Die Präsidentin. – Als nächster und für heute letzter Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Ramón Jáuregui Atondo im Namen des Ausschusses für konstitutionelle Fragen über digitale Demokratie in der Europäischen Union: Potenzial und Herausforderungen (2016/2008(INI)) (A8-0041/2017).

  Ramón Jáuregui Atondo, ponente. – Señora presidenta, señorías, el informe que vamos a discutir esta noche, y a votar mañana, trata de relacionar las tecnologías de la comunicación con la democracia. Puede parecer una ecuación extraña, pero no lo es.

La idea que sustenta el informe trata de establecer las mejoras que nuestra democracia podría adquirir en virtud de las tecnologías de la comunicación, entendiendo que nuestra democracia, efectivamente, está sufriendo, en los últimos años en particular —yo diría con la crisis económica más concretamente—, un desafecto; yo no sé si un descrédito, pero sí una cierta lejanía de los ciudadanos para con las instituciones públicas.

Esto nos preocupa, y la idea es saber si, efectivamente, las redes, las tecnologías de la comunicación, podrían ayudarnos a mejorar esa relación, entendiendo que esa brecha, esa distancia entre ciudadanos y política se ha hecho cada vez más grande, en función de la complejidad de los temas que la gobernanza plantea; en virtud de la crisis económica, que ha trasladado a determinadas instituciones económicas, al margen de la democracia misma, la capacidad de decisión sobre las vidas de las gentes; y, en general, por los fenómenos de descrédito político que los partidos y algunos representantes en algunos países, en virtud de la corrupción, por ejemplo, han ido generando.

Este estado de cosas nos preocupa y la reflexión que nos traía a cambio era la idea de que había que aprovechar las tecnologías de la comunicación para darle un sentido, yo no diría nuevo, pero sí más positivo a esa relación entre ciudadanía y democracia. El balance del informe, lógicamente, parte de considerar que esto es posible, que las tecnologías están para ayudarnos, no para lo contrario.

Y, en ese sentido, destacamos la importancia que, por ejemplo, podrían tener las tecnologías de la comunicación, y tienen ya en la gobernanza electrónica, en relación con lo que es la relación entre ciudadano y administración pública, a la hora de —pongamos— establecer su relación fiscal, a la hora de acceder a los servicios públicos. Hay toda una gobernanza electrónica que tiene que servir para mejorar esa relación.

Hay una oportunidad de que la participación electrónica ayude a que los ciudadanos participen más en la deliberación de los procesos democráticos, en las consultas que los gobernantes pueden hacerles a los ciudadanos sobre los impactos de determinadas medidas, en el e—voting —la posibilidad de votar en línea—, en los partidos políticos y su relación con sus afiliados, con sus simpatizantes y con sus ciudadanos.

Por tanto, hay un enfoque positivo de la idea de que las tecnologías pueden ayudarnos a enriquecer la democracia y a acercarla a los ciudadanos. Pero hay, también, una mirada prudente sobre estos efectos. No es una democracia alternativa, se dice en el informe. No podemos ser tan ingenuos de creer que vamos a inventar una democracia nueva sobre la base de la democracia directa, puesto que las tecnologías, aunque facilitan esa posibilidad, realmente no sustituyen al sistema de la democracia representativa.

Es prudente, porque el informe advierte de que hay riesgos. Hay riesgo en el acceso digital a las plataformas de participación, que tienen que ser equitativas para que todo el mundo pueda acceder; es el riesgo de la privacidad, de asegurar los derechos de los individuos para que sean garantizados sus derechos. Todo este conjunto de situaciones nos reclama, pues, un informe que ha sido aprobado mayoritariamente por toda la Cámara.

  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, this is another very important subject. On behalf of Vice—President Ansip, I would like to thank Parliament, and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Jáuregui Atondo, for this report on the subject of e-Democracy. It concerns issues that are fundamental to how we evolve as democratic and innovative societies, and it recognises the strategic role that new digital technologies play in shaping public policy and public services. Vice-President Ansip has asked me to make a number of comments, so I hope you will bear with me.

Citizens and businesses expect better services from public authorities, greater transparency and less administrative burden. Despite many EU projects over the years to develop concepts, tools and solutions for participatory democracy, the pace of modernisation is still too slow. We need to accelerate the transformation of government and improve people’s participation in decision-making processes. If we can use digital technology to support an increased public involvement, that is good for legitimacy, accountability and ultimately trust in government.

The new e-government Action Plan will contribute to this digital transformation. It is part of our broader vision for creating a digital single market. It aims to promote open and transparent government, as well as to improve the interaction of government and individual citizens. Governments and administrations need to be open, transparent and collaborative. This means open data, open services and open processes. ICT is a great tool to engage people, to improve transparency and to increase the accountability and relevance of public administration. That is why the Commission recognises the importance of e-Democracy and e-participation. It helps us to make sure our policies respond to individual and business needs and so increases trust in our political systems. The EU citizenship report 2017 underlined the Commission’s commitment to promoting best practices to help people vote and stand in EU elections. With European elections in 2019, the aim is to support turnout and broad democratic participation.

These best practices should also address e-Democracy, remote voting arrangements like e-voting, and cross-border access to political information. They will also focus on improving the low voter turnout. In its report, Parliament highlights the importance of all of this and calls for greater EU-wide cooperation, but we also need to recognise the challenges. Political parties and elections increasingly attract the attention of cyber criminals and other cyber activists. This risk to our democratic processes is, unfortunately, real and we need to take it very seriously. For the DSM to work, our digital networks have to be protected. That is why cyber security needs to be a top political priority for us all, and it certainly is for the Commission.

E-Democracy also requires equal, open and neutral access to the internet. The Commission has always been committed to the internet as a single unfragmented space. Our approach continues to be one where the internet is anchored in the defence of human rights and democratic values, where the same rights that apply offline are also protected online. We also need to ensure that everyone can benefit from new opportunities that are presented by the new technologies. Recently the Web Accessibility Directive entered into force. This means making the internet accessible for everyone, including the elderly and people with disabilities. But to make the most of internet access and for people to engage digitally, we need wide availability and take-up of high-speed broadband connectivity. That is why the Commission has proposed connectivity targets for 2025.

One of these is for all European households to have access to download speeds of at least 100 Mbps. In addition, given the investment challenge ahead, especially in less densely populated areas, EU cohesion policies complement private investment and support broadband deployment to the tune of some EUR 6 billion up to 2020, with a particular focus on under-served and rural areas.

For e-Democracy to be efficient and thrive, people must also have access to information as well as the necessary skills. At the same time, people who do not have the full means or skills to participate should not be excluded, which is an essential part of building trust. In its communication last year ‘A new skills agenda for Europe’, the Commission proposed a skills guarantee to help Europeans to get more access to basic literacy, numeracy and digital skills training. We also work with Member States under the Education and Training 2020 Initiative to bring more digital skills to students and into school and university curricula.

Lastly, let us remember the importance of media pluralism and freedom of expression, values that are enshrined in the Charter. They are the backbone of our democratic societies whether people are online or offline. Media literacy is a key factor for people to make the most of the unprecedented amount of data information and views that they can now access thanks to digital technologies.

So once again thank you to the rapporteur for raising these subjects in an interesting and important report, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss them so fully this evening.

  Isabella Adinolfi, relatrice per parere della commissione per la cultura e l'istruzione. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il Movimento 5 Stelle è nato e si è sviluppato attraverso la Rete. Noi, portavoce al Parlamento europeo, ne siamo la prova vivente, perché siamo normali cittadini entrati in contatto in Rete che hanno dato vita a una nuova e rivoluzionaria comunità politica.

Il Movimento 5 Stelle è nato anticipando il futuro. Noi pratichiamo la democrazia diretta ed elettronica, consentendo a cittadini di scegliere i propri rappresentanti online e diamo la possibilità ai cittadini di scegliere ed emendare le proposte di legge.

Siamo convinti che solo attraverso un sano utilizzo della Rete si possa ridare vita a questa democrazia europea che oggi è sempre più ostaggio di lobby e multinazionali. Questa è una delle nostre principali battaglie: è la nostra missione. Finalmente lo avete compreso anche voi e questa relazione sull'e-democracy lo dimostra. Finalmente anche qui in Europa si comincia a parlare di come riavvicinare i cittadini alle istituzioni e di come ridurre il cosiddetto deficit democratico.

La relazione presenta diversi passaggi interessanti: ad esempio, quando si invita il Parlamento europeo ad assumere un ruolo forte nell'implementazione dell'e-democracy e a sviluppare piattaforme online per mettere in contatto diretto i cittadini con il legislatore. Noi del MoVimento 5 Stelle già utilizziamo la nostra piattaforma, che si chiama Rousseau, e siamo molto contenti che anche il Parlamento europeo senta il bisogno di usare uno strumento analogo. O, ancora, quando si esortano gli Stati membri dell'Unione europea a fornire una degna alfabetizzazione ai media e a estirpare il digital divide.

In ultimo, sono soddisfatta che sia stato accolto il mio suggerimento di elaborare una Carta europea dei diritti di Internet che sancisca formalmente l'accesso a Internet e la neutralità della Rete come diritti fondamentali. Esorto quindi i miei colleghi a mantenere questo riferimento.

Oggi scriviamo una bella pagina di democrazia: non posso quindi rallegrarmi per questa relazione, che rappresenta un primo importante passo nella realizzazione compiuta dell'e-democracy anche a livello europeo.

  Cristian Dan Preda, au nom du groupe PPE. – Madame la Présidente, je voudrais tout d'abord féliciter mon collègue socialiste pour son rapport et, notamment, pour sa disponibilité pour travailler avec les autres groupes politiques. Je crois qu'effectivement, nous avons besoin d'un large accord sur cette question, parce que nous avons un nombre important de recommandations qui sont contenues dans le texte, puisque la démocratie en ligne nous concerne tous.

Il s'agit effectivement de réfléchir ensemble sur la manière d’intégrer dans notre vie politique cette évolution incontournable que constituent les technologies de l'information, mais il ne s'agit pas du tout de remplacer notre bonne vieille démocratie représentative par l’e-démocratie. Ça, c'est une utopie, c'est pour les révolutionnaires et nous sommes loin d'être révolutionnaires, du moins dans mon groupe politique.

Le groupe PPE a d'ailleurs soutenu tous les compromis élaborés au sein de la commission AFCO, à l'exception de celui qui porte sur l'élaboration d’une charte européenne des droits relatifs à l'internet, en prenant comme base la déclaration italienne de 2015. Nous sommes contre cela. Je pense que nous avons besoin d'une mûre réflexion et nous avons des instruments pour protéger ces droits avec notre cadre européen actuel de protection des droits fondamentaux.

Une autre question que je voudrais mentionner est celle du vote en ligne. Je me réjouis que les références à ce sujet qui figurent maintenant dans le texte soient réalistes et en accord avec ce que nous avons déjà voté en novembre 2015, dans le cadre de la réforme du droit électoral européen. En particulier, je soutiens pleinement l'expérience estonienne. Je crois que nous avons des enseignements à en tirer et que nous pouvons éventuellement transférer à d'autres sociétés européennes cette magnifique expérience.

Bien sûr, on a besoin de standards élevés pour ce qui est de la protection des données et des principes additionnels d’égalité, de liberté du suffrage et d’accès au vote.

  Marju Lauristin, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, I would like to start by thanking the rapporteur and all the people who worked on this very important report. I would also like to thank the Commissioner, who gave a very concise overview of the technological conditions. Without those, we cannot have any kind of new developments in democracy.

I am also glad that we are now speaking, not only about the digital single market, but also about digital Europe, digital society and digital democracy. Coming from Estonia, which has already been mentioned as a laboratory of e-Democracy, I have to say that our experience shows not only how far we are already capable of going, but also how technology itself does not really give us better democracy when we do not complement that with a proper education. It is not only digital skills in the narrow sense: what I really want to stress is that we need to think about what it will mean to have civic education, not only for young people and children, but also for older people so that they will not only be capable of using technological devices, but will be capable of using all the information which is available in this digital world. For example, our experience with digital voting or e—Elections shows that new quality comes only when parties provide new digital content. Instead of a kind of commercial approach to elections, there should be an information- and knowledge—based approach, so that voters not only vote digitally but also have basic information and analytical information. However, to do that they also need analytical skills.

Young people are really no longer interested in traditional forms of democracy. They are interested in democracy, but in the e-Environment. They can also use totally different methods, so I suppose that we have to think much more about education, not only digital, but education in general in the digital world.

  Yana Toom, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, first let me say that I largely agree with the rapporteur and Commissioner Ansip that remote internet voting systems can widen citizens’ inclusion and facilitate democratic participation, especially when people are geographically and socially marginalised. Estonia introduced online voting as early as the 2005 election, and my country is often cited as a positive example, as we have just heard now, and also in this report. Indeed, these days Estonia is the only EU country where you can choose to vote online rather than go to a traditional polling station to vote on paper. Online voting is available during the advance voting period. In the 2014 European elections, every third Estonian voter used this opportunity.

It should be stressed that in Estonia there is no unanimous support for i-voting. International IT experts have presented proof to the public that our most advanced and internationally praised Estonian system is vulnerable to service side and client side attacks. We are improving this at the moment. Today, e-Democracy offers us plenty of opportunities and we cannot imagine contemporary life without IT. Regretfully, we also cannot imagine our lives without cyber—attacks and internet fraud.

Democracy is a keystone of European identity and European values. The results of electoral procedures cannot be suspect, unclear or questionable. In several European countries, e-Vote and i-Vote are still not in use because of security considerations. Why? So far we do not have all the necessary data to use technical solutions to organise i-Vote in a safe and reliable manner. We first need to solve all technical and security problems, and only then will we call on Member States to implement i-Vote in practice.

  Barbara Spinelli, a nome del gruppo GUE/NGL. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio il relatore con cui il dialogo è stato davvero fruttuoso. Penso anch'io che la e-democracy sia uno strumento che può rafforzare la partecipazione cittadina e prevenire i rischi oligarchici della democrazia. Sono meno convinta dall'analisi che viene fatta della vista disaffezione dei cittadini: non credo si tratti di apatia, come è scritto nella relazione, perché c'è molta passione negli odierni rifiuti. C'è in essi una domanda di cambiamento da ascoltare.

La e-democracy ha dimostrato di funzionare: la riscrittura della Costituzione islandese è stata in parte operata con i cittadini, online. Al tempo stesso invito a essere attenti nel costruire questo strumento che si aggiunge alla pericolante democrazia rappresentativa. E-democracy non è sinonimo di e-government, non vorrei che venisse adottata, calandola dall'alto, allo scopo di disseminare meglio opinioni governative e venderle, dando vita a una democrazia ancor più tutelare di quella che conosciamo già.

Credo che questa relazione eviti tale scoglio e sia molto positiva, perché contiene elementi importanti e preziosi, non per ultima alla proposta di elaborazione di una Carta europea dei diritti Internet sul modello di quella adottata dal Parlamento italiano nel 2015.

  Max Andersson, för Verts/ALE-gruppen. – Fru talman! I kväll diskuterar vi betänkandet om e-demokrati, ett utmärkt betänkande som jag hoppas blir bifallet. Det innehåller många goda saker om e-administration och öppen källkod och e-rådslag – på det stora hela utmärkt. Det finns dock en möjlighet att göra det ännu bättre genom att även bifalla de grönas yrkande om lobbykontroll. Bifall det gärna.

Det dock en svaghet med detta betänkande, nämligen att det kanske är lite väl positivt till e-röstning. Det var ännu mer positivt på utkastnivå, men vi har lyckats se till att få kompromisser som lugnar ner e-röstningsentusiasterna och förhoppningsvis får dem att inse att om man använder e-röstning måste man ha datasäkerhet så att rösthemligheten bevaras. Man måste också se till att man kan lita på resultatet av röstningen. I dagens system är det fruktansvärt, fruktansvärt svårt. Därför måste vi vara väldigt försiktiga med e-röstning.

E-administration och e-demokrati är oerhört viktigt. E-röstning tror jag att vi kan klara oss utan. Bifall detta utmärkta betänkande.

  György Schöpflin (PPE). – Madam President, my congratulations to Mr Jáuregui on an excellent report. There is no question in my mind that e-democracy is already happening and will assume ever greater importance in the years to come. Various aspects of governance are already structured electronically, so this report is not only timely, but is equally highly cogent. There is an ideal typical model of e—democracy, something along the lines of each and every citizen participating in political decision-making thanks to their computer or smartphone This sounds a little bit like a futuristic version of the classical Athenian agora. Reality will be different; it usually is.

In the first place, not everyone has easy and inexpensive access to the cyber world; there are cost factors that have to be taken into account. Second, there are cognitive impediments. Some citizens will simply find it difficult to follow the protocols. Whether we like it or not, cyber literacy is not universal. Equally, the enabling software has to be designed with special care. My own recent experience illustrates this, when I was trying to complete the Hungarian interim census form and failing so that I had to deal with a human enumerator.

Finally, cyber security. The provision of this is a constant struggle, but the technological leap that quantum technology promises in ensuring complete security is not that far away. The EU has to be on top of this, and this report usefully points the way.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). – Señora presidenta, quisiera, en primer lugar, felicitar al ponente, el señor Jáuregui.

Democracy: The Unfinished Journey —la democracia, un viaje inacabado— es el título de un clásico que evalúa cómo ha cambiado la democracia a través de la historia. En el último cuarto de siglo el debate ha girado en torno a la calidad de la democracia: cómo superar la democracia delegativa; cómo permitir que los ciudadanos participen en el proceso de toma de decisiones; cómo organizar que puedan tomarlas directamente online; cómo permitir ágoras públicas, plazas públicas deliberativas. El informe tiene múltiples propuestas en este sentido, pero también llama la atención sobre la necesidad de garantizar la privacidad, los derechos y la seguridad en internet.

Finalmente, como dijo otro clásico de la democracia, lo que ha sobrevivido es el edificio de la democracia representativa. Esto sirve para perfeccionarla, no para sustituirla.

  Carlos Zorrinho (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, os modelos de funcionamento das sociedades democráticas estão a ser fortemente reconfigurados pela adoção de novas tecnologias de informação e comunicação.

Este relatório é, por isso, muito oportuno. Saúdo o relator Ramón Jáuregui, pela forma concisa, pragmática e estruturada com que identifica o potencial e os desafios da democracia eletrónica. A aceleração tecnológica não pode pôr em causa os valores fundamentais da democracia representativa. Pelo contrário, a tecnologia deve ser usada para a fortalecer.

Queria destacar três dimensões, no tempo que posso, que são fundamentais: a qualificação dos cidadãos para a sociedade digital, a transparência e a equidade no acesso à informação relevante e, finalmente, a possibilidade de disseminarmos a possibilidade de voto eletrónico presencial.

São três oportunidades e três linhas de trabalho para que possamos aproveitar a tecnologia para robustecer a democracia.

Muito obrigado pelo excelente relatório.

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren

  Julie Ward (S&D). – Madam President, there can be no e-democracy without digital inclusion, especially inclusion of vulnerable people. This requires ensuring a fair, inclusive, transparent and safe access, and use of the internet for all. Digital inclusion also means closing the gap between rural and urban areas in terms of internet access. There is indeed significant contrast in broadband speeds in rural and urban areas in many Member States, and this presents a severe disadvantage to rural areas and puts at risk the social, cultural and economic life in the communities there.

We are also asked to prepare young people to a fast-changing world which we cannot yet imagine, but one thing we know is that this world will be more and more digitised and connected, and that is why digital skills and media literacy are key. But here, again, it should not limit itself to learning about the tools and technologies; it should aim at equipping individuals with the creative and critical thinking and digital curiosity necessary for them to become not only users of technology, but active citizens in connected societies.

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, όπως αναφέρει και η έκθεση, οι πολίτες πρέπει να είναι ενημερωμένοι από τα μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης πέραν των άλλων και για τη δραστηριότητα των εκλεγμένων εκπροσώπων τους στα εθνικά κοινοβούλια και στην Ευρωβουλή. Αυτό ισχύει ιδίως για την Ελλάδα, όπου τα κρατικά μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης και η πλειοψηφία των ιδιωτικών ΜΜΕ έχουν προχωρήσει εδώ και δυόμισι χρόνια σε συστηματική φίμωσή μου ως ευρωβουλευτή, μέλους του ECR, της τρίτης σε δύναμη πολιτικής ομάδας της Ευρωβουλής. Ακόμη και σήμερα, πριν λίγες ώρες, η κρατική τηλεόραση ΕΡΤ1, χρησιμοποιώντας μάλιστα το στούντιο και τον τηλεοπτικό εξοπλισμό του Ευρωκοινοβουλίου εδώ στο Στρασβούργο, έξω ακριβώς απ’ αυτή την αίθουσα, για άλλη μια φορά με απέκλεισε αυθαίρετα από την ειδική εκπομπή της για τις δραστηριότητες του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου.

Τι μέτρα προτίθεστε να λάβετε, κυρία Πρόεδρε, ως Ευρωβουλή και εσείς, κύριε Επίτροπε, προκειμένου να διασφαλιστεί η ελεύθερη κυκλοφορία των ιδεών, η ισοτιμία, η αμεροληψία, η πολυφωνία στα μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης της Ελλάδας, τη στιγμή μάλιστα που πολλά εξ αυτών, κυρία Πρόεδρε, χρησιμοποιούν τον εξοπλισμό της Ευρωβουλής εδώ στο Στρασβούργο και αρκετοί από τους δημοσιογράφους των εν λόγω ΜΜΕ επισκέπτονται το Στρασβούργο με δαπάνες του ...

(Η Πρόεδρος διακόπτει τον ομιλητή.)

  Die Präsidentin. – Eines ist ganz sicher, nämlich dass wir ganz klar die Meinungsfreiheit in unseren Staaten akzeptieren, und nicht nur akzpetieren, sondern respektieren. Das ist ein hohes Gut, das wir auf keinen Fall in Frage stellen können. Ich akzeptiere solche Unterstellungen, wie sie gerade gemacht worden sind, nicht.

  Davor Škrlec (Verts/ALE). – Gospođo predsjednice, trebalo je puno da demokracija sazrije i ne možemo očekivati da će e-demokracija preko noći zamijeniti sadašnji sustav i nije mudro odmah napasti e-voting, odnosno najviši stupanj odlučivanja u sadašnjoj demokraciji kao zamjenu za postojeći sustav glasovanja. Ja ću samo navesti dva primjera gdje bi e-demokracija mogla postići puno veće efekte.

Dakle, prvo je smart city. Imamo koncept u kojem građani mogu kroz veću participaciju upravo na lokalnoj razini više sudjelovati u odlučivanju o tome što će se investirati u njihovu okolinu, kako će se zapravo upravljati gradom i kako će se upravljati prometom u gradu kako bi javno zdravlje i okoliš bili sačuvani.

Drugo važno su osobe s posebnim potrebama odnosno reduciranom pokretljivošću. E-demokracija upravo njima omogućava da mogu bolje i lakše participirati u demokratskom odlučivanju na svojoj lokalnoj razini, regionalnoj odnosno nacionalnoj.

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)

  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, as this important report underlines, e-democracy is about grasping the potential of the internet to strengthen democracy in a digital environment. It is about empowering people and developing a digital public sphere.

In the Commission, we are trying to do our bit. We are promoting the use of online participatory platforms, for example the European Citizens’ Initiative, which allows direct participation in the development of EU policies. The REFIT exercise and the e-Government Action Plan have created participatory platforms that engage European citizens directly in the decision-making process. Projects such as D-CENT demonstrate clearly that citizen-led organisations can transform democracy and help them to develop the next generation of open source, distributed, privacy-aware tools. The Commission is looking at a pilot project, funded by the European Parliament, on making the best use of modern technologies for more active and democratic voting procedures.

But, as I think we have recognised in this discussion, for all of this to work you need digital skills and digital inclusion. In fact, if Mr Schöpflin had still been here, I would have been tempted to say that cyber-literacy could be a barrier to turkeys voting for Christmas. One of the main challenges we face, therefore, is to bridge the digital divide that exists in some of our societies. That is going to require decisive action nationally and regionally as well as at the EU level in order to build the engagement and trust that is needed to underpin and reinforce our democracy. Thank you, again, to the rapporteur for giving us this opportunity this evening to discuss this very important subject.

  Ramón Jáuregui Atondo, ponente. – Señora presidenta. Gracias a usted, señor comisario, porque agradezco que la Comisión acoja esta idea del Parlamento y que desarrolle sus iniciativas. Quiero tranquilizar a mis compañeros, colegas, que han expresado algunas preocupaciones. La mayoría de ellas están recogidas en el informe; también algunas sugerencias, están casi todas.

Creo que hemos hecho un balance muy equilibrado entre lo que son —digamos— ventajas, oportunidades y riesgos. En relación con el e—voting, por ejemplo, apreciamos lo que significa la experiencia de Estonia, pero hoy mismo reconocemos que Holanda no ha querido aplicar un cómputo electrónico por temor a los ciberataques. De manera que hay un equilibrio bastante razonable entre lo que oportunamente nos proporciona la tecnología a la democracia.

Quiero únicamente agradecer, señora presidenta, a todos los ponentes alternativos y a todos los grupos políticos, su apoyo. Hemos hecho un acuerdo muy mayoritario y que mañana será —espero— aprobado por parte de este Parlamento con un apoyo muy grande.

  Die Präsidentin. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet morgen, Donnerstag, 16. März 2017, statt.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162 GO)

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD), per iscritto. – La relazione del collega è molto buona e affronta il tema della e-democracy senza pregiudizi. La "democrazia elettronica" viene presentata come uno strumento utile ad arricchire e potenziare la democrazia diretta e il voto elettronico come una pratica utile se ben congegnata. Va però garantita l'eliminazione del digital divide e va reso effettivo l'accesso alla rete. Al tempo stesso, la rete in sé deve essere regolata in modo chiaro e abbiamo notato con piacere il riferimento alla Carta dei diritti in internet elaborata a livello italiano in qualità di strumento utile allo scopo. È inoltre fondamentale rinvigorire e rendere effettivo il primo strumento di democrazia diretto congegnato a livello UE: l'iniziativa dei cittadini europei.

  Rosa D'Amato (EFDD), per iscritto. – Nell'Unione Europea le élite politiche sono distanti, autoreferenziali, incapaci di fornire risposte efficaci ai cittadini. La e-democracy invece potrebbe innanzitutto promuovere e assicurare una maggiore informazione e trasparenza, ma anche incrementare l'affidabilità, il senso di responsabilità, l'accessibilità e la partecipazione dei cittadini, diventando uno strumento efficace per la coesione sociale. Il coinvolgimento dei cittadini può avvenire attraverso strumenti di governo, di delibera, di partecipazione, di consultazione e di voto digitale, con sistemi inclusivi capaci di avere effetti in termini di democrazia diretta, ma anche di crescita del capitale umano e dell'economia, nonché dell'efficienza della pubblica amministrazione. Tutto questo è possibile solamente a patto che si compiano sforzi più rilevanti di quelli finora dispiegati, in particolare per quanto riguarda la connettività di tutti i territori dell'Unione, anche quelli rurali o scarsamente popolati, e per l'alfabetizzazione digitale di tutti i cittadini, promuovendo inoltre l'impiego di software liberi e open source. Infine, alcune sfide rilevanti sono rappresentate dal mantenimento della neutralità della rete e dalla garanzia della sicurezza a 360 gradi delle infrastrutture e della rete Internet, evitando che questa si trasformi in uno strumento di intrusione e di violazione della vita privata.

  Ева Майдел (PPE), в писмена форма. – Само преди няколко седмици г-н Юнкер даде старт на един от най-големите дебати в историята на ЕС – дебатът за бъдещето на Европа. Сценариите, които той предлага, са изключително различни и действително е важно всеки европеец сам да ги осмисли, за да изберем как искаме да се развива нашият континент.

Когато говорим за Дигитална Европа, обаче, аз виждам пред нас само един път и това е пътят на уеднаквяване на регулаторната рамка, на максималното възползване от развитието на дигитална икономиката и на налагането на свободното движение на данните в Европа. За да бъде завършена тази технологична реалност, необходимо е и нашите общества да бъдат обновени до последната версия. Освен че е важно да сме технологично грамотни, ключово е и демокрацията в Европа да еволюира чрез е-правителство, е-участие и е-гласуване. Електронната демокрация означава укрепване на традиционните демократични практики и засилена прозрачност на управленските процеси.

Радвам се, че индексът DESI отчете постигнатото от българското правителство на Бойко Борисов в областта на е-управлението и отворените данни и че на изборите за Европейски парламент през 2019 г. като българка ще мога да подам своя глас технологично неутрално чрез смартфон, таблет или компютър, както от България, така и от Брюксел.

   Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE), na piśmie. – Rozwój nowych technologii informacyjno-komunikacyjnych (ICT) powoduje głębokie zmiany we współczesnym społeczeństwie. Obecnie mamy do czynienia z ogromną rewolucją technologiczną, której głównym czynnikiem jest Internet oraz związane z nim interakcje społeczne. W związku z tym konieczne było wykorzystanie narzędzi komunikacji cyfrowej w celu stworzenia nowego sposobu dyskusji oraz uczestnictwa społecznego w sprawach publicznych. Projekt ten ma na celu wzmocnienie relacji pomiędzy obywatelami a instytucjami publicznymi poprzez wprowadzanie ułatwień za pomocą narzędzi internetowych. W związku z dość niekorzystnym wizerunkiem organów administracji publicznej wśród obywateli zostają wprowadzane pewne ułatwienia, które już dziś możemy zaobserwować. Obecnie większość spraw urzędowych możemy załatwić nie wychodząc z domu, a dzięki nieograniczonym możliwościom Internetu możemy wzbogacać świadomość obywatelską. Dlatego uważam, że w przedstawionej rezolucji drzemie ogromny potencjał aby w pozytywny sposób wykorzystywać aspekty i możliwości Internetu. Dzięki tym narzędziom możemy ułatwiać życie codzienne obywatelom oraz kreować ich świadomość i realny wpływ na życie polityczne każdego z nas.