. Agriculture is irreplaceable in terms of achieving these goals. We additionally ask our farmers to operate in a context of international competition which is fierce and unfair.

We therefore consider that this latest agricultural budget proposal cannot be for real, and even represents a provocation. We have agreed to work based on the Commission proposal, which is 12 % lower than the current budget in real terms, despite the European Parliament having advocated a higher amount by an overwhelming majority.

I must therefore remind the Council that this Parliament has decision-making powers and is ready to use them, whatever the consequences, in order to defend the European project, which is now more essential than ever before.

  Marietta Giannakou (PPE). – (EL) Mr President, the European Parliament has clearly stated its position on the multiannual financial framework. Its position is directly opposed to that of the Bureau and to President Van Rompuy’s text. In a time of crisis and austerity programmes in the Member States, the EU multiannual budget may prove to be simultaneously realistic and ambitious, supporting the 2020 strategy, employment, student mobility, research and science, and hence Europe’s position in an extremely competitive world. Mr President, anyone who sets targets must also find the means to achieve them. How can the European leadership deceive itself? How can it adopt an attitude that supports a return to inward-looking nationalism? The European budget must express not only solidarity but also the preservation of the European perspective, because Europe cannot advance into the future on autopilot. Europe needs new endeavours, serious corrections to the mistaken choices of the past, and a genuine unity. Community funding needs to be coordinated at the level of objectives and, therefore, at the level of results. Whether some people like it or not, Europe, whatever its shortcomings, cannot become just a free trade area. A fair compromise, then, on the issue of the multiannual budget will give European citizens a breathing space, because they need real solidarity. The Council must back down immediately and accept the positions expressed today in Parliament, and also those of the Commission, because both bodies are willing to reach a fair compromise for the sake of the citizens, which will strengthen the values of the European Union.

IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

  Othmar Karas (PPE). – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the manner in which the debate about the multiannual financial framework and hence the European Union’s future policies is being conducted in some Member States is extremely saddening. It is being conducted with half-truths and hostile images. It is weakening the European Union and is unworthy of the Nobel Peace Prize.

The European Union is a project that is intended to overcome nationalism, and we were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for overcoming nationalism and national egotism and for putting shared responsibility first, ahead of its individual parts.

I therefore appeal to the heads of state and government to help make this an objective debate, to focus on the real issues on the agenda, not on percentages, to exercise responsibility as a Community instead of operating with hostile images, and to take responsibility for our continent’s future, instead of wielding the veto.

What we want, no more and no less, is to be able to honour our pledges, fulfil our goals and implement Community projects. To that end, we need money, and we need the amount stated, no more and no less. It is about credibility. For every cut that is made, our citizens pick up the tab, because there will be fewer infrastructure projects, less growth and employment, less education and research, and less rural development. We bear overall responsibility and we ask the Council to put the conditions in place so that we can fulfil this responsibility successfully on behalf of our citizens.

  President. − Ladies and gentlemen, very briefly, we are running very late, as regards both the list of speakers and speaking time. I must inform you that we will not be able to include a catch-the-eye procedure in this debate. I do apologise, but it will not be possible. I am sure you will understand that we have so many speakers from the various groups on the list of speakers that, with the best will in the world, we cannot include a catch-the-eye procedure as well.

  Andrey Kovatchev (PPE). – (BG) The Council’s proposal for reducing cohesion policy funds and the introduction of all kinds of obstacles to utilising these funds are illogical and unacceptable. What is the point, when we need growth in Europe, of freezing or even reducing the size of an efficient investment instrument complementing national efforts at a time when the objective is to complete the single market and to increase the competitiveness of all European regions to the North, to the South, to the East and to the West? I believe that it is cohesion policy itself that would get us out of this real, but also psychological, crisis. What is the point in crippling it? What is the point in dividing into friends of cohesion policy and friends of good spending? They both go together. There are government leaders who bravely announce that the multiannual financial framework must be frozen until 2020. Would they have the same courage to declare before their electorate that they will also freeze their national budgets until 2020? Of course it is more popular and more populist to cripple the European budget.

We declare that we want growth and jobs, a competitive economy, scientific research and innovations, and yet we purposefully limit the very instruments that achieve them. We are therefore guaranteeing the certain failure of the Europe 2020 objectives, which was, in fact, what happened with the Lisbon Strategy. Do we want to allow it to happen again? The world around us is not waiting. Ladies and gentlemen, government leaders, do not leave the central pillar of solidarity in the European Union, namely the cohesion policy, in such a state that it is unable to fulfil its objectives.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – (PT) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, I will be very brief because, in my opinion, this is essentially a policy issue and not a financial issue. The question to be asked is therefore whether we want the European Union to make the difference in this crisis situation or whether we want to aggravate the crisis. Most of the European countries are currently making huge efforts in their public finances so that they can exit the crisis in a competitive position enabling the European Union and its countries to truly compete on a global level. However, it is clear that, without investment, there can be no growth and no exit from this crisis.

If the European Union insists on these radical cuts, particularly in cohesion policy and the common agricultural policy, those countries which are making a huge effort will not grow. As a result, this plan for the European Union, which we have accepted in every country, namely good accounts with prospects of growth and competitiveness, will fail. The only substantial instrument available to achieve this goal is precisely the multiannual financial framework. As a result, if we want the European Union to succeed and its policy to stand as an example to other countries, we must secure the right budget for the financial perspective.

  Alain Lamassoure (PPE). – (FR) Mr President, President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, when it comes to the budget, despite our efforts, those of the Cypriot Presidency – to which I pay tribute – and those of the Commission – to which I also pay tribute – Europe is not working well.

Historically, democracy has come about as a result of taxes being approved by the representatives of those who pay them and who benefit from the policies they finance. This approval is given by a public vote after a public debate. What do we see now? Europe has no taxes. It is begging its members for charity.

(Applause)

Yes, there will be a debate in the European Council, but it will not be a public debate and it will not be a European debate. None of the 28 members has to report back to the 500 million citizens of Europe. Each of them will negotiate to minimise its own contribution to the common budget and maximise the money it gets back in return. That is when they will prove to be the most generous with other people’s money.

Yes, we are having a debate here and now in Parliament. Ladies and gentlemen, how many of us are here? What media are covering it live? How many citizens are following this debate?

Parliament itself does not have any responsibility because we only vote on the expenditure. We can also be generous with the taxes approved by others.

President Van Rompuy wants this Council to be a conclave, but the budget for the future of Europe cannot be decided on behind closed doors, as if we were choosing a Pope, invoking the spirits of the founding fathers.

(Applause)

I say this as a Christian Democrat!

The final outcome of these negotiations will only be a success for Europe if all those involved agree that they are the last to take place in this form and according to this procedure. Europe can survive a lack of funds; it would not survive this type of democratic deficit.

(Applause)

  President. – Thank you, Chair of the Committee on Budgets.

(Remarks to Mr Verhofstadt, who is speaking without a microphone)

Mr Verhofstadt, you are very sprightly this morning! Mr Cohn-Bendit, you are an easy-going kind of person, perhaps you could try and calm Mr Verhofstadt down?

I have the following request for Mr Mavroyiannis and Mr Šefčovič. I have now cancelled the catch-the-eye procedure, which has not made me very popular with the House. If you could please keep to your five minutes’ speaking time, I would be very grateful. After all, everything has already been said, just not by everyone.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, first I would like to thank Members of this House for this debate. I think it has shown very clearly that you really represent European citizens. We participated in many rounds of negotiations. It is not only the two major EU institutions which support the proposal for a modern and a good European budget, but also scientists, students, businessmen and industrialists support a modern European budget. Therefore I think the debate today was very important because it reconfirms this attitude.

Please allow me to react to some of the myths, which I heard again this morning and which are so misleading and so damaging to the European image.

Firstly, the notion that national budgets are being cut. There are cuts only in the five Member States which are on the programme. So what is being cut in the Member States? Excessive deficits. I think we have to speak about the figures but, to be fair to each other, we have to use them correctly. I think that Mr Böge in his statement was very precise about that. The budgets in 22 Member States are actually growing.

If we look at budget developments over the longer period, from 2000 to 2011, only two Member States have slower-growing budgets than the EU budget. If we take the example of the UK, in that case the budget grew twice as fast as the budget of the European Union. And let us remind ourselves that in 2000 there were only 15 of us. Now we are 27 and very soon we will be 28.

Then of course there is the issue of errors. I think that it is very important that we do not confuse errors with fraud or abuse. Only 0.2 % of the EU budget is actually investigated and you know very well that the Commission has clean books and a clean budget. Where is there a problem? With improper spending in the Member States.

Therefore I am very glad that yesterday in the General Affairs Council we approved the new approach to the way in which we control and spend the EU budget. We are introducing the possibility of net corrections, so I believe that we should also increase the discipline in how the money is spent.

With regard to some of the ridiculous projects which have been mentioned here, let us not assume that they are automatically paid for. More than EUR 1.5 billion worth of projects are very carefully studied and we do not pay for anything which is not in accordance with EU laws and EU rules.

With regard to the EU staff – and I have had quite intense discussions on this over the last couple of weeks – we have 55 000 EU officials, which include those in the Council, the European Parliament, the Commission, the Court of Justice, the European External Action Service, delegations abroad, agencies and the two Committees we have in Brussels. So how does this compare with the administrations abroad? They are comparable with the City Council in Birmingham or the City Council of Paris.

How can we compare the size of the staff of the Commission? I had a discussion on this yesterday with my British friends. One department in the UK, the Department for Public Works and Pensions, is three times bigger than the whole Commission with 98 000 people. Of course we can distinguish the roles of the civil servants in this or that institution, but the fact is that this is one department for one country and we have a Commission which has to serve, already now, 28 countries. Therefore I think we have to keep the figures in proportion.

With regard to the issue of pensions, the first thing to say is that EU officials are paying the highest contribution rates in Europe and they are, of course, paying towards their pensions in a system which was developed and proposed by the Member States. They are paying the pensions into the EU budget under the promise that when they reach pensionable age they will get their pension. If there were a pension fund – it was abolished by the Member States – today we would have a pension fund of EUR 35 billion to cover future pensions.

With regard to the argument that we did not react to austerity, here again I would like to remind Members that, since 2009, the Commission has followed zero growth with regard to staffing. How have we reacted to austerity? We continued with a proposal of a five % cut with a staff which will have to cover this cut by longer working hours – which would be among the longest in the European Union – without a pay adjustment. We have reacted by introducing the possibility for possibly the longest working life in the EU, namely introducing a pension age of 65 with the possibility to work to 67 and the European Parliament is suggesting 70. Is this not – I would say – a reaction to austerity? I think it is.

I know that we are under time constraints, so allow me to conclude by saying that we very much value your support. We are of course ready to engage and we will look for the compromise. But you will also understand that we have to fight for Europe, for the citizens and for a good modern EU budget.

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, thank you very much for this exchange of views. I know it is only by working together that we will deliver a good and sustainable budget for the Union.

We have taken note of the positions expressed during this debate; we are going to convey them to the President of the European Council and through the Council to our Heads of State and Government.

Far be it for me to challenge or question the intentions of MEPs, albeit diverse and conflicting at times, or for that matter the intentions of this House as a whole. I was particularly heartened about the reminder of the role of the EU budget and the role of Europe in the world and of Heading 4, because indeed we do not live in a glass house.

However, an agreement on the MFF can only be the synthesis of a shared vision and ambition considering the dire economic realities we are facing. Certainly we should not lower the level of ambition in a way which would deprive us of the means to move forward together honouring our values: quality of life, social cohesion, a redefinition of the notion of modernity and what kind of competitiveness we want; what kind of society we want; what kind of community we want.

As regards the antithesis mentioned by my mentor, Mr Kasoulides, real as it is, there might also be differing views on how to best achieve agreed and coordinated, sought-after results. Nobody in the Council questions Erasmus, help for SMEs, culture, education, research and development. Even with the proposed reductions, there is a substantial increase in comparison with the current period.

We do not come with a butcher’s cleaver to cut because we enjoy cutting. It is a difficult and painful situation. Let us credit each other with good intentions. Let us credit each other with being good Europeans even if we disagree on the role, the scope and the ambit of the European Union and what should be done at the European level.

Let us try together – but please in a pragmatic way with respect and dignity – to move the limits of what is possible and the quality of our spending, of our policies, of our actions, of our programmes.

Some tell us that we are a weak Presidency because we have upheld these values. We will not change. We will continue to have the same ethical approach assuming fully our responsibility with modesty yet ambition; trying to bring about a big catalyst of change. However, we do not force or impose. This is our role; we are honest brokers. This is our mission.

Please be conscious that when Member States contributing more than two-thirds of the budget and representing more than half of the EU population are asking for reductions, we cannot just ignore them. What we need is just more persuasion. This is the only way.

Indeed we all – Member States and of course this House as well – have the right of veto. But veto is just the right to pull the plug from the bottom of the boat we are all in, with the certainty that the boat will sink. Therefore, let us replace the threat of veto and the vicious circle with a virtuous one and embark on this by definition cathartic exercise, sticking together in adversity and coming out of it stronger and better off and, at the end of the day, bequeathing a better Europe to future generations.

  President. − Mr Mavroyiannis, regardless of the assessments of the Cyprus Presidency – and the question of whether it is a weak or a strong presidency is always a matter of political speculation and political evaluation – I would like to reiterate one point, and I think I speak on behalf of everyone who works with you personally, and it is this: you are not the Council. You are, first and foremost, Cyprus’s representative and the representative of the Member States. On a personal note, however, let me say that in your cooperation with the institutions, you have gained a very high degree of respect for you personally. I think it is important to make that point at least once on behalf of the House.

(Applause)

  Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE). – (ES) Mr President, President Barroso has had to leave but he wanted to answer a question. The Vice-President has kindly agreed to give a brief response.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, my apologies to Mr de Grandes Pascual. The answer to his question is: yes. The legal situation since 2004 has not changed as the Lisbon Treaty has not introduced changes in this respect. Therefore, the Commission can confirm its position as it was expressed in 2004 when replying to a parliamentary question and as it was recently re-stated by the President of the Commission.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). – Mr President, (inaudible) … austerity programmes do anything but aggravate a country’s problems of unemployment and debt. However, if people in various Member States are suffering because of those programmes, it seems a contradiction that a supranational body of which their country is a member should be asking for an increase in spending. It seems a contradiction, that is, if the country is a net contributor. Perhaps net recipients are less worried by that contradiction.

Britain has always been a net contributor, which is why a previous prime minister negotiated the British rebate. Those who are now seeking to reduce our rebate by recalculating it want us to be even more of a net contributor. The UK might achieve a freeze on spending but still increase its net contribution. The British rebate is not money paid into a begging bowl held by a richer-than-average – and therefore undeserving – country; it represents the return of part of an excess of contributions over receipts.

  Gabriele Zimmer, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – (DE) Mr President, there has been a great deal of talk here today about pragmatism and the need to adapt to real-world conditions. Let me make one thing clear: pragmatism and real-world conditions require a larger budget for the European Union, especially for the programmes to combat poverty and social exclusion. It is not acceptable that even the EUR 2.5 billion earmarked for the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived could be further reduced by the Member States to just EUR 2 billion or even rejected outright. We must recognise that due to the crisis, the situation of many people in the Member States has worsened and we all have a responsibility to act in solidarity here. That must the first priority for the negotiations next week as well.

The prerequisite, from my perspective, is that the Council finally accepts that the EUR 9 billion shortfall in the 2012 budget should be signed off and not carried forward to next year, and that no further shortfalls from 2012 should be carried forward to the next Financial Framework, as this would further reduce the total amount available.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, what we have seen this morning from the Commission and Parliament is a passionate defence of high salaries, index-linked pensions, chauffeur-driven cars and a lifestyle that none of you would actually enjoy out there in the real competitive world. It is the status quo: convincing itself that it you are doing a good job despite the fact that the public increasingly doubt you.

I would remind you that every time taxpayers’ money is thrown at common European projects the results are less than a success. The common fisheries policy and its environmental degradation and now of course the euro are not just an economic but a social disaster which is engulfing the Mediterranean and it is all based on flawed thinking that the State if it has power and money can create wealth. The dead hand of bureaucracy is destroying innovation and destroying jobs in Europe. National democracy and free markets would be a much better model.

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, today’s debate has been slightly more heat than light. Mr Barroso, who has sadly now departed, told us that the EU budget is a catalyst for growth. He is right, assuming that you are a cow or a pig. They do extremely well out of the EU budget and I am sure they will grow very well if Mr Barroso’s spending plans go through.

Let me remind you of the history of this. It is not just Mr Cameron that is calling for a budget freeze. Two years ago six Member States signed the same letter as he did looking for a budget freeze and it is now of course only the socialists, the UK socialists, who are calling for a budget cut. Mr Cameron’s position is still for a budget freeze if he can achieve it.

Let me pick up on Mr Šefčovič’s slightly pathetic remarks about Birmingham City Council and the comparisons to the EU civil service, which would be laughable if he were not so serious. Birmingham City Council employs street cleaners, it employs garbage workers, it employs teachers, and those same civil servants have had a pay freeze for the last three years. What is more, they pay high levels of income tax. They do not pay the 16 % income tax that your EU civil servants pay.

When you cut out the waste, when you cut out the fraud, when you cut out the irregular payments, when you cut out the errors in the budget, then come back to us and ask for more money.

  Helga Trüpel, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, Mr Barroso once said you will not fall in love with the internal market, and I say: it is even less likely that you will fall in love with austerity.

(DE) That brings to me to the essential point. It is not about wastage. It is about being prepared to make targeted cuts wherever money is not being spent sustainably. It is about properly understanding the spirit of the Growth Pact. That is something we must adhere to for our citizens’ sake, for it is about future investments and solidarity.

The Cyprus President has presented a proposal which we cannot accept because it is fundamentally conservative, maintains old spending priorities and does not have the courage to break new ground. The policy pursued by the Council, with its 27 egotists, is not a policy for Europe. I wish to send a clear message to the two speakers from the United Kingdom. Yesterday, British companies in the United Kingdom spoke out in public and demanded movement from Mr Cameron. They said that he must curb his euro-scepticism because it is bad for the British economy and does not serve the British people’s interests. That is the truth of the matter. Mr Callanan and Mr Farage should take note!

  President. − Ladies and gentlemen, may I ask you once again to take your seats. Mr Pöttering and Mr Buzek, you are former Presidents of the House. How am I supposed to call for quiet in the House when the two of you are holding your own private conversation? I would ask you to take your seats and listen to Mr Verhofstadt’s interesting speech!

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, thank you very much for the publicity.

Mr Farage has talked the whole morning about salaries and the biggest waste of money. Well, colleagues, what I think is the biggest waste of money in the European Union today is the salary we are all paying to Mr Farage – that is the biggest waste of money!

Mr Farage, let us be honest about it. You are a member of the Committee on Fisheries, for example, and you are never there, never! In 2011, no attendance. In 2012, no attendance. It is fantastic what you are doing. You come here saying that the salaries that are paid are a scandal, and you pay yourself a salary without doing any work in your own committee: that is the reality of the European Union today.

(Applause)

You can laugh. I hope that maybe this can be sent out on the BBC this evening, and on all the other private television channels in Britain, showing how you are in fact cheating your own citizens here, all the time, three years in a row already. I think it has to stop.

We know that Mr Alain Lamassoure is right. This Union, if it wants to become a real federal union, needs own resources; it needs in fact its own income, and that is the big battle now. We shall do it together and, if necessary, without you, Mr Farage.

(Applause)

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – (DE) Mr President, I do not want to deal with the issue of Mr Farage at this point. My comments concern a gentleman who has much more responsibility but who is not present in the chamber today; indeed, he is conspicuous by his absence at so many of our sittings. This gentleman has made a budget proposal and yet he is not willing to come here to defend it. Why is Mr Van Rompuy absent? I have nothing against Mr Mavroyiannis. He is a very pleasant and patient person, but Mr Van Rompuy should be here to defend his budget and his budget cuts. That is important, and would be a crucial debate!

(Applause)

Mr President, I am sure that as always, you will present our views very effectively but it would be very useful to have a direct confrontation for once.

My second and final comment is this. I know that many leaders and governments are now spreading the rumour that failure to reach agreement at the summit is a crisis for Europe. Let me say this: an agreement on the wrong terms is a crisis for Europe. A budget which cannot fulfil the tasks the EU has set itself is a crisis for Europe. A budget that we cannot endorse is a crisis for Europe. The heads of state and government should not constantly act as if their failure to reach agreement would precipitate a crisis. The crisis will occur if the basis for their agreement is the wrong one, meaning that we cannot fulfil our agenda. I already see one threat looming – and I would like to give you my backing once again, Mr President, also in your statements to the Council – namely that some countries will be mollified by the funding for agriculture and others by the cohesion funding, leaving no room in the European budget for growth and reforms. The danger is that all the countries and heads of government who want an efficient budget, a budget for growth and better spending will be bypassed and what we are left with is less spending. That is something that we cannot accept. That is not a course that will benefit Europe, and we must reject it. We must also send out a clear message that this type of budget will not secure the approval of the majority of Members of this House.

(Applause)

  Reimer Böge, on behalf of the PPE Group. – (DE) Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the debate has shown that the large majority of the House is united and consistently supports the resolution on the interim report from October. We are willing to compromise. However, there are limits to our willingness to compromise. Of course, we know that shortfalls in the management of the European budget must be resolutely addressed by the Commission and the Member States. We must get this under control. We want to achieve a result in the time available, but we do not want a result at any price. Quality must take precedence over timetabling.

Let me make it very clear at this juncture that the proposal made by Mr Van Rompuy, as a concept, is certainly not capable of securing majority support in the House.

(Applause)

More far-reaching ideas that apparently exist, which involve further cuts and reductions in programmes that offer European added value, are doomed to failure. Nor is it acceptable to say that we will achieve reductions of EUR 75 billion +/– 25 or whatever, and a few months later we come along with a proposal for a euro-facility. If this is the way forward and is under discussion, then in the interests of the unity of the European budget, it should be included in the European budget. Anything else would outsource the core of the European Union and ultimately weaken it. That is not something that any of us can seriously want.

I would therefore add my own voice to Mr Swoboda’s. We want an agreement and we expect the European Council, in the event of an agreement being reached, to grant the Cyprus Presidency a mandate that is an adequate basis for flexible and open-ended negotiations with the European Parliament with a view to achieving a result in the coming weeks. If no suitable proposals are forthcoming, a poor, indeed an extremely poor offer from the European Council will be much worse for the European Parliament than the safety nets granted to us under the Treaty of Lisbon. We will not fall through the safety net! This is not a crisis! We would simply find ourselves working with different and quite possibly better figures.

(Applause)

  President. − The debate is closed.

(The sitting was suspended at 12.15 and resumed at 12.35)

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. – (PT) The proposal to cut around EUR 75 billion from the Commission proposal is wholly unacceptable, not only due to the amount, but also because it represents an unbelievable attack on both cohesion policy and agricultural policy. The approach taken by the President of the Council, namely further cutting the money for certain Member States and least-favoured regions, while increasing the lump sum for Germany and the Netherlands and doing nothing about the United Kingdom rebate, is wholly unacceptable. By cutting funds for less-developed regions, budgets, and financing and pre-financing rates, the structural funds are being indiscriminately penalised, despite having already been adversely affected by the Stability and Growth Pact. They are robbing the poor to buy the approval of the rich in a wretched accounting logic, which has become the focal point of the next Union budget. Without money, the common agricultural policy (CAP) reform cannot happen. We cannot ask our farmers to endure more greening, more liberalisation and more international competition, and then reward them with drastic cuts in the CAP. Without money, the necessary increase in internal convergence between our Member States and our regions will be impossible, bearing in mind that it would be irresponsible to further increase the internal divergences in the Union.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE), in writing. – (FR) Firstly, I regret that the President of the European Council did not attend the debate. The crisis has caught up with the debate on the European budget. We argue: that is normal. However, we need an agreement; otherwise, we will be the laughing stock of the international community. Yes, we must support the European Commission’s excellent proposals. At the same, however, we cannot ignore the financial difficulties that many Member States are experiencing. In this context, I have a suggestion to make: we should maintain the overall multiannual ceiling proposed by the Commission and establish two separate periods. The first would last three years and we would agree to freeze appropriations to give the Member States time to put their finances in order and ratify the Treaty on Stability. During the second period, from 2017 to 2020, we would increase the budget slightly to reach the amount proposed by the Commission, and this would be financed, in particular, by the own resources established in the meantime. In 2014 we will have a new European Parliament, a new Commission and a new President of the European Council. In 2015 the United Kingdom might leave the Union. We could have a political debate on all of these matters when we come to the 2014 European elections.

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), in writing. – (GA) For some time now, there has been much speculation about cutbacks in the budget. This is a contentious issue and we must find a solution soon so that the EU will be able to introduce its new programmes before the deadline of the 14 January 2014.

In the worst case scenario, if a solution cannot be reached, there would be tremendous uncertainty in planning and operation issues as a result. Such a lack of leadership would be to the detriment of the European people, especially in the context of the current economic difficulties.

The leaders of the EU are now planning to reduce the budget for the common agriculture policy. Evidently, they have no clear understanding of how important the CAP is for the European people, for the environment and for the economy. The CAP is not just for farmers. It is a measure that benefits rural populations, produces high-quality food for European consumers, has great capability for developing trade, creating jobs and encouraging economic growth, and, above all, ensures that healthy sources of food are available in a world where the population is increasing and resources are under pressure.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. – (LT) As an MEP elected by Lithuanian citizens, it is very difficult for me to welcome the draft set of European Council conclusions presented by the President of the European Council Herman Van Rompuy last week and the proposed allocation of funds it contains for the next financial perspective. The most severe and probably the most damaging element of this proposal is the significant reduction in funds for cohesion policy. Such a proposal is completely unacceptable because in future it would be particularly damaging for the European Union as a family of states. The substance of cohesion policy is to align the level of development of all EU regions, thus the Council proposal to reduce these funds, which would be particularly detrimental to the regions that are currently the least developed, completely negates the substance of cohesion policy and would lead to a so-called two-speed Europe. The second highly criticised proposal by the Council is to reduce spending on agriculture. It is particularly hard to welcome the Council’s proposed extension of the transition period during which direct payments have to be harmonised for all EU Member States. Finally, the money that the Council currently plans to grant for the decommissioning of three nuclear power plants and specifically Lithuania’s nuclear power plant. First of all, the estimated funds are totally inadequate for the decommissioning of this facility. Secondly, the suspension of support in 2017 is completely unacceptable. Support must be provided over the period of at least the whole of the new financial perspective. Otherwise an undue burden would be imposed on Lithuania, which it really would be incapable of financing from its national budget, and other vitally important areas administered by the state would suffer as a result.

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), in writing. – (CS) Discussion of the multiannual financial framework (MFF) is not just a discussion about financial resources. It is a discussion about what we want Europe to be: whether we are going down the road of greater integration and solidarity between rich and poor or whether we view our relationships solely in terms of money. Give just what you have to. If I contribute to the budget, what is in it for me? In this context, I can understand the division of states into friends of cohesion and friends of better spending. We can see in the Czech Republic where the policy of cuts is leading and I do not want Europe to go the same way. The European budget amounts to just 1 % of all the Member States’ budgets and 94 % of it goes back into projects in the Member States. We have the opportunity at a European level to support activities leading to growth and to reducing unemployment or activities which exceed the capabilities of individual states, such as transport links. This view of the MFF is a vision of the future, cuts bring immediate savings but they have to be paid for in the long term.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – (RO) The negotiations on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) 2014-2020 are taking place in the context of austerity policies in most Member States, as we are all aware. I wish to stress, however, that the cuts in the Commission’s 2014-2020 draft budget are welcome. The European budget must complement the national budgets and fund common activities aimed at alleviating the impacts of austerity at national level. The European budget must focus on the economic growth that we all now need. The Union must respond adequately to the expectations of the European citizens. We cannot aim for greater economic, social and territorial cohesion, deeper market integration and economic growth, and, at the same time, cut the budgetary lines meant to sustain these. I call on the members of the Council of the European Union to consider these facts and make the responsible decision on the MFF so that the EU is not deprived of the financial resources it needs to exercise its competences.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), in writing. – The EU budget represents a very strong tool to increase strategic investment with European added value and put the European economy back on track, generating growth and employment while aiming to foster economic and social cohesion throughout the EU. It is important to increase funding for employment, education, training, mobility, youth and social inclusion. Social inclusion of young Europeans has to be mainstreamed and prioritised in all relevant policies financed from the EU budget. Youth-related instruments, such as the Youth Guarantee, have to be proposed by the European Commission. The necessary funding for Cohesion policy (structural funds and cohesion fund) should remain available for all regions and maintained at least at 2007-13 level. 25 % of the overall funding for cohesion policy should be allocated to ESF (European Social Fund) to promote employability and social investment. 20 % of ESF funding should be set aside for promoting social inclusion and combating poverty. European Globalisation Fund shall be continued and upgraded as in instrument to help all categories of workers to re-enter the labour market and acquire new skills. Also, an adequate support for achieving the EU 2020 targets and Union objectives for climate, energy, resource-efficiency and biodiversity should be provided.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), in writing. – (PT) In the European Parliament there is broad consensus on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2014-2020. In the Council there is wide division on this subject. Parliament believes that the next financial perspective should be guided by the Europe 2020 strategy to help relaunch the economy, create jobs and growth, and promote cohesion and solidarity. The EU budget is a budget for investment, given that only 6 % is destined for administrative expenses. It has recognised added value and an important leverage effect in terms of public investment and the creation of wealth and jobs. Accordingly, at a time of recession, it makes no sense to reduce it. It would be an even greater mistake to reduce the MFF amount at the cost of cohesion policy, which would clearly show a lack of solidarity with the poorest regions and Member States. Many seem to forget that cohesion policy consists of the European Social Fund, European Regional Development Fund and Cohesion Fund, and therefore contributes towards smart growth, research, capacity building and, at its heart, sound expenditure. For example, in Portugal around two-thirds of cohesion policy funds are used for smart growth. These difficult times demand courage, solidarity and a strategic vision on the part of the Council.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), in writing. – (SK) The EU multiannual financial framework (MFF) for 2014-2020 is to be the subject of negotiations at an extraordinary meeting of the European Council. The European Council is not a direct party to the negotiations, but the Council is guided by political agreement on key questions of politics! When we speak of the MMF, we are talking about the projection of our political priorities for a given period into financial terms. These negotiations are about more than just money. The MMF sets the budgetary discipline and ensures that expenditure is incurred systematically and in accordance with our political objectives. We know that the EU budget is a key instrument in overcoming the current crisis and an expression of solidarity within the EU. Correct determination of the financial priorities will have a positive impact on growth and employment. A marked increase will be needed in the financing of projects aimed at increasing competitiveness, supporting small and medium size enterprises, supporting research and innovation, investment aimed at job creation and support for measures to combat climate change. But let us not forget that the negotiations on the MMF should be completed as quickly as possible, definitely by the end of 2012. Only this will allow us to make a smooth transition from one financial period to the next. If we want to be able to start to implement these programmes from January 2014, political agreement must be reached at least eighteen months before the Framework enters into force.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), in writing. – (HU) On the face of it, what we are debating today is the next European Union framework budget, but in fact much more is at stake, namely Europe’s future. We speak of Europe wanting to recover from the crisis and develop, and Member States are being called upon to implement sustainable structural reforms. Meanwhile, however, we are ignoring the fact that withdrawn resources are not much use either for building from scratch or for catching up. To some extent it is understandable that the net contributors have a touch of solidarity fatigue, but all the same it is not acceptable. Cohesion policy is one of the genuine success stories in the history of the EU, but you will destroy it if you continue down this path. However, I also agree with Mr Farage that the previous Hungarian Socialist government’s use of Community funds to support canine fitness programmes is unacceptable. As Commission President Barroso said, waving a magic wand will achieve little. Speaking as an economist, I would say that now is not the time to scrutinise the budget line by line, but to make clear policy decisions.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. – The battle over the figures on the EU’s long-term budget for 2014-2020 is heating up ahead of the Council summit of 22nd and 23rd of November, which is focused solely on the MFF. While the European Commission proposed a EUR 1.025 billion budget for the next seven-year period, the latest proposal from the Council, issued by Herman Van Rompuy, suggested cutting the Commission proposal by EUR 80 billion. The European Parliament has made its position clear on many occasions. We want a long-term budget that will allow growth, investment, flexibility and transparency, in order to allow the EU to tackle future challenges and unforeseen needs. A reduced budget will only put EU policies in jeopardy and damage the EU in the long run. On the eve of the Council meeting I wish to remind the Council that the Parliament’s approval is needed for any agreement on the MFF, and we will be ready to use our veto if our position is not taken into consideration. Lastly, I should like to underline to the Council that failing to compromise and reach an agreement on the MFF sends bad signals to foreign investors, to economic markets, and certainly to EU citizens whose socio-economic interests are at stake.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D), in writing. – I cannot agree with those who based on short-sided and economically incoherent views, are urging the European Union to do more with less money when we need so desperately to boost growth and employment. How can we explain to the increasing number of working poor in the EU that the funding aimed at combating social exclusion and poverty will be significantly reduced? How can we explain to our citizens that the gap between new and old Member States will be widened due to the reduction of cohesion funds? To women victims of violence that successful European programmes such as DAPHNE are likely to be significantly curtailed? How do we expect the EU to keep its commitments to development and the promotion of human rights with such large cuts in the European development fund? We are at a turning point of the European construction. We are faced with two choices. We can either continue to pave the way for austerity and national withdrawal hoping for the better without any concrete vision to exit the crisis. Or we can make the choice of an ambitious European Union willing to invest for the future of its citizens.

  Edit Herczog (S&D), in writing. – (HU) The European Union is one of the biggest players in the global economy. For its economic and political power to continue to grow, it needs to be underpinned by a budget which promotes solidarity among the different Member States and generations and creates synergies between different policy areas, while at the same time enhancing competitiveness. I deplore all political attempts to use the budget to weaken or bring an end to the European Union. In order to sustain a united Europe, the next seven-year budget must therefore contain the points listed below. Every budget heading must ensure that the goals and commitments set out within it are fully covered, without taking resources away from other budget headings. Any budget cuts must be spread evenly across the various headings. Cohesion must be geared towards ensuring that freedom of movement is not a necessity driven by despair, but something freely chosen. The budget must enable the cohesion countries to catch up effectively, without trying to delude them. It must not call into question the European social model. It must clearly highlight the priorities. In the view of the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, the key issues here are a uniform and flexible budget, the European Stability Mechanism, and political agreement on the own resources issue.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), in writing. – (PL) Is it possible to have more for less? No, it is not. We cannot have more Europe with a reduced multiannual financial framework. It is natural, at times of financial and economic crisis, for public spending to become more problematic. However, it is worth remembering that great politicians are measured by their ability to look further ahead than the next elections.

The greatness of the current Member State leaders will therefore be measured by their ability or otherwise to reach an acceptable compromise. Net contributors should explain to their electorate why it is worthwhile investing in cohesion policy. The internal market should not be and is not the European Union’s only successful endeavour. You cannot have the icing without the rest of the cake. The failure to reach a compromise will hurt everybody, including the net contributors. All those threatening to use their veto should consider whether the lack of agreement does not, in fact, harm the interests and expectations of their own voters. I believe that the values on which the European Union was founded – solidarity, dignity and freedom – will prove stronger than the short-term interests of certain political parties. The strength of the European project has always lain in its emphasis on values other than the purely material. While funding is essential in order to increase cohesion, even worse than a reduced budget would be the sense that we had lost the solidarity that is envied the world over.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – The EU needs a solid and credible MFF. That is especially true in conditions of the continuing economic and financial crisis. For several Member States the EU budget will be the only reliable source for making investments. It is a limited and irresponsible vision of future to reduce the EU budget in order to achieve short-term savings. Member States whose leaders are insisting on freezing or reducing the amount of MFF tend to ignore the fact that during the recent past national budgets have grown several times faster than the EU budget. Freezing the EU budget will demonstrate both hypocrisy and irresponsibility for 2020 priorities which cannot be realized without increasing the MFF, not reducing it. The EU is based first of all on the principle of mutual solidarity. Estonia still has lower pensions than Greeks. Even so, it is contributing to the rescue operation to help Greece out of the crisis. However, solidarity can work only both ways. Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania still have their infrastructures designed for relations with the Soviet Union, not with Europe. Only a credible MFF can help them to overcome the heritage of the past and become connected to the heart of Europe.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE), in writing. – (PL) I believe that Europe’s most important challenge right now is to reach a compromise on the new multiannual financial framework. It is difficult to estimate the economic, political and social cost of a failure to adopt the budget, but there is no doubt that it would be significant. That is why all sides must be prepared to compromise and to work actively to find a way out of this impasse. When seeking a compromise, we must back solutions that make the least possible dent in cohesion policy, as it is a vital instrument for boosting growth and employment, which is precisely what Europe needs most. I also consider that, at difficult economic times, positive signals take on particular significance. The adoption of a new multiannual financial framework represents the prospect of stability, the possibility of making long-term plans and the opportunity to increase citizens’ trust in the European institutions. In my opinion, that is our only chance of overcoming our economic difficulties and returning to growth.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), in writing. – (RO) Mr President, the main cause of the heightened inequalities and the current economic crisis in the European Union is the greediness of some Member States, forgoing the solidarity principle of the Union. Now more than ever, we need to invest in the top economic sectors and I believe that reducing budgets for policies that have proved effective to date, such as the cohesion policy and the common agricultural policy (CAP), will greatly affect economic growth and the global competitiveness of the EU. Mr Van Rompuy’s proposal to reduce the cohesion policy budget by EUR 30 billion and the CAP by EUR 25 billion is unacceptable and the Member States must vote against it.

  Vojtěch Mynář (S&D), in writing. – (CS) The response to the current economic crisis in the EU should not be less Europe, but more Europe. Of course, it will not be free of charge. This must entail the use of the appropriate instruments which are, or will be, available. These undoubtedly include the multiannual financial framework (MFF) for the period 2014-2020, which should be used to fulfil the Strategy 2020. Unfortunately, negotiations on the MFF have recently got stuck and there has been a certain split among Member States. The group dominated by ‘net contributors’ is demanding cuts in the MFF. If such cuts are implemented, the MFF will shift to a level of about EUR 973 billion, which would mean a fall of EUR 20 billion in comparison with the current MFF at 2011 prices. I am therefore a fan of the second group (‘the friends of cohesion’), which supports the Commission’s original proposal, because I consider the MFF to be the key instrument in overcoming the crisis. If the cuts are implemented, there would be a reduction in competitiveness, growth and employment in the EU. In order to overcome the budget uncertainties, it is essential that the negotiations between institutions are completed as quickly as possible. Any further obstructions will unnecessarily increase the tension during negotiations, rather than effectively resolving the future of the EU.

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. – (PL) The state of the negotiations on the multiannual financial framework 2014-2020 should be cause for concern for anyone who cares about the EU’s economic growth, employment, cohesion and the fair distribution of resources. Firstly, the deepening cuts in the area of cohesion policy are a source of worry. I do not understand why the Council consistently discriminates against this expenditure, in spite of its unquestioned success in boosting investment and growth in the regions that most need it.

Secondly, the proposed cuts to the common agricultural policy raise questions about the sense of imposing new burdens on farmers. If we expect them to apply advanced greening practices, we must also ensure that the payments related to these practices are sufficiently high. Otherwise, we will create a situation whereby farmers may lose all incentive to meet environmental criteria in return for diminishing direct payments.

Thirdly, the proposed cuts to the second pillar of the CAP are unacceptable. Rural areas throughout Europe are in urgent need of development, and not just in terms of agricultural production or environmental protection. Second-pillar CAP financing is relied upon by all inhabitants of rural areas, who require modernised infrastructure, specialist health care and investment in education, recreation, tourism and sport. This is essential if we are to halt the damaging trend of migration from villages to towns. In the light of the above considerations, Parliament should firmly oppose any cuts in these budget areas.

  Mitro Repo (S&D), in writing. – (FI) Mr President, Parliament must not be underestimated in the current budget and financial negotiations. It is strange that Parliament is regarded more and more as some sort of necessary evil. It is only listened to reluctantly and under duress.

This is not a sustainable operating model from the perspective of European democracy. The multiannual financial framework is not a show of strength between the institutions.

Europe needs a strong budget that can be used to respond to the social pressures, increased unemployment and reduced competitiveness caused by the crisis. This means that more money is needed, and it should be aimed at measures that increase growth and jobs.

Even this week, there is a group of demonstrators standing in front of Parliament, demanding work and social justice. Why has the social dimension of the crisis been forgotten? The European Union is in the prime position for financing projects and programmes to increase growth and investment all over Europe. Without growth and investment, no new jobs will be created. The current line of savings will only increase social inequality and displacement.

It is the worst-off and socially most vulnerable sectors of society that are hit the hardest by unrealistic objectives. Thanks to the crisis, 25 million citizens have remained out of work in the EU, 5.5 million of them young people. It seems unbelievable that the equation of this social crisis could be solved merely by making the austerity programmes even more stringent. Discord and blame do not help to create a budget agreement, nor do they help to polish the tarnished image of the EU among citizens. A resolute, logical and credible economic policy is needed now. A balanced budget policy is needed, as well as sufficient active stimulation. Europe and Europeans need jobs, investment and growth now.

  Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), in writing. – (LV) The European Union’s multiannual budget is an investment budget for growth. It is not a consumption budget. Investment in the attainment of the European Union’s common goals and the fulfilment of its obligations provides considerable added value to Europe’s nations as a whole. However, the budget must be sufficient to attain these goals. Particular emphasis should be placed on investment in cohesion policy, agriculture, research and education, which are vital cornerstones for the EU’s growth. At the moment it is clear that the European Council’s approach is precluding growth. If we cannot ensure or even plan to ensure that the ambitious goals of the Europe 2020 strategy will be achieved through the EU multiannual budget, both the European Council and the Presidency ought to be honest and say as much. Let us avoid the mistakes of the Lisbon Strategy, where people by and large persisted in speaking about it, while already knowing that its goals would not be achieved. One of the EU’s values is solidarity. I hope that the promises that have been made to the Baltic States will materialise in concrete actions. Actions speak louder than words. To conclude: the only way in which we will be able to emerge from the crisis in time is to invest in a targeted way and with sufficient resources in our joint growth.

  Adrian Severin (NI), in writing. – The dispute over the multiannual financial framework is not about money but about the future of the EU. It is not about figures but about the political principles generating those figures.

A smaller European budget does not mean necessarily better spending, but more likely wasted resources and opportunities. We have to provide the EU with the financial resources necessary for achieving its objectives. Any disparity between needs, ambitions and funding is a loss.

A bigger EU budget does not mean bigger burdens on the shoulders of the national taxpayers but a better use and distribution of the taxpayers’ money. Bigger cohesion funds do not mean that the more productive Member States pay for the inefficiency of the less productive states. It means providing opportunities for growth for both more developed and less developed members. Solidarity is not charity but the only form of intelligent selfishness in difficult times.

On the background of the economic crisis, this Framework does not offer solutions for stimulating European solidarity, economic growth or job creation, but rather pushes for national selfishness, absurd austerity and nations’ fragmentation. Therefore the Council’s draft is unacceptable. Parliament and the Commission’s positions are the least one could support.

  Georgios Stavrakakis (S&D), in writing. – (EL) The long-term EU budget is a strategic tool for investment, for stimulating growth and competitiveness and, of course, for creating jobs throughout Europe. Although we understand the financial restraints and the rationalisation efforts which the Member States are making, the cuts proposed in the European Council’s draft conclusions are unacceptable. As regards cohesion policy, the proposals made by the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, for cuts amounting to EUR 29.5 billion in relation to the Commission’s proposal, represent the fourth round of cuts since that proposal was presented. The same 27 countries which in June unanimously decided on the need for investment, are now competing to see who will propose the biggest cuts in what is purely an investment budget, the European budget. We therefore continue to maintain that we need an ambitious European budget, capable of financing the priorities of the European Union, and that this cannot possibly be achieved with cuts. Ladies and gentlemen, the dispute between the European Parliament and the Council is not about money, but about the future of Europe.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), in writing. – (PT) This debate concerned the latest proposal presented by the President of the Council, Mr Van Rompuy, which will be used in the Council negotiations on 22 and 23 November. The proposal involves a budget cut of EUR 81 billion (EUR 74.5 billion in the multiannual financial framework and EUR 6.2 billion in other budget lines). I am wholly against the proposal presented by the President of the Council as it advocates a reduction of approximately EUR 30 billion in cohesion policy funds and another EUR 25 billion in agriculture and rural development funds. These are two European policies which significantly benefit Portugal and the Portuguese people, and I cannot therefore agree to a drastic reduction in their financial envelope. As I have already done in the European Parliament’s Committee on Regional Development and in various other forums on this issue, I continue to firmly reject the 48 % reduction in the specific additional allocation for the outermost and sparsely populated regions. Only with an increased budget can the European Union invest in growth and jobs, thus helping to overcome the severe economic and crisis that we are experiencing.

  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D), in writing. – (NL) The EU has come under heavy fire recently. It is struggling to tackle the crisis and the Member States are more divided than ever, certainly when it comes to the new multiannual budget. An ambitious agreement is nonetheless supremely important for the future of the Union, because the budget is the only solidarity mechanism that we have in the Union and that solidarity mechanism is under pressure. Net payers are no longer willing to foot the bill for countries that are struggling, which puts the future of the whole European construction at risk. The financial crisis is undermining the whole solidarity mechanism. It is ironic that it is those countries above all who think that we should cut spending ‘together’, who want to prevent Member States from acting out of real solidarity with each other. Cutting spending together is alright, building something up together is not. That is why it is essential that the Union has its own funds at its disposal. Otherwise solidarity within the EU will simply come under more and more pressure. That is the only way we will be able to draft a European budget with sufficient funds to invest in sustainable growth and jobs. Without this investment we are facing a lost decade and lost generations, who are in danger of turning their backs on the EU.

  Dominique Vlasto (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I very much regret the absence of President Van Rompuy, who did not feel that there was any need to come to the EP to present his proposal for the multiannual budget, which is undoubtedly the most important in the EU’s history. We must not get confused over the debate: it is not a matter of deciding which programmes are to be cut, but what future we want for our Union. Too often, we hear that the European budget was an expenditure budget, when in reality it is an investment budget, a strategic instrument to support intelligent, inclusive and sustainable growth. I must emphasise one point: the Connecting Europe Facility and its transport dimension. We know that the transport sector is a lever for growth and competitiveness and a key source of employment. Yes, Parliament has asked for a large budget for it, but I would actually describe it as ambitious. Our House will be extremely vigilant, even if our hopes are in vain, in the negotiations over the next couple of days in the European Council, which must not forget that the European Parliament will have its say. It will thus be able to say yes, or say no if the proposal on the table is not satisfactory.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. – (DE) The European governments, one after another, want to pay even less, which is entirely understandable in view of the current financial situation of very many Member States. However, if our ministers undertake new commitments, these must, and will be, fulfilled. We are part of the European Union; at least, that is the commitment we made through our accession. More than 90 % of the EU budget is channelled back to our citizens. Our numerous unemployed and our Erasmus students therefore find it impossible to comprehend why they suddenly cannot access funding! How can we advocate for the EU 2020 objectives without having the capacities to fulfil them? What about lifelong learning? What about credibility in the fight against poverty? Too many people are affected by this parlous state of affairs. Empty words offer them nothing and are of no use at all. What our citizens need from us is urgent action!

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (PT) There is a clear message in the multiannual financial framework proposal that is on the table. Contrary to the impression given by this debate, and despite the impassioned statements made on both sides, the Council and Commission positions do not substantially differ. There is less than 0.2 % of EU gross national income between them. The clear message is therefore that, in a Europe of inequalities and divergence, the funds for economic and social cohesion are going to be cut! This message is in line with the established practice of this European Union: robbing the poor to give to the rich. On the one hand, they want to extend and deepen integration and the single market, by ensuring new and better conditions for the colonisation of markets by the net beneficiaries of the single market. On the other hand, these same net beneficiaries want to squeeze the budget, particularly the cohesion lines – which are the best way of minimising the divergence between our economies – while, however, safeguarding in relative terms those lines from which they hope to secure more resources. This is a path that cannot be accepted by all those – such as Portugal – who will suffer as a result, and severely so.

IN THE CHAIR: MARTIN SCHULZ
President

  President. − The next item is the vote.

(For the results and other details on the vote: see Minutes)

  President. − There are 386 votes in favour, 281 against and 28 abstentions.

(Sustained applause)

I therefore confirm that Mr Borg has the approval of the House.

(Applause)

  Maroš Šefčovič, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, in line with Article 246(2) of the TFEU, the Council has consulted the European Parliament on its intention to appoint, in common accord with the President of the European Commission, Mr Tonio Borg as Commissioner for the Health and Consumer Policy portfolio.

The vote that you have carried out just now expresses Parliament’s opinion with regard to the Council’s intention to appoint Mr Borg. The Commission welcomes the result and it is now for the Council, in common accord with the President of the European Commission, to take the next steps. I know that there is a big agenda ahead and once the procedure is completed Mr Borg would start immediately, as he promised in the hearing.

IN THE CHAIR: ANNI PODIMATA
Vice-President

Before the vote:

  Inese Vaidere (PPE). – Madam President, because there was no debate on this very important subject I just wanted to say a few words. I will continue in my language, Latvian.

– (LV) Ladies and gentlemen, the bilateral agreement on the administration of tariff-rate quotas applying to exports of wood from the Russian Federation to the European Union is an important guarantee that trade with Russia will start to flow in a more stable and much more predictable manner. In joining the World Trade Organisation Russia has agreed to reduce export duties on raw materials, including on two types of coniferous wood: pine and spruce. The agreement is very important, because it lays down a specific quota share within the framework of which export duties are significantly lower.

The main beneficiary will be the European Union’s wood-processing industry. Our businesses will now pay nearly half as much in Russian export duties as they have done up until now. We can expect that import volumes in the coming years will approach the levels seen prior to 2008, when Russia unexpectedly increased export duties and the European Union’s imports of coniferous wood and round timber fell by 80 %.

At the same time, it is very important to note that there is a protocol attached to this agreement which contains binding rules on a dispute-resolution procedure. We have also managed to win an important victory for Parliament, which is that amendments to the trade agreement in future are to be carried out within the ordinary legislative procedure, although the Council had originally recommended allocating implementing authority to the Commission, thus limiting Parliament’s authority.

I would like to thank the members of the Committee on International Trade as well as my fellow Members for their excellent assistance, and I call upon you to vote for this agreement.

Thank you.

Before the vote on paragraph 12:

  Niki Tzavela, rapporteur. − You can find the oral amendment at the end of your voting lists. It is paragraph 12: ‘Reiterates its call on the Commission to come forward by the end of 2013’. The text had stated ‘2012’, but that was unrealistic so it is now 2013. This is the oral amendment: 2013 instead of 2012.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

Before the vote on Amendment 6:

  Margrete Auken (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, just to say we tried to remove the most controversial parts of Amendment 6. I was very sad we did not control Amendment 5 because I think we had the majority but we were not able to do this. Amendment 5 was crucial in making this report acceptable.

(The oral amendment was accepted)

Oral explanations of vote

Report: Eva Lichtenberger (A7-0330/2012)

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I wish to explain my vote in favour because I believe that monitoring the application of Community law is one of the important tools that allows the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council to combat the effects of the crisis. In my opinion, the obligations in the EU Treaties have not been fulfilled correctly and the procedures were preferential and biased.

Articles 258 and 260 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union state that if a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the Treaty, they may be subject to infringement proceedings. Unfortunately, this has not happened, and that is why I believe that it is absolutely necessary to revise the regulations.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, I agree with the report and in particular with the rapporteur in noting that the national courts play a vital role in applying EU law. I therefore fully support the Union’s efforts to enhance and coordinate judicial training for national judges, legal professionals, officials and civil servants in the national administrations. Action in this area should also be stepped up in order to live up to the concept of a Union based on the rule of law.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). – Madam President, I voted for this report. The correct application of EU law is primarily a task for the Member States’ administration and judiciary. Greater access to information on complaints, infringement files and other enforcement mechanisms must be provided. The Commission must follow more closely and with severity the transposition of directives before the end of the transposition deadline. Member States with a bad record should be named and shamed.

We have experienced significant differences among Member States on their political will to transpose EU directives, as well as their capacity to do so. If we continue in this way, the trust of Member States in one another and the trust of their citizens will decrease, with a negative impact on trust in the Union’s capacity to enforce the application of its own laws. Trust unites us and mistrust divides us. Let us stay united.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, I was also pleased to support these proposals and, without a doubt, in the absence of legislation, one cannot have stability and order throughout Europe. However, it is extremely important that the rules should be monitored properly and implemented fairly. As well as that, the Commission should act more promptly in imposing fines on countries or in bringing them to court for not implementing the rules or the laws. Nevertheless, there is another side to the story: sometimes the authorities in those countries are too severe, especially with regard to individuals like farmers and fishermen when they make a minor mistake: terrible penalties are imposed on them, even though the blunders may have been the result of an accident rather than on purpose. Therefore, monitoring should be carried out throughout the whole of Europe so that the laws are uniformly implemented.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, in my own constituency of London there are many people who feel that there is simply too much law coming from Brussels and far too much EU law. But they are also very upset by the fact that, when we have law, it is not implemented properly and that we implement the rules quite early but other Member States do not.

For example, we can look at the completion of the single market, which is essential if we are going to achieve growth in Europe, rather than simply tighten our belts and cut our spending – although that is also essential to get the budget under control. We want more growth and it is essential that we complete the single market to make sure that our companies can trade across national borders. At the same time, it is also important that countries that are fined by the European Court of Justice actually pay their fines rather than avoid doing so, as the French did when they were blockading British beef. So, if you want to talk about the application of EU law, make sure you are consistent and make sure we all stick to the rules.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, sitting through this morning’s debate was a bit like George Orwell’s two minute hate – or rather two hour hate – the subject being the budget and the target being Britain. No one would have gathered, listening to the debate this morning that at least eight and, on some definition, 12 of the 27 national governments have threatened to veto the financial perspective. All of the sneering was directed at us, led as always by Mr Verhofstadt, but with applause coming from every quarter of the Chamber.

I am afraid it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we are simply not popular. I do not mean us politicians, but the people who return us here, which is why the single best reason for us to change our relations with the EU, to become an independent country again, is to improve our relations with our neighbours and take this poison out of the relationship between Britain and the continent. You would lose a bad tenant. You would gain a good neighbour.

Report: Bogusław Sonik (A7-0283/2012)

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I abstained from voting on this report, even though I find it balanced. I believe, however, that there is no scientific data to assess the impact of hydraulic fracturing used in shale gas extraction. I also believe that in the European Union, even though there are some relevant specific regulations, the impact on the environment is crucial and all types of exploitation must take it into account. I agree that this method is harmful. This was proved by United States mining impact assessments, which recorded aggressive environmental damage. Unfortunately, no such assessment has been carried out in the European Union, even though the resources are there. We call on the Member States to pay particular attention to how this hydraulic fracturing technology is regulated.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, in recent years the extraction of ‘unconventional’ hydrocarbons, notably shale gas but also shale oil, has led to unprecedented and radical changes in global energy markets. In order to respond to this situation, Europe will have to rely less on imports of hydrocarbons and more on potential indigenous shale gas. To this end, a number of Member States have permitted shale gas exploration and are preparing for extraction if discoveries allow. In this context it is important to monitor regulatory regimes on shale gas extraction within the EU, so that its effects, which are certainly positive in economic terms, do not create environmental problems due to potential leakages of harmful substances into aquifers and into the atmosphere.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – (ES) Madam President, with our vote we wished to support a very clear concept: there must be no exploitation and no exploration, using any technology, be it fracking or whatever, unless we can ensure that it complies with the environmental laws and meets the rigorous environmental protection standards.

Europe needs alternative energy sources, but it is also committed to a development model based on sustainability.

Unconventional gas reserves are an opportunity today – that is true – but if Europe wants to remain at the forefront of researching and discovering technologies that allow us to exploit this resource without putting the environment at risk, there must be no exploitation and no exploration, until we improve on existing technologies.

  Marek Józef Gróbarczyk (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, the original version of the report on shale gas extraction has been rendered completely unrecognisable by changes that reveal the real aim of the proposed regulation. Development, economic growth, energy security – everything that could provide an opportunity for many European Union Member States – will be blocked as a result of today’s decision. This is all happening amid a clamour for deeper European integration and more Europe in Europe. At the same time, under the shale gas programme in the United States, the price consumers pay for this fuel has fallen to USD 70 per 1 000 m3 while we in Europe have to pay eight times as much to Russia, which is the only country to benefit from this absurd situation. The final version of this report is damaging to the sovereignty and security of individual countries, circumstances to which we can never agree.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, in the time of economic downturn energy prices are under the microscope. We therefore have to consider all sources of energy available to us while respecting, of course, environmental concerns. We must also explore all our options and I therefore could not support this report in its existing form. This report may focus on regions and countries that have introduced a moratorium on shale gas. However, there are plenty of regions that are on their way to becoming more energy efficient and self-sustaining because of responsible exploitation of this resource.

We need to balance the debate. If the EU is to compete with other areas of the world who are busy exploiting this resource in a responsible way we need to learn from them, particularly from the US in this regard, and without delay in order for us to be economically competitive too.

  Alfredo Antoniozzi (PPE). – (IT) Madam President, Mr Sonik had a long and complex task, and overall we should welcome his report. However, it is clear that there are still many doubts about extraction of shale gas and oil. The other speeches we have heard also share this view, in particular with regard to environmental and public health protection. I therefore welcome the series of studies undertaken by the European Commission on potential risks resulting from shale gas extraction. Only on the basis of their results will we be able to give a clear answer and be in a position to adopt a new EU framework Directive for regulating mining activities.

  Giommaria Uggias (ALDE). – (IT) Madam President, there are two aspects to the measure that we have adopted, one geopolitical and the other environmental. Geopolitically the introduction of shale gas extraction could have a positive effect for Europe, since it might reduce our dependence on Iranian and Russian resources, but there are strong environmental concerns. This apparently harmless gas may have a severe impact on the environment, on nature and on the coming generations. The resolution we have adopted therefore takes a cautious approach and introduces a moratorium. However, we will have to return to the question to assess the environmental effects.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, the dangers of fracking to the environment and to public health are so serious in my opinion that they cannot be regulated for. That is why I signed the amendment seeking a total ban, and when that amendment was defeated I voted against the report as a whole.

Incredibly, the water used for one single well for fracking would supply 10 000 Europeans with water for a whole year, and a recent German study states that the global warming footprint of shale gas extracted at a depth of 1 000 metres is 30 % larger than for natural gas, and it is twice as large for gas obtained 2 500 metres down.

This environmentally dangerous practice must be banned. It is precisely the same big oil and big gas companies that have already made super profits, and that have already endangered our environment, who now tell us that shale gas is safe and that there is no problem. They simply cannot be trusted. Instead of relying on them, the public sector must become the spearhead of investment into research and development and infrastructure to develop green energy production. This can be financed through taking the massive accumulated profits of big oil into democratic public ownership.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – (FI) Madam President, I voted in favour of this report. It is important for us to discuss shale gas and oil here from the perspectives of industry, energy and other viewpoints, and of course it is important that we discuss them bearing in mind the environmental considerations, because we in the European Union and the Member States are committed to sustainable development and sustainable growth, and for this reason it is very important that we consider how best to use European energy resources when we look for these new forms of energy and new technologies.

However, when we talk about better use, this must not merely be regarded as financial benefit and financial profit, but we must also look at environmental values. I must say that it is very important in this respect to emphasise precisely this aspect of the report; new technologies and investment are needed, and we can thus develop our mining industry in a sustainable way.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, I must say I regret that the amendment I co-signed, requesting Member States to act on the precautionary principle and not to authorise any fracking, was not carried. While I understand that this is a Member State competence, nonetheless I believe it would have sent a strong signal from this Parliament.

I think we need to take into consideration the views of the Commissioner for the Environment, who just yesterday evening spoke in this Parliament He said that there are gaps in European legislation and he confirmed that the Commission will carry out an impact assessment in 2013 – part of which will be a public consultation. At least that will give citizens and the public a chance to have an input and to make their views known.

In my own constituency, there are plans to drill exploratory wells for fracking and many people have real concerns about the environment and about human and animal health. The poor record of fracking in the US gives us every reason to be concerned, and there is no proper framework in place to ensure the protection of the environment and the protection of human and animal health.

  Paweł Robert Kowal (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, today is the day we dispelled illusions, in particular the illusions of those who thought that Parliament could make a positive contribution on the subject of shale fuels. We know, from listening to the debate, what end this report will serve. I therefore call on all Members whose intentions are honest and who wish Poland and other countries to make use of the opportunity represented by shale gas and oil not to agree to any further regulation in this regard. I abstained from this vote in order to make the point that it is not a matter for the European Parliament; it is a matter for the Member States and their governments and should be left to them to decide.

The effects of today’s vote will include lagging competitiveness in shale gas and oil extraction in Europe (allowing the United States to increase its lead further still) and slowness in Poland and other European countries to seize the opportunity to generate revenue from shale fuels (others will get there quicker), leaving us without any benefits and allowing Parliament to be sucked in by all manner of ideological arguments and nonsense peddled by the European Left against the prospect of development in those countries for which shale extraction offers an opportunity.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, I am firmly opposed to the final version of this report. I mistakenly voted in favour of it and would like to correct that now. I was, am and will remain against it, especially as the series of amendments tabled has undermined the report’s effectiveness. I believe that the problem here is a complete misunderstanding of the situation. I do not wish to get into the workings of the nuclear energy lobby or the Gazprom lobby or any other pressure Group. I have the impression, however, that many of my fellow Members lack any empathy with or understanding for the issue at stake. It is my firm belief that Parliament’s decision today is extremely damaging and does nothing to strengthen the authority of the EU institutions.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, cheaper energy is the chief motor of human economic progress. Every great advance in our living standards, from the Industrial Revolution onwards, has been accompanied by a fall in energy prices that allows production prices to fall and makes us more competitive. It allows us to get more out of less. The revolution which happened with oil was a huge improvement. It allowed one barrel to do the work of hundreds of men and all of us are benefiting from the consequent rise in our living standards.

Shale oil is a providential gift to this part of the world. Instead of having to carpet our hills with wind farms and dam our estuaries with turbines, here is a discreet way of getting at more power and ending our reliance on some unpleasant and autocratic regimes. It is crazy that we are thinking of applying the same regulatory model to shale gas extraction that the European Union has already unsuccessfully tried to apply to offshore oil extraction. Our customers, our people deserve better than this.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, actually shale gas and shale oil are nothing new. Shale oil was actually used to light the streets of Modena in Italy in the 17th century so this debate is not new. But what is important is that we consider the impact not only on the environment but also the impact of the environmental movement on this. It is often said that if the modern combustion engine was invented today the environmental movement would have killed it and we have to understand that we have to get the right balance between technological progress and saving our environment and protecting our environment.

At the same time, however, we must not also forget the geopolitical implications. I can understand the frustration of my Polish colleagues who are fed up of dependence on Russia and hear no sympathy in this Parliament from the other political groups. They see shale oil and shale gas as a way of reducing that dependence, so that they can be self-sufficient and not have to depend on an overbearing neighbour, and that should seriously be a consideration in this debate.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because shale gas is increasingly viewed as a viable resource. It is still too early to predict if Europe can undertake in large-scale exploitation of this type of gas, even though some Member States have already allowed for exploration with a view to extracting this resource.

Each Member State has the right to choose its own energy supplies. In my view, there is no reason not to allow the extraction of shale gas, as long as environmental standards are respected, and I would like to reiterate that shale gas mining falls within the national competence of each Member State.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). – (BG) I voted for the report on the environmental impact of shale gas and shale oil extraction activities. With this report the European Parliament insists on a number of regulations for the energy industry extracting shale gas. The most important of them, defended by the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, are the following: European Union funding for research and innovation in the field, compulsory environmental impact assessment, fracking fluids to be considered hazardous waste, and fracking in areas with drinking water to be banned. The adoption of the report should not be seen as a green light for shale gas extraction in the EU Member States or indicative of the European Parliament’s support in this direction. First and foremost, it lays down restrictions and standards that should be observed in the countries where such extraction is permitted. I, personally, am in favour of the complete ban on shale gas extraction through fracking and hope that Bulgaria will remain one of the countries where such extraction is prohibited.

Report: Niki Tzavela (A7-0284/2012)

  George Lyon (ALDE). – Madam President, I voted for both the Sonik and the Tzavela reports on the impact of shale gas. I am very pleased that Parliament rejected the calls for a moratorium, not least because it certainly is a Member State responsibility and not an EU one.

Given the energy needs of Europe and our reliance on imported gas from Russia, it is essential that we explore all the options that are available to us, while ensuring that we have proper environmental controls and regulations to put in place to ensure that the environment is properly protected. We need to get that balance right or else we may choke off the potential that this new technology offers to us.

This also has to go hand in hand with further investment in renewables as part of an energy mix that secures the future of EU energy needs going into the future.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). – (RO) Mr President, I abstained. Even though the report mentions scientific data on shale gas mining, there are still many unknowns. I accept that Europe is not competitive when it comes to energy resources. I also accept that the cost and the dependence on gas imports are high. However, we must strike a balance between our energy needs and environmental damage, which can be disastrous, in the medium and long term. We have yet to see an analysis of the impact on water and soil quality, flora and fauna, natural resources and agriculture, and on all economic activities in general.

I welcome this report, however, and I call on the European Environmental Agency to complete the scientific analysis of these potential impacts. Sadly, many Member States wishing to avail of shale gas extraction do not yet have the technological capability to assess its environmental impact. In our drive to resolve a problem of the present, we should consider how this may affect the future.

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Madam President, unlike the previous report emanating form the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, I can support this report, as it makes clear that it is up to each Member State to make responsible decisions concerning shale gas. Yet it is clearly within the EU’s wider goals of enhancing energy independence to be open to exploiting this resource further.

The energy aspect to this issue is one thing. But the research aspect is also to be considered, as many of the techniques involved in safely accessing shale gas have led to leaps forward in research as new innovative techniques have been developed and continue to be developed as the technology matures. The wider usages for these technologies are yet to be explored but should be considered a priority for EU research and innovation funding too.

  Bendt Bendtsen (PPE). – (DA) Madam President, I voted in favour today. The price of gas in the US is one-fifth of the price of gas in Europe, and therefore we must naturally not exclude new forms of energy. Of course, there cannot be any doubt that we must strive to ensure that the environmental conditions are appropriate. I think we have heard the left come up with some scare campaigns in this area today. I can tell you that this technique, which is in use, is not very different from the technique used today and which has been used for many years in the North Sea, where we look for oil. It is actually the same technique that is used, and the running of scare campaigns in this area must therefore be stopped. Europe needs more energy supplies.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). – (SK) Madam President, I supported Niki Tzavela’s report on the extraction of shale gas in today’s vote.

I think that, despite the fact that such extraction is associated with many risks for the natural environment, it is necessary to examine and determine the potential this source of energy represents for the energy industry in the European Union. In the present situation, when it is essential to find a way to diversify energy sources, we should look at this option too. I also agree that this case calls for the use of the principle of subsidiarity, so that Member States have the option of determining their own energy mix. I also suggest that any extraction should take account of European environmental standards.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, I voted against this report. It is largely supportive of fracking and sees fracking as a core element of the European energy mix. The report does not consider the precautionary principle and is way too optimistic in regard to fracking. Just yesterday in this Chamber, the Commissioner for the Environment himself spoke about the risks from fracking and said that they were higher than those from conventional gas exploration. He also said that there are significant gaps in EU legislation in regard to fracking.

In my view these gaps include the need for a mining directive, the necessity to expand the remit of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive and gaps in the Water Framework Directive. In my own constituency there are very serious concerns in regard to fracking and its consequences for animal and human health, the destruction of the landscape and damage to our clean, green image.

Finally, we are facing a fossil fuel cliff globally. Shale gas may have postponed the awful day, but our energy mix in the future will not be fossil fuel based. We need to direct our energies and our resources to sustainable renewable energy sources.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, I was here in Parliament yesterday for three hours or more when this subject – shale gas – was being debated. I did not succeed in having any input through ‘catch the eye’ although another Member managed to do so two or three times because, I believe, he misused the ‘blue card’. Be that as it may, I voted with my group on the votes here today.

Having listened to the debate yesterday, so many diverse points were made that it was very difficult to come to a balanced conclusion. Certainly there are concerns, particularly regarding the environmental aspects of shale gas, but I think, of all the speeches I have heard, the one by Kay Swinburne was probably the most balanced. It is a matter for the Member States. We have to allow for research and development. That is why I particularly welcome the oral amendment today where all stakeholders are to be consulted before the Commission makes its report next year.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, there were moments today during the debate when one felt as if one was in an Ionesco play. All these wonderful speeches about how we needed more money to stimulate the economy and get people working again. Of course, where it is all going is higher entertainment allowances, protected pensions, higher salaries. Even if we though that it was a good idea for the EU to have a redistributory role in finance, do you know which Member State of all the Member States is the biggest per capita net recipient from the EU budget? Luxembourg!

Although of course common humanity bids us recognise an obligation to the poorest people on the planet, no one has ever explained to me why it is right to give four times as much support to wealthy French farmers as to poor African farmers. But the delicious moment of irony came right at the end. After all the speeches about how we needed more money to make us more efficient and we were cutting out all the waste and we were really focusing on growth, the EU spent EUR 600 000 awarding its own film prize.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, we all know that our constituents are worried about higher fuel prices, whether home fuel or petrol prices, so they welcome the view that we are looking for alternatives. It is important that we do not stop technological progress. Quite often technological progress leads to cheaper fuel for everyone.

It is absolutely right that we have the environmental impact assessment and that we understand that there are different types of ways of extracting shale gas and shale oil, but think of the geopolitical issues. Think of the fact that it reduces dependence on some states on which it would be very useful for us to reduce dependence. Think of the fact that countries such as Poland will no longer be dependent on Russia for their energy needs. Think of the potential for the United States and other countries to no longer be dependent on oil from some of the most unpleasant regimes in the Middle East.

A reason for which we used to support some of these dictatorial regimes was that we wanted their oil. So it is important that we understand all these impacts and give as much support as possible to the promotion of shale gas extraction, as long as we get the right balance between the benefits and the environmental concerns.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). – (RO) Mr President, I voted for this report because Europe needs alternative energy resources. Romania has at present authorised some shale gas exploration by the American company Chevron. If the gas resources are there, Romania would be able to secure its energy supply.

If gas resources are found in the Black Sea region, Romania will certainly ensure that the environmental standards are respected. The reputation of the exploration company indicates that the best technologies will be used and that environmental damage will be avoided.

Jobs can be created through the exploitation of a state’s own natural resources, not only through foreign investment, which is why greater public awareness of shale gas activities and a political debate on them is necessary.

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). – (PL) Madam President, it was probably a mechanical error that prevented the registration of my vote in favour of Ms Tzavela’s report, because I strongly support making use of the opportunity presented by shale gas, both in order to achieve a low-emissions economy and for the sake of economic growth itself. I would like to say, however, that I do not dismiss the concerns about shale gas extraction, in particular with regard to hydraulic fracturing, referred to by Mr Sonik. I am aware that there are fears, and possibly even actual risks, which it is why it is good for gas extraction to be carried out in accordance with strict environmental standards. I do not share the views of my colleagues in the European Conservatives and Reformists Group, as paragraph 2 of Mr Sonik’s report clearly states that competence for shale gas extraction and energy matters lies with the Member States, not the European Union. I welcome the fact that a moratorium was rejected. I invite all those who have concerns, but are curious to learn what shale gas extraction looks like, to the exhibition taking place right now, where they can find out about the facts, not the threats or myths.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (EFD). – (PL) Madam President, today Parliament has issued two contradictory messages: a ‘yes’ to shale gas in the report drafted by Niki Tzavela and a ‘no’ to shale gas in the report drafted by Bogusław Sonik. I am astonished by the behaviour of Members on that side of the Chamber, who are doing everything to ensure that Europe becomes weaker both economically and in terms of its energy supply. I am astonished that Members on that side of the Chamber, who voted against the report drafted by Niki Tzavela, should act contrary to the principle of energy solidarity within Europe and the principle of a competitive Europe. Europe will become competitive only when it has access to cheap energy resources of its own. The United States became even stronger than before once it went from being a net importer of gas to an exporter of gas to the world thanks to its own shale gas resources. It is for these reasons that Niki Tzavela’s report deserved to be supported. I am proud that Ms Tzavela was able to present her report in Poland at a special seminar organised by Solidarna Polska and that this report has successfully opened the way for the industrial exploitation of shale gas in Europe. Let us hope that it becomes a reality.

Report: Giles Chichester (A7-0240/2012)

  Kay Swinburne (ECR). – Mr President, I have to admit that I am not always sure how effective petitioning the EU is. The work of the Committee on Petitions I leave in the capable hands of my colleague and today’s rapporteur, Giles Chichester.

However, this year I am really glad that he has chosen to highlight the issues faced in Spain with regard to the operation of coastal laws. One of the small things my constituents do not understand is why the EU cannot do more in ensuring that their rights are upheld when they choose to invest in property and live in another EU Member State. The arbitrary application of certain planning laws by regional governments is an issue that I am glad the Petitions Committee is seeking to highlight, and hopefully address.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, the Committee on Petitions is an extremely important tool for ensuring that the public is able to draw the attention of the European Union institutions to administrative irregularities in the Member States. Each year Parliament receives an increasing number of complaints from Poland, including those submitted via MEPs, among which instances of blatant discrimination by authorities in other Member States stand out in particular.

I would like to refer here, primarily, to the activities of the German Child and Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt), whose care policy is a source of great controversy. I welcome the fact that the Committee on Petitions has taken action in this regard and I hope to see some results.

A considerable number of petitions concern matters relating to the activities of the internal market, which also shows how important it is for us to work on systematically improving how it operates and on increasing the level of protection enjoyed by citizens.

I support the call for decisive action with regard to waste management, including in the aim of preventing the emergence of illegal waste dumps in cross-border areas. I am in favour of this report.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Madam President, since 1997 over 20 000 petitions have been assessed by the Committee on Petitions and every year several hundred petitioners attend the committee and speak on their petitions. That certainly indicates that there is a genuine link between the citizens and the EU institutions. However, the reason that they are there in first place is because there are issues in relation to either the transposition or the implementation of European legislation.

Many petitions have been presented this year but one particular issue has been highlighted again and again, and that is the issue of access for EU citizens. That might be in the area of recognition of their professional qualifications, the portability of social security rights etc.

One particular issue relates to persons with a disability. In theory they are entitled to free movement, to travel, to work and to live in another Member State but if they require a personal assistant then that is a particular obstacle and the whole idea of free movement means nothing because personal assistants are not available in all Member States. If that issue were to be dealt with then I think the idea of free movement would be a reality for those people.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – (GA) Madam President, not only was I present at the debate yesterday but I was given the chance to speak as well. I praised the committee’s work and I voted for all of the motions for resolutions tabled here today by Mr Chichester.

I would like to thank the rapporteur, Giles Chichester, and also my Irish colleague Marian Harkin for their good work. I think sometimes we do not give them enough credit for the many hours they put in, dealing with issues of a very personal nature but of a very important nature for those who make the petitions.

I have seen that on a personal basis, in particular in relation to Haulbowline in Cork. Shortly I will be having another petition coming forward by a citizen who has concerns about the side effects of a drug he was prescribed.

I think it is one way where citizens can really see the European Union working and taking care of them and getting justice they could not get if they were not members of the European Union. I think we should advertise that more.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – (PL) Madam President, the Committee on Petitions really does act as a transmission belt for the petitions, complaints and problems referred by citizens, taxpayers and voters in the EU Member States to the European Union as such. It genuinely plays a crucial role. I would remind you of its work during the last term, when it handled such important political issues as the Nord Stream gas pipeline and the withdrawal of licences from Catholic radio stations in Spain, matters that were followed up, as well as issues affecting the lives of ordinary citizens, such as additional taxation on vehicles imported into Poland. Last year, the number of petitions submitted to the committee increased, which is a good sign. I hope that it will continue its work with regard to the German Child and Youth Welfare Office (Jugendamt), an authority that sadly very often reaches controversial decisions concerning the children of mixed-nationality couples, whether Polish-German, Franco-German or Italian-German.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, one of the issues which came before the Committee on Petitions, which I think has exercised Members from across the Chamber and from all Member States, was the abuses of Spanish property law, particularly in the Comunidad Valenciana. I cannot be alone in having had so much traffic from constituents who had had property expropriated or threatened. It was actually easier in the end for me to go to Valencia, rather than trying to pursue them all individually from my end. It was a good example – let me fair about this – of the European Union tackling a real problem in a practical way, drawing to the attention of a member government that it could do something better without any coercion. Although we did not solve that issue a hundred percent, I think we got much of what we wanted.

It would be nice if we extended a similar readiness to listen to petitions to other issues. You will have heard this morning, one after another, my colleagues standing up and saying that we need bigger and bigger budgets and then the Commissioner responding and saying that he had listened to the debate and that it showed how much we were all in touch with the citizens of Europe. I would suggest that it shows precisely the opposite. I hope that we will be able to use this petitions procedure for people to be able to ask for less Europe, rather than just for the existing institutions to do other things.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). – Madam President, one of the issues which has come before the Committee on Petitions – and an issue which affects us all in this Chamber because a number of acquisitions are affected – concerns those who have sought to buy properties – particularly those who have sought to buy in Spain and who have been affected by the Spanish coastal laws.

This actually goes back to an earlier debate today: the discussion on the application of EU law. Because one of the things my constituents say to me is: Hold on a minute – we are supposed to be in this EU; we are supposed to have free movement of people; we are supposed to be able to buy property elsewhere yet, when we buy a property in Spain, the regions in Spain use local laws to undermine our ability and to actually demand even more money from us. How is it that the EU, at the same time as encouraging free movement of people, cannot do anything about corruption at the local level in Spain?

I think it is important that this issue is brought to the Petitions Committee so we can demonstrate right across the spectrum that MEPs in this House are concerned about issues like that. Hopefully we will find a resolution whereby the Spanish Government and the Spanish regions will finally tackle corruption at the local level.

Written explanations of vote

Appointment of new Commissioner

  Françoise Castex (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I voted against this appointment. France is preparing to make crucial progress on equal rights by adopting a law on marriage for all, at last joining several other Member States who have done the same. I believe that Tonio Borg’s appointment would contradict that progress in France and in Europe. His proposed portfolio – European Commissioner for Health – is fundamentally incompatible with his past statements and actions on contraception, abortion, and homosexual and transsexual rights. The holder of this position is meant to work for all European citizens, irrespective of their sex and their sexual orientation. Against a backdrop of particularly vicious comments and acts by extremists in France, appointing Tonio Borg would mean that Europe can accommodate such deviations. It is clear to all French Socialists that fundamental rights are not a matter for subsidiarity: they are universal. Irrespective of competence, this is an ethical matter: the European citizens have the right to expect Europe and the European Commissioners to defend these values without fail.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), in writing. − (RO) I welcome the appointment of the new European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, Tonio Borg, and I wish him success in his new role.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE), in writing. – (FR) Tonio Borg has just been appointed Commissioner responsible for health and consumer policy. During his hearing before the European Parliament, he assured the Members of the European Parliament that he would put respect for European law before his own personal beliefs on abortion and homosexuality. He promised, in particular, to respect fully the European Charter of Fundamental Rights. We have taken note of that promise, but we will remain vigilant. From now on, we expect the new Commissioner to exercise this discretion in all of the areas covered by his mandate, starting with health and including sexual and genetic rights.

  Anne Delvaux (PPE), in writing. – (FR) After the resignation of Commissioner Dalli, it was essential to quickly appoint a new Commissioner to take over a number of urgent issues, such as the Tobacco Products Directive, genetically modified organisms and cosmetic testing. I am therefore pleased that Parliament voted in favour of Tonio Borg’s appointment. At his hearing with several parliamentary committees, he demonstrated extensive knowledge of the issues covered by his portfolio. While I will pay close attention to the positions he adopts, I wish Commissioner Borg every success in his role.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I voted against the appointment of Tonio Borg as Commissioner for the remainder of the term of office, because I consider that he would be unable to guarantee impartiality and independence in the performance of his duties, not only as Commissioner for Health, but also as a Member of the Commission when decisions on the sexual and reproductive rights of women are required.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), in writing. – (FR) At the sitting of 21 November, I supported the candidacy of Tonio Borg of Malta for the post of Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy. His appointment was approved by 386 votes in favour, and I welcome that result. After John Dalli’s resignation, Tonio Borg attended a hearing on 13 November with the members of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, the Committee on Agriculture and the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. At that hearing, he emphasised his political competences. He also answered all of the questions on the legislative matters under negotiation, thus demonstrating a good knowledge of his portfolio. Finally, he promised to get the negotiations on the Tobacco Products Directive back on track directly after his appointment.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted against the appointment of Tonio Borg as a European Commissioner.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), in writing. – (FR) I voted against Mr Tonio Borg’s appointment as European Commissioner for several reasons.

Mr Borg has expressed and applied policies in his own country that contradict a woman’s right to decide what to do with her body. I refuse to condone such policies.

He has demonstrated time and time again his fierce opposition to equal rights, either between women and men or between heterosexuals, homosexuals and transgender people. I condemn this refusal to recognise the equality of every human being before the law.

Nor is Mr Borg very clear when it comes to genetically modified organisms and food in general, which is unacceptable for someone who is preparing to become the Commissioner responsible for health and consumer protection; not to mention his indifference towards the conflicts of interest in the European agencies.

Finally, he leans towards the right and the far right at that. For all of these reasons, I absolutely refuse to support his appointment.

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I am sure that Mr Borg would be a good Commissioner. I voted in favour.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), in writing. − (LT) I congratulate the Commissioner who is coming to work at a difficult time and is receiving a substantial portfolio of unfinished jobs. I hope that the new Commissioner for Health will continue the jobs begun and will be as principled as his predecessor on matters of both food safety and public health. I hope that he will also soon present the promised legislation in these fields (here I am referring above all to the regulation of novel foods and tobacco products).

  Wojciech Michał Olejniczak (S&D), in writing. − (PL) Tonio Borg has, on numerous occasions, publicly voiced radical opinions on the issues of abortion and same-sex relationships. Particularly shocking was his statement that Maltese law should protect only those who ‘deserve’ protection, in the context of a discussion on granting same-sex couples the right to apply for social housing. This is in addition to his strong opposition to divorce, which was recently the subject of a referendum in Malta. Tonio Borg is the Commissioner-designate for health. This is an area of political activity that is particularly susceptible to the influence of a Commissioner’s personal convictions. Mr Borg’s beliefs concerning abortion and homosexuality are of special relevance in this regard. The matter of abortion is, of course, governed by national law. However, the Commission and individual Commissioners can contribute to the climate in which that legislation is enforced.

Poland’s abortion legislation is unusually restrictive. Worse still, in many cases in which abortion is permitted, access to it in practice is made difficult or even impossible. That is why the appointment of a staunch opponent of abortion to the position of Commissioner for Health should set off alarm bells.

The same is true with regard to same-sex couples. I am particularly concerned here with access for same-sex partners to information about their partner’s state of health. In many Member States, the practice in this regard is incompatible with the principle of respect for human dignity. In view of the above, I decided to vote against Tonio Borg’s appointment as Commissioner.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), in writing. − (PT) As all the procedures established for the public hearing and scrutiny of the new Commissioner have been completed, I voted for the appointment of Tonio Borg as Commissioner for the remainder of the Commission’s term of office, which will end on 31 October 2014.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. – (FR) I voted against. Today’s vote clearly reflects a lack of agreement over Mr Borg’s ability to be a European Commissioner. There are serious reservations about his appointment, since he was unable to clear up a number of serious concerns about his beliefs on some moral issues linked to his portfolio. Our group voted against this appointment, but now hopes that he will be proactive in promoting policies based on the European Union’s fundamental values, and this is something that the European Commission and the European Parliament will have to monitor and ensure. Mr Borg must become an ardent supporter of robust European legislation on tobacco products. The controversy surrounding this issue, heightened by Mr Dalli’s resignation, has raised serious concerns about the influence of the tobacco lobby. Mr Borg must ensure that this draft legislation is published as soon as possible and that his priority is the protection of human health, not the profits of the tobacco industry. We would also emphasise his promise to launch the inter-service consultation as soon as he takes up his post. Tobacco is the leading cause of death in Europe: ensuring tougher European rules on labelling and other aspects clearly has to be a priority.

  Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE), in writing. − (DE) I did not vote for Tonio Borg’s appointment as Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy. His appointment is likely to herald a rollback in citizens’ fundamental rights. I believe he lacks the willingness to engage with and lobby for the fundamental rights enshrined in the Charter. However, this is the very area where we need progress, not setbacks. As part of his portfolio, he must also campaign for the rights of same-sex couples and women’s right of self-determination. Will he do so, however? I can scarcely conceal my disappointment that he has, nonetheless, secured majority support in the House. It will now be up to us, as Members of the European Parliament, to limit his conservative influence over European legislation.

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I believe that Mr Borg is fully qualified for the portfolio of Commissioner for Health. In his letter of two days ago, Mr Borg clarified and reassured Parliament on some concerns that had been raised with regard to his designation. At last week’s hearing, he confirmed his commitment to areas I view as important, such as agriculture, the environment and the internal market.

I think it is essential to underline Mr Borg’s professional qualities, since he has considerable experience in health and consumer protection. We should judge these aspects, which relate to the protection of citizens, when it comes to designating a Commissioner. I also take a favourable view of his stance on genetically modified organisms, labelling, indications of origin, food safety, and his commitment to an important legislative proposal on tobacco.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), in writing. – (FR) I regret the choice for this role. Through his words, Mr Borg has shown throughout his career that he is a man of exclusion, not inclusion, trampling on gender equality and women’s rights, stigmatising homosexuals and rejecting those who do not share his beliefs.

European Commissioners are supposed to represent all Europeans. It is a mistake and an aberration to propose a man whose positions throughout his career represented a step backwards for women’s rights and even human dignity, especially when the crisis is already excluding many citizens. As we are in favour of a Europe for all Europeans, not just a few, we must vote against this appointment.

Report: Francesca Balzani (A7-0381/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), in writing. − (PT) I support this report, as Draft amending budget No 5/2012, which relates to the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) for an amount of EUR 670 192 359 in commitment and payment appropriations, is essential in order to mitigate the effects of a series of earthquakes that occurred in Italy (Emilia-Romagna) in May 2012. It is right to quickly release this financial assistance through the EUSF for those affected by natural catastrophes, and I therefore welcome the prompt submission by the Italian authorities of their application for financial assistance from the EUSF, as also the prompt presentation by the Commission of its proposal for mobilisation of the EUSF.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), in writing. − (IT) I deplore the attempt by some states, led by the United Kingdom, to obstruct the budget in general and solidarity and cohesion payments in particular, including the attempt to block appropriations relating to the series of earthquakes in Emilia-Romagna. It is worth remembering that Italy is a net contributor to the EU budget, paying more than it receives. If we have to find somewhere to cut the budget, perhaps we should start with the rebate that the UK has received for more than twenty years and that must be viewed as an unjustified and outdated privilege. At a time of economic crisis, Europe should show itself to be a useful instrument for helping citizens, enterprises and regions in difficulty.

  Sophie Auconie (PPE), in writing. – (FR) This text, which was broadly supported by the European Parliament and which I voted for, seeks to provide financial support for the Italian region of Emilia-Romagna, which was the victim of a natural disaster and which needs reconstruction assistance after a series of earthquakes that affected its population in May 2012.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this proposal to grant the Emilia-Romagna region of Italy an amount of EUR 670 million from the EU Solidarity Fund. On 20 and 29 May 2012 there were two strong earthquakes in this region during which 27 people were killed, 350 injured and a further 45 000 evacuated. These record amounts of money granted from the Solidarity Fund are aimed at covering the costs relating to the reconstruction of particularly important infrastructure, the restoration of the provision of emergency services and the protection of the region’s cultural heritage. Accommodating the thousands of the region’s inhabitants who were left homeless remains a priority. The Solidarity Fund was established following floods in Central Europe in 2002. Since then money from the Fund has been granted to support the victims of 49 natural disasters – floods, forest fires, earthquakes, storms and droughts. I welcome the calls for all parties involved in the Member States to further improve the coordination of the use of funds in the future with a view to accelerating the mobilisation of the EUSF as much as possible.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), in writing. − (RO) Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because I support the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund in response to the earthquakes of May 2012 in the Emilia Romagna region in Italy. I believe that financial assistance should be released as soon as possible for communities affected by natural disasters. All European, local and regional authorities must be involved. We need better coordination for future requests for assistance from this Fund. At the same time, we need to eliminate all obstacles and unjustified delays that prevent the funds from being released promptly.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), in writing. − (IT) I support Ms Balzani’s report on Draft amending budget No 5/2012. This budget relates to the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund in the amount of EUR 670 192 359 relating to the series of earthquakes that struck Northern Italy on 20 and 29 May 2012, leaving 27 dead, over 350 injured and estimated damage of EUR 13 273 736 063.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), in writing. − (LT) I voted in favour of this report on Draft amending budget No 5/2012 of the European Union for the financial year 2012 (which the Commission submitted on 19 September 2012). I believe that it is very important to release financial assistance through the EU Solidarity Fund (EUSF) for those affected by natural disasters as soon as possible. It is important to point out that Draft amending budget No 5/2012 relates to the mobilisation of the EUSF for an amount of EUR 670 192 359 in commitment and payment appropriations relating to the series of earthquakes in Emilia-Romagna, Italy in May 2012. This financial assistance will help the Member State to deal with an important and urgent matter.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I voted for the report on Draft amending budget No 5/2012 concerning the Solidarity Fund response to earthquakes in Emilia-Romagna and modification of the budget line for the preparatory action for the European Year of Volunteering 2011. Although the current lack of payment appropriations is delaying the implementation of many European programmes, we must not postpone our decisions on matters as urgent as the assistance to victims of natural disasters. I am therefore in favour of rapid mobilisation of the European Solidarity Fund for Emilia-Romagna.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), in writing. − (PT) I voted in favour of this report as it is very important to quickly release financial assistance through the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) for those affected by natural catastrophes.

  Joseph Cuschieri (S&D), in writing. − I would like to express my concern at the lack of decisiveness from some quarters particularly from a number of Member States in relation to the budget targeted for ESF aid to help repair earthquake damage in Italy.

I believe that a declaration of political support showing solidarity with earthquake victims is not enough in the circumstances.

I appeal to the Council and in particular to the Member States that are blocking approval of the required budget to allow the necessary funds to become available in the interest of all EU citizens.

I also appeal to Member States and the Council to move away from the rhetoric of austerity to justify lack of reasonable funding for just causes.

Such an approach to the EU budget is an obstacle to the implementation of EU policies during 2013 that is in contradiction with the declarations made by Member States in the recent past.

I reiterate my support for the position of this Parliament to support the Commission’s proposal to add EUR 8.9 billion to the 2012 budget to allow the Commission to reimburse Member State authorities for funds they advanced to beneficiaries in their countries and to ensure that programmes such as Lifelong Learning including Erasmus, Rural Development, the European Social Fund, the Cohesion Fund and the 7th Framework programme for Research and Development are given the necessary funding to operate as planned.

  Rachida Dati (PPE), in writing. – (FR) I am pleased that, although we are in the middle of difficult budget debates, Parliament as a whole has supported the mobilisation of this essential assistance for Italy. It will enable our Italian friends to deal with the enormous costs and the problems caused by the earthquakes it suffered this year.