Explications de vote orales

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, soltanto per dichiarare che sono estremamente felice, anche a nome del mio gruppo politico, che il buon senso abbia prevalso all'interno di quest'Aula.

La relazione Corbett, che introduce effettivamente alcune buone misure nel nostro regolamento, era però ampiamente viziata da due rischi mortali, a nostro avviso: da un lato, c'era il problema della trasparenza. Se c'erano emendamenti assolutamente condivisibili in tal senso, c'era anche la volontà del gruppo del Partito popolare di ricorrere al voto segreto. Abbiamo visto che, fortunatamente, questo voto segreto è stato favorevole agli emendamenti che noi abbiamo convintamente sostenuto.

Oltre a questo, c'era ovviamente il tema ben noto dell'enorme abuso di potere, permettendo a una maggioranza di decide sullo status delle opposizioni. Ma abbiamo visto che non ha raccolto la maggioranza assoluta all'interno dell'emiciclo e mi compiaccio che i colleghi abbiano fatto prevalere il principio della rappresentanza democratica e del pluralismo dentro questo emiciclo, sconfiggendo chi voleva dare tutto il potere in mano ai gruppi dell'ancien regime.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – Madame la Présidente, depuis 30 ans, je suis le témoin de l’érosion constante des droits de la minorité dans ce parlement de plus en plus caporaliste et de plus en plus politiquement correct, dans cette institution qui ne parle que des droits des minorités, du respect de l’état de droit, de la garantie des libertés et qui la pratique très peu à l’usage interne.

Rien ne manque au rapport Corbett: une infantilisation complète des députés, une culpabilisation du mâle blanc, qui est tout à fait dans la ligne de la théorie du genre; il nous faudra désormais subir des stages pour apprendre que c’est très mal le harcèlement sexuel et signer des déclarations à cet effet; les députés ne pourront plus rencontrer leurs interlocuteurs sans que ceci soit immédiatement rendu public au nom de la transparence. J’ai envie de m’écrier: transparence, que de crimes on commet en ton nom.

Cette assemblée devient une école primaire, et je serai heureux de la quitter.

  Rory Palmer (S&D). – Madam President, I welcome this report that has been brought forward by my colleague Richard Corbett. I welcome all the recommendations, particularly on the Members’ Code of Conduct, but I specifically want to mention the recommendation on parliamentary questions – that they should be answered within six weeks.

In an answer to a question that I asked the Commission about questions last year, it stated that just 32% of written questions to the Commission were answered within that six—week timeframe. Now I don’t know where members of the Commission went to school, but I’m sure in anyone’s book 32% is not a particularly impressive or acceptable grade.

On this the Commission is going to have to do better. So when these recommendations are discussed in interinstitutional discussions, this is something Parliament I think has to take a strong position on. Questions are an important mechanism for us as Members in holding the Commission to account and seeking information to support our work.

32% last year is not good enough; the six—week limit is important.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señora presidenta, me alegro del resultado de este informe porque me oponía a la limitación que se quería imponer a la constitución de grupos parlamentarios, porque me parece que técnicamente estaba muy mal hecha y que políticamente era una restricción de derechos y libertades que no puedo avalar de ninguna manera.

Creo que técnicamente es una mala propuesta porque los conceptos que se manejaban eran totalmente arbitrarios y tanto la definición de qué significa coherencia ideológica de los grupos como las ideas que se manejaban para medirla no soportaban un mínimo análisis.

Quiero recordar que algunas de las que se sugieren, además, aplicadas a alguno de los grupos que ya existen en esta Cámara conducirían inmediatamente a su disolución, y otras simplemente castigan el principio de libertad de voto y conciencia que nos asiste a todos los parlamentarios.

Por eso, no me gustaría estar en el papel de quien tuviera que explicar realmente una norma que permite este nivel de arbitrariedad, y no me gustaría porque soy demócrata y creo en el Estado de Derecho. Y a quienes no lo son les encantan estas herramientas porque permiten esa arbitrariedad. Cuando se utilizan en Derecho conceptos tan indefinidos, las libertades siempre se utilizan para atacar la democracia.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κατ’ αρχάς θα ήθελα να δηλώσω, για να γραφτεί στα πρακτικά εντελώς διαδικαστικά, ότι στην έκθεση Selimovic το μηχάνημά μου δεν λειτούργησε. Εάν λειτουργούσε, θα ψήφιζα αρνητικά. Τώρα σε σχέση με τη συγκεκριμένη έκθεση θέλω να πω ότι απέτυχε η προσπάθεια των μεγάλων πολιτικών ομάδων επί της ουσίας να επιβάλουν αυτό το οποίο ήθελαν, δηλαδή να κρίνουν αυτές υπό ποιους όρους θα συγκροτούνται πολιτικές ομάδες, διότι η έννοια της πολιτικής σχέσης (political affiliation) δεν είναι κάτι το οποίο θα ρύθμιζε η ίδια η Ολομέλεια. Αυτό το ανέλυσα και χθες. Από κει και πέρα, πρέπει να υπάρξουν και άλλες βελτιώσεις στον Κανονισμό, ιδίως όσον αφορά τον προληπτικό έλεγχο που ασκεί το Προεδρείο σε σχέση με τις ερωτήσεις, διότι υποβάλλουμε ερωτήσεις και τελικά το Προεδρείο του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου ελέγχει αν αυτές είναι σωστές και τις απορρίπτει ή όχι. Αυτό είναι κάτι το απαράδεκτο και θα πρέπει να σταματήσει.

  José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, votei favoravelmente as alterações ao Regimento do Parlamento Europeu porque acredito que estar seriamente na política não é estar refém de ideologias ou capturado por grupos de interesse.

É, sim, poder resolver os problemas dos cidadãos e projetar o futuro da União Europeia e dos seus Estados-Membros, cultivando os valores do desenvolvimento humano respeitando a liberdade individual e defendendo a democracia.

Exige-se, por isso, uma maior transparência e disponibilidade de informação sobre as relações mantidas pelos eurodeputados para as atividades de redação dos atos legislativos nos múltiplos contactos desenvolvidos com a sociedade civil.

Temos que descansar os nossos constituintes de que ouvimos todas as vozes, porque ouvir a diversidade de opiniões é acautelar as preocupações dos cidadãos da União Europeia, é garantir que construímos uma Europa sem atropelos e é assegurar que defendemos as causas certas pelas quais fomos eleitos.

Apoiar o secretismo é meio caminho andado para criar as condições favoráveis à corrupção e albergar o tráfico de influências debaixo do mesmo teto da democracia, e para isso não contem comigo.

Por estes motivos, a Europa já sofreu que baste.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, I am pleased to support the amendments to the Rules of Procedure drafted by my good friend Richard Corbett, despite the fact that there were secret ballots on two votes relating to Amendment 20 of this report.

I want to make it very clear and for it to be on the record that I voted in favour of the mandatory legislative footprint for rapporteurs, shadows and chairs, and indeed for increased transparency on the general expenditure allowance. I consistently publish any meetings I have across all my social media channels and always host visitors in public areas of Parliament where I am visible by all.

We must be committed to transparency and accountability across the EU and its institutions. Transparency builds trust with our constituents and allows them confidently to put their faith in their representatives.

Furthermore, I would like to put on the record that I disagree with having these two secret ballot votes. This is not how we should operate in Parliament. I am proud of the work I do on behalf of my Irish constituents and want to have this known.

Finally, I am pleased to vote in favour of the amendment regarding mandatory anti-harassment training. Having already completed a training myself, I recommend it to other MEPs as well.

  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Докладът на колегата Корбет е силно противоречив и внесените по него изменения целят ограничаване на демократичната свобода. Изискването политическите групи да предоставят политически декларации, подписани от всички свои членове, в които да декларират своята политическа принадлежност, противоречи на всякакви правила и процедури, които този Парламент постоянно заявява, че защитава. Радвам се, че от текста успяхме да премахнем изискването Европейският парламент да може да оценява дали политическите групи са сформирани според политическата принадлежност на всички партии към едно политическо семейство. Това няма как да бъде доказано и е абсолютно несъстоятелно. За мен това е инструмент, с който големите политически групи, когато са изплашени, че ще загубят надмощието си, отчаяно ще се опитват да задържат това надмощие и да развалят останалите политически групи.

  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Madam President, I agree that more transparency and accountability in the decision-making is needed. However, I cannot agree with the concept of political affinity for the formation of political groups in the European Parliament. We do not have concrete criteria and parameters for that, apart from the fact that the word ‘affinity’ does not have any legal force. As we can see from the results, the votes of the Group can be inconsistent and incoherent on some issues. We have the freedom of vote, and this is something our electorate relies on. We represent the citizens and the residents of the European Union to advance their needs, and we cannot do it if we are strictly limited by belonging to the Group. In order not to make the EP dysfunctional and in order that it will continue to be a truly democratic institution, we must continue the practice of free and voluntary Group formation. That is why I abstained.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Madam President, the debate has tended to focus on the plans here to make life harder for small Groups: Groups that challenge the orthodoxy or represent dissident opinions. No surprise here; I think even my federalist colleagues will admit that this has been the theme of the reforms of this Parliament over some time. Despite all the rhetoric we get about tolerance, there is an intolerance of people who run up against the challenged views on European integration. But I just wanted to draw the House’s attention to Amendment 14 of the Parliament’s Rules of Procedures, which is a deletion, and one of the lines deleted is this one: ‘the application of this rule shall not otherwise detract from the liveliness of parliamentary debates, nor shall it undermine Members’ freedom of speech’. That’s deleted. I suppose the one argument that could be made is that this House, in its new attitude to free speech, is at least in line with changing mores in Europe as a whole. Still, what a sad comment for what is, at the end of the day, a parliament. As the etymology of that word implies, it is a place one ought to be able to talk freely.

  Dobromir Sośnierz (NI). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Upadła poprawka dotycząca tego, by rządzące większościowe grupy mogły rozwiązywać grupy opozycyjne. Głosowanie nad nią pokazuje, że poparło tę poprawkę kilkaset osób, a więc zagrożenia dla demokracji w Europie nie należy szukać w jakiś małych, marginalnych neofaszystowskich grupkach, tylko tutaj, na tej sali. Myślę, że to jest obłudne, kiedy jednego dnia upominamy się o wolność słowa w Wenezueli, a ograniczamy po raz kolejny wolność słowa na tej sali. Poseł powinien odpowiadać jedynie przed swoimi wyborcami, a nie przed swoimi przeciwnikami politycznymi, bo wszelkie narzędzia kontroli posłów, jakkolwiek demagogicznie się ich tu nie uzasadnia: dobrem, przejrzystością, mową nienawiści itd., mogą służyć jako narzędzie represji. I to jest absolutnie niedopuszczalne.

Mam nadzieję, że historia zakpi z tych, którzy chcą dzisiaj, będąc w większości, kontrolować mniejszość, i po pewnych zmianach, być może, kiedyś jacyś ich przeciwnicy polityczni będą ich gnębić o mowę nienawiści. Na przykład ja uznałbym, że mową nienawiści jest domaganie się przywilejów dla kobiet – to jest mowa nienawiści wobec mężczyzn – albo zwiększanie podatków jest narzędziem ucisku ekonomicznego.

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já jsem hlasoval pro podporu tohoto návrhu. Chtěl bych vysvětlit své hlasování v oblasti urážlivých projevů a navázat na kolegu Sośnierze.

Já jsem osobně hlasoval proti tomuto návrhu, tzn. pro to, aby byla respektována větší svoboda poslanců při jejich projevech. To ovšem neznamená, že by se mělo podle mého názoru mluvit urážlivě. Na druhou stranu chci respektovat názor, který vyslovil Evropský soudní dvůr, i když s ním úplně nesouhlasím.

Pan Sośnierz zde nastoupil za pana Mikkeho. My jsme zde slyšeli od tohoto pána takové množství urážek. Zdá se, že budeme muset být jaksi odolnější vůči těmto výrokům, z tohoto důvodu já jsem nepodpořil tento konkrétní pozměňovací návrh. Budeme muset být odolnější, ale myslím si, že by se mělo v této sněmovně mluvit slušně.

Jinak vítám přijetí pozměňovacích návrhů, které byly uplatněny, a myslím, že pokud jde o lobbing, je dobré ho zkrotit.

  John Howarth (S&D). – Madam President, I am happy to welcome the proposals in this report as well-intentioned, particularly in the context of meetings with lobbyists. My fear, however, as someone who has worked in the public affairs industry, is that this will prove ineffective, and my further fear is that this will put into the public domain information that is easily distorted by those of less good intentions that will present a false impression of what Members are seeking to do. So I urge the Conference of Presidents to keep this under review.

I would add my view to Mr Palmer’s view on the need to produce answers to questions more quickly. On the question of political groups, we all know that Groups like UKIP have abused the rules of this place, and it’s right to try to stop them. But my fear is also that that would not produce the result that was intended.

On the question of secret ballots on votes on transparency, please: it’s absurd. I support them.