Debašu stenogramma

Otrdiena, 2010. gada 15. jūnijs - Strasbūra

7.16. Priekšlikums lēmumam izveidot delegāciju CARIFORUM valstu un EK Parlamentārajā komitejā un palielināt tās skaitlisko sastāvu (balsošana)

***

  President. − Colleagues, for those who would like to listen to the explanation about the Tőkés vote:

Members voting: 621 – which is votes in favour and abstentions; votes cast in favour: 334; abstentions: 287, but they are not counted as votes cast. The absolute majority is 168.

Mr Tőkés obtained 334 votes, more than the absolute majority of 168. The electronic voting system is used as an alternative to a vote with ballot papers. On a ballot paper for an election, voters can only vote in favour of a candidate or a fixed number of candidates. There is never any possibility of voting against, as Mrs Roth-Behrendt explained. Voters not wishing to vote in favour leave the ballot paper blank. Therefore I welcome Pastor Tőkés to the Bureau.

  Stavros Lambrinidis (S&D). - Mr President, just to understand, what you are telling us is that, for the vote on a Vice-President, it is impossible ever not to get a qualified majority, because, if you can only vote in favour or be taken down as abstention, and if abstentions do not count towards the total vote, then by definition you always get a qualified majority. Is that what you are saying?

  President. − As you recall, Mr Lambrinidis, at the beginning of this Parliament there were in fact three ballots in order to elect all the Vice-Presidents on a qualified majority, so that was the procedure we followed on that occasion. On this occasion there was only one candidate, and, given that he received more than 168 votes, he got more than the qualified majority and is therefore elected on a single vote. This procedure is an unusual one, but we have followed the rules.

  Robert Goebbels (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, vous avez peut-être suivi les règles, mais quand j'additionne 334 voix pour, 168 abstentions et 287 personnes qui ont voté pour, j'arrive à 789 députés, c'est-à-dire plus de députés qu'il n'y en a dans la salle. Donc, il y a eu bourrage d'urne, comme aux élections corses. C'est manifestement une élection truquée qui doit être répétée.

  President. − Mr Goebbels, the answer to your question is that there has been a misunderstanding by a number of Members that on the screen the absolute majority was put up as if it were a score. It was not. It was an indication of the absolute majority. It should not be added to the total number of votes. I repeat. Mr Tőkés got 334 votes. It is more than the qualified majority. He therefore is elected.

I should make it very clear that the 168 figure was not 168 votes. It was an indication of the number, the threshold needed, to win his position as Vice-President. I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Perhaps we could have made it clearer at the time.

  Adrian Severin (S&D). - Mr President, I do not want to enter into details. I just want to remind you that the chairman of the meeting and the President of Parliament informed us that those who were going to abstain and those who were going to vote against were going to be doing the same thing. This announcement was of course misleading, but, nevertheless, since the announcement came from the chair of the meeting, it was a valid announcement, and, therefore, I think that the vote should be repeated based on the clarification you have just given to us.

  President. − I am convinced that if the vote was taken again the result would be the same. I do believe that people understood that they were voting as in a normal electronic vote – the buttons meant the same thing; the result was clear. What was not clear was the placing on the board of the figure 168, which has caused some confusion. If there was any misunderstanding the President himself can make clear what he was saying when he next appears before you.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D). - Nazywam się Senyszyn.

Te wyjaśnienia są jednak absolutnie niesatysfakcjonujące, uwzględniając, że przed głosowaniem uzyskaliśmy informację, że głosy przeciw i głosy wstrzymujące są liczone jednakowo, co jest zgodne z wymogiem większości kwalifikowanej. Ponieważ co to znaczy kwalifikowana większość? To znaczy, że głosy za muszą przewyższać sumę głosów przeciw i wstrzymujących się. W tym wypadku w ogóle nie mamy jasności, jaki był wynik głosowania. Przewodniczący Buzek podał, że było 334 głosy za, 287 głosów przeciw i 168 wstrzymujących się. W związku z tym rzeczywiście wygląda na to, że głosowało 789 osób i w tej chwili tłumaczenie, że jakieś głosy się nie liczą, może oznaczać też, że nie liczą się któreś z tych 334 głosów za.

Jest to sytuacja absolutnie niedopuszczalna, w kontekście definicji w większości krajów. Nie sądzę, żeby akurat w naszym Parlamencie było inaczej. Większość kwalifikowana, bezwzględna większość, to przewaga głosów za nad głosami przeciw i głosami wstrzymującymi się. W tym przypadku takiej sytuacji w ogóle nie było, ponieważ została oddana błędna liczba głosów. To znaczy, że maszyna do głosowania źle działała i głosowanie musi być bezwzględnie powtórzone.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). - Mr President, if you will indulge me, I actually have two points of order. The first is on the vice-presidential vote. There is no way that this can be a safe vote. We were misled as to the instructions. In this row here we attempted to vote negatively, and the machines would not allow us to do so. We tried to raise points of order, which were not taken at the time, so I would call for a recall of this vote by a paper vote or a straightforward, yes/abstain/no vote with the results firmly displayed. From those like me who are critical of this institution: actually, thank you very much – this is an open goal for you, and we will make much criticism of this, thank you very much!

My second criticism is on a refusal to allow me an explanation of vote on the Tremopoulos report. This was a roll-call vote on transparency and I voted against this. Now I am not being allowed an opportunity to explain why I voted against it, but my electorate will see that I voted against transparency. I want to give an explanation as to why I voted against this report. May I please beg an explanation of vote on this.

  President. − On the first point, the staff were here present, as was the President, who chaired the vote. If there are any issues that arose out of the handling of that, they will be dealt with.

On the second point, on a simplified procedure there are no debates, there is no explanation of vote, but, Ms Sinclaire, you can put it in writing, so please avail yourself of that opportunity.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). - Monsieur le Président, j'ai bien entendu et j'ai fait très attention à ce que vous avez dit. Vous avez dit que le chiffre de 168 était le seuil de la majorité qualifiée. C'est ce que j'ai entendu, en tout cas c'est ce qui a été traduit. Cela me paraît tout à fait incroyable parce que, si c'est le cas, on prendrait en quelque sorte comme seuil de l'élection la moitié du nombre des gens qui ont voté pour.

Alors, à tous les coups, la majorité qualifiée est obtenue. C'est évident. C'est la première fois dans ce Parlement que j'entends que 168 voix, c'est la majorité qualifiée. Sans doute ai-je mal compris ce que vous avez dit, mais l'ensemble de cette procédure me paraît parfaitement absurde, peut-être adaptée à une élection dans laquelle il y a plusieurs candidats, mais absolument pas au renouvellement d'un vice-président.

  President. − The figure of 168 was calculated by the computer, on the basis of the votes actually cast, as a majority.

Look, I never passed a maths exam in my life so I am going to stop here!

  Mário David (PPE). - Mr President, it is exactly on this point that I agree with Mr Gollnisch for once, though I hope for the first and last time. The fact is that with 621 Members voting the majority needed to be at least 311. I am very glad of the result because our candidate had 334, so he was elected in any case, but I beg you to correct this because if this program is in the computer it is definitely mathematically wrong.

  President. − We have noted that point.

  Matthias Groote (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Bei der Abstimmung war es mir nicht möglich, mit Nein zu stimmen, sondern die Abstimmungsmaschine zeigte erst etwas an, als ich die Ja-Taste gedrückt habe und dann die Enthaltungs-Taste. Ich bitte noch einmal zu überprüfen, wie die Maschine hier die Stimmen erfasst und gezählt hat, denn das ist meines Erachtens nicht schlüssig gewesen. Es ging mir nicht alleine so, es ging mehreren Kollegen so. Sie konnten nicht die Abstimmungstaste Enthaltung drücken oder die Abstimmungstaste Nein, sondern es musste zuerst mit Ja gestimmt werden. Ich muss also sagen, dann ist dieses Abstimmungsverfahren eher abenteuerlich. Ich bitte daher noch einmal zu überprüfen, wie die Stimmen gezählt worden sind!

  President. − Something tells me that we will never use this system again. We will use paper in future!

  Pat the Cope Gallagher (ALDE). - Mr President, I would suggest to those who are left in the House that we should refrain from further debate on this. It is abundantly clear that there were 621 votes. The Vice-President got 334. It is a majority; let us move on. If the general public throughout the 27 countries are watching they will have very little respect for this House. There are bigger issues than this, such as high unemployment. Let us debate the issues which are important and not waste time debating this further. I accept your explanation, Mr President; I accept the explanation of the President. So move on and deal with issues which are important.

  Toine Manders (ALDE). - Voorzitter, ik stel voor dat u de uitleg die u heeft gegeven en die voor mij duidelijk was, via de e-mail naar alle leden stuurt. Want ik betreur het dat heel veel collega's die altijd bovenop de kast staan als het gaat over transparantie, duidelijkheid en democratie, zich nu heel snel naar de lunch hebben gespoed. Wellicht is het voor hen duidelijk als u het hen via de e-mail laat toesturen.

  President. − That is a decision for the President, but I shall certainly make that suggestion to him.

  Alexandra Thein (ALDE). - Herr Präsident! Sehr geehrter Herr Vizepräsident! Unsere Plenarsitzungen sind öffentlich, und es ist hier ein sehr schlechter Eindruck entstanden. Ich möchte mich anschließen und nicht für eine Mail plädieren, sondern ich würde mir eigentlich wünschen, dass es auf der Website des Parlaments noch einmal öffentlich dargestellt und erklärt wird, denn zumindest eine Aussage ist ja falsch: 168 kann nicht die Schwelle gewesen sein, sondern wenn 621 Stimmen abgegeben wurden, kann die Schwelle nur 310 gewesen sein, wenn ich das richtig verstehe. Deshalb bitte ich, das doch noch einmal schriftlich auf der Website zu erklären, so dass es auch jeder Bürger nachvollziehen kann. Angesichts der Vielzahl der Zuschauer, die hier waren, haben wir wirklich ein extrem schlechtes Bild in der Öffentlichkeit abgegeben.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). - Datorită faptului că explicaţiile Preşedintelui Buzek privind procedura de vot au fost confuze şi contradictorii, că unele maşini de vot nu au funcţionat, consider că repetarea votului ar aduce transparenţă şi un rezultat legitim. Aşa cum unul din colegi menţiona că suntem urmăriţi de către membrii din 27 de state, cred că trebuie să dam dovadă, celor care ne-au ales, de transparenţă şi corectitudine.

Este regretabil că, în condiţiile în care foarte mulţi deputaţi europeni contestă modul de desfăşurare a procesului de votare, a fost refuzată repetarea votului în condiţii normale, ceea ce nu reflectă un tratament echitabil pentru toţi deputaţii europeni.

De aceea, convingerea dumneavoastră, convingerea domnului Preşedinte, convingerea colegilor care au susţinut că s-au întrunit aceste voturi trebuie să fie convingerea noastră a tuturor, trebuie să fie convingerea tuturor membrilor Uniunii Europene.