Posėdžio stenograma

Trečiadienis, 2011 m. lapkričio 30 d. - Briuselis

14. Pasirengimas Europos Vadovų Tarybos susitikimui (2011 m. gruodžio 8–9 d.) (diskusijos)

  Przewodniczący. − Kolejny punkt debaty, bardzo ważny dla nas wszystkich, to przygotowania do szczytu Rady Europejskiej (8-9 grudnia 2011 r.).

We all know how important this item is in our debates. It is very important to discuss all the points of view in this case.

  Mikołaj Dowgielewicz, Urzędujący Przewodniczący Rady. − Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Ta Rada Europejska jest wyjątkowo ważna, to rzecz oczywista. Chciałbym przede wszystkim w imieniu polskiej prezydencji powiedzieć, że na tym posiedzeniu Rady Europejskiej powinny zapaść bardzo odpowiedzialne, ważne decyzje, które zdecydują o kształcie Unii Europejskiej w najbliższych latach. Ta Rada Europejska i jej decyzje mogą ukształtować w dużej mierze Unię Europejską. To nie jest tylko kolejne spotkanie przywódców, którzy zadecydują o kierunku prac Rady, ale jest to moment, w którym musimy się zdecydować na to, czy jesteśmy w stanie z pełną determinacją i używając wszelkich instrumentów bronić projektu europejskiego i jego największego osiągnięcia – czy jednego z największych osiągnięć – jakim jest euro.

Chciałbym zatem bardziej szczegółowo, choć w kilku słowach, przedstawić w porozumieniu z przewodniczącym Rady Europejskiej główne tematy, jakie zostaną poruszone na tym posiedzeniu Rady.

If you look at the agenda of the European Council, you will, of course, see that the European Council will review the overall economic situation and will revert to the question of promoting growth in Europe. Furthermore, Heads of State and Government will track progress on the implementation at national level of the commitments under the Euro Plus Pact, with particular attention to jobs and tax issues.

I also want to remind you that the President of the European Council will inform Heads of State and Government of the reflections on the strengthening of economic convergence within the euro area, on improving fiscal discipline and on deepening economic union, including exploring the possibility of limited Treaty change. As you know, the Presidency will also contribute with ideas on strengthening the unity and convergence of the European Union and we will do this in the light of the forthcoming General Affairs Council on Monday.

On energy, the European Council will track progress on the implementation of guidelines set in February 2011, in particular as regards energy efficiency, the internal energy market, energy infrastructure development and external energy policy. It will also assess the initial findings of the nuclear stress tests.

There are, in addition, a number of other items to be addressed by the European Council. The European Council will take the required decisions on the possible next steps for accession countries. It may well also have to come back to the issue of Schengen accession by Romania and Bulgaria. Finally, it may also need to address the situation in Iran. I should also mention that the European Council is expected to take note of the Presidency report on the multiannual financial framework. Now, if I may, I shall say a few more words on economic policy and on enlargement.

On the European economy, it is clear that the economy has taken a turn for the worse. Deteriorating confidence and intensified financial turmoil are affecting investment, exports and consumption. It is important that the Union’s new economic governance be fully implemented with a view to building confidence in the strength of the European economy. The Presidency fully agrees with the Commission’s assessment in its recent Annual Growth Survey that now the stress must be on implementation. We have taken on many commitments. In some areas progress has been good, but in others it has been more measured or – basically, in less diplomatic terms – it has been quite weak.

Structural reforms and differentiated fiscal consolidation efforts must continue to lay the ground for a return to sustainable growth and thus help to improve confidence in the short term. Measures are also required in order to help restore normal lending to the economy while preventing excessive risk-taking. The priority must be to boost jobs and growth; this is why the European Council is expected to support the principle of a fast-track programme of measures, as set out by the Commission. This would mean the Council and the European Parliament working together to ensure the rapid adoption of a number of key legislative proposals, something which I know is also dear to you, Mr President.

The Annual Growth Survey launches the next European semester, which will be the first to be implemented as part of the recently strengthened economic governance, including the new procedure for monitoring and correcting macroeconomic imbalances. This is really crucial. We strongly believe that those new mechanisms can make a real difference. The spring European Council will review progress and adopt the required guidance.

Regarding the Euro Plus Pact and its objectives, the Heads of State and Government taking part in the Pact will review progress made in implementing the commitments at national levels; they are expected to focus on employment. Let me just mention, to close this part on economic policy, three principles that the Presidency would like to see guide this European Council. Firstly, more unity within the twenty-seven. Secondly, more Europe, so enhanced coordination and strengthened economic governance. And thirdly, strengthened institutions, so that whatever we do, we do it within the institutional framework of the European Union and we ensure that there is a proper legitimacy for the measures which we adopt if we decide to go forward with the Treaty revision. There should be an appropriate enhancement of the role of the European Commission, but also there should be a place for the democratically elected institution of the European Union, obviously the European Parliament.

My final remark is about enlargement. I would like to inform the House that we expect Prime Minister Kosor to take part in the European Council as observer after the signature of the Treaty of Accession of Croatia. As you know, enlargement has been a priority for the Polish Presidency, to show that despite the difficult times, the European Union is still open and we are still very serious about our open-door policy. We look forward to Croatia becoming the 28th member of the European Union on 1 July 2013.

On Monday, the General Affairs Council will discuss the situation of the other candidate and accession countries. This will not be an easy discussion. The Presidency has worked very intensively to prepare a set of conclusions for the GAC, which once agreed should be endorsed by the European Council.

  Olli Rehn, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I have been invited to discuss the preparations for next week’s European Council with you on behalf of President Barroso. The European Council will, of course, take place in an extremely challenging economic and political environment. Its focus will inevitably be on the economic situation and on the measures we have proposed to restore confidence in the euro area and the European economy.

It is clear that our room for manoeuvre is now much more constrained than two years ago. To respond to the current situation, the Commission has utilised the current Treaty’s scope to the maximum and proposed forceful measures to complete the Economic and Monetary Union. Economic governance is being strengthened and mechanisms to address the financial crisis have been already been put in place.

Last Wednesday the Commission adopted the Growth and Governance Package, which consists of three parts. The Annual Growth Survey spells out our view of the policy priorities in the coming 12 months to restore macrofinancial stability and boost sustainable growth. Two proposals for new regulations will further reinforce economic and budgetary surveillance in the euro area. The feasibility study on stability bonds examines the potential benefits for financial stability of jointly issued bonds and the preconditions for their possible introduction.

The Annual Growth Survey launches the next European Semester of economic governance by setting out the Commission’s views on the challenges and priorities for next year. This survey is being published at a time when the EU is going through the most challenging times of its history. It sets the following priorities for 2012.

First, to continue with fiscal consolidation, which has to be differentiated across countries, as we agreed in October. We also have to pay more attention to the impact of consolidation on growth. In this respect, it is essential to analyse carefully which expenditure we can reduce and how we can raise revenue in the Member States.

Second, that normal lending to the economy has to be restored. It is necessary to strengthen the banking sector via appropriate regulation and recapitalisation and set up credible financial backstops for banks and sovereigns in order to break the negative feedback loop between the two sectors.

Third, structural policies are key to reviving growth at the current juncture, when macroeconomic policies are heavily constrained. This means that structural reforms have to be stepped up, especially in services, network industries, the public sector and the digital economy.

Fourth, unemployment and other social consequences of the crisis have to be tackled. Reforms are necessary to make labour markets more flexible and conducive to job creation.

The final priority of the survey is to modernise public administration at all levels in the Member States and in the Union.

You may say that some of these priorities are not new. This is correct and it is deliberate. We have already made so many commitments that now we have to really focus on their implementation and concrete results.

The discussions of the Annual Growth Survey will culminate in the March European Council, after which the national programmes are prepared in the light of the guidance from the Heads of State and Government. In parallel, you in the European Parliament should also debate the Annual Growth Survey and make your views known before the work on Member States’ programmes starts. To my mind, that is a very important opportunity for the European Parliament to influence policy-making in the Member States in this regard.

To conclude on the Annual Growth Survey, I want to underline the following once more. Without swift and determined implementation these priorities will do none of us any good, nor help achieve sustainable and inclusive growth. I have full confidence that in the European Parliament you will help accelerate the adoption of what is currently on your desks in the codecision procedure.

As part of the package we also proposed two regulations based on Article 136 for the euro area Member States. These present a major step forward in euro area fiscal and economic integration. They build on the ‘six pack’; they complete the European Semester with rules for the second part of the year and establish a link between intergovernmental financial assistance and Treaty-based surveillance.

The first regulation proposes the introduction of binding rules for balanced budgets into national legislation, preferably at constitutional level. It also requires independent forecasts to be used as the basis of budgetary plans and draft budgets. But, most importantly, it proposes tight monitoring of national budgets, which you have been calling for. We propose a harmonised budgetary timeline with draft budget laws to be submitted to the Commission by 15 October every year.

The Commission will then assess these draft national budgets against the Country Specific Recommendations and against possible EDP recommendations. Should the draft clearly not be in line with the recommendations, the Commission can ask for a new draft. The Commission is ready to present its opinion in the national parliament of the country concerned if requested.

When a Member State is in the Excessive Deficit Procedure, the Commission can issue recommendations for additional measures. The second regulation specifies the modalities for enhanced monitoring of euro area Member States – those Member States who are receiving financial assistance or are suffering from risks to their financial stability and to that of the euro area as a whole. It allows enhanced surveillance of a country that is considered to be at risk with regard to financial stability, even without a programme.

Finally, it proposes that the Commission will have the right to propose to the Council to recommend a Member State to seek financial assistance if the Member State concerned is posing a risk to financial stability, especially that of the euro area or Europe as a whole. This should be done on the basis of the Commission’s analysis in liaison with the European Central Bank. This proposal stems from recent experience, as we have seen that this has posed a genuine problem to the financial stability of the euro area.

The fragmented European sovereign bond market is currently under great stress. Investors require substantial risk premiums on the sovereign bonds of some euro area Member States. This situation has revived interest in jointly issued euro area bonds to create a large and liquid bond market in Europe.

As part of the deal on the ‘six pack’ between the European Parliament and the Council, the Commission presented a Green Paper on stability bonds last week. Its key findings are, firstly, that jointly issued stability bonds would be likely to produce substantial benefits in terms of reducing and stabilising borrowing costs for Member States by providing better shock resilience for the financial sector and improving market efficiency over time. Secondly, however, as common bonds would reduce the market discipline of individual Member States, their introduction would only be meaningful on the condition that euro area economic governance were to be substantially further strengthened.

The ‘six pack’ constitutes the foundations for reinforced economic governance and last week’s proposals represent a further step in the direction of stronger economic governance. But we would have to go far beyond these reforms to facilitate a safe introduction of stability bonds, which would most probably require amendment to the Treaty.

Before concluding, let me say a few words on Treaty change. Let us be clear: a Treaty change cannot offer an immediate contribution to the solution to the current crisis. But it is true that, by working to embed stricter discipline and stronger governance into the euro area in particular, we may help to prevent a future crisis by creating a real stability union.

The President of the European Council was asked, with the Presidents of the Commission and the Euro Group, to identify possible steps on further reinforcing economic convergence within the euro area, including exploring the possibility of limited Treaty changes. These deliberations are ongoing and an interim report will be presented to the European Council.

The Commission’s view is that any Treaty change should be based on the principle of one Union, based on the current institutional framework, which is clearly exemplified by the Community method. European integration can only be achieved by a single legal framework of one Union. That is the best way to build a real stability union, in fact a true economic union.

Equally importantly, only the Community method can guarantee consistency between European economic monetary policy and all other EU policies as well as the completion of the Single Market. That is the guarantee of the fair and just treatment of the Member States and EU citizens. I trust both the European Parliament and EU Member States will stick to this and be ready to justify the benefits of the Community method vigorously in future negotiations too.

Furthermore, in the event of any of revision of the Treaties, balance has to be maintained. We all know that there will be diverging views – some will want to put more weight on stability, while others might wish to place more emphasis on stimulating growth. Some will call for more solidarity and others will want more discipline. It will be essential and extremely important to incorporate all these elements in future work so that the end result will be a balanced set of rules ensuring both stability and solidarity, which are at the heart of the European social model.

I can second what the Minister said as regards energy policy, that this is a key element on the agenda. Likewise the European Council will take important decisions concerning the Schengen accession of Bulgaria and Romania. Let me express the Commission’s view on this. It is very clear: we expect that the Council will take the decision to lift internal border controls with Romania and Bulgaria without any further delay. We fully support the efforts made by the Presidency for a compromise solution. Splitting into two phases the decision on lifting internal border controls is feasible and politically sound. The second stage – the decision on the lifting of internal border controls at land borders – can then be taken without undue delay.

Finally, a word on enlargement and the Accession Treaty of Croatia, which is very close to my heart and to which Commissioner Stefan Füle will return after this debate. Real progress has been made during the last year with all countries – progress in which the cooperation with the European Parliament plays a significant role. The Commission has already given its favourable opinion on Croatia’s accession and we hope that the vote tomorrow will pave the way for the Council’s decision and the signature of the Treaty on 9 December. But I will leave the details to my colleague and will just say that this is a historic turning point for Croatia and a very important benchmark for accession by the rest of the Western Balkans to the European Union.

Let me conclude. In terms of the European economy and economic policy, we have indeed arrived at the point in time where serious choices and commitments have to be made. The economic and monetary union will either have to be completed through much deeper integration or we will have to accept a gradual disintegration of over half a century of European integration. This is a choice that needs to be consciously taken by the governments of the euro area Member States and by all European citizens and their representatives in the national Parliaments and here in the European Parliament. Our choice is clear. It is a choice for an ever closer union for the sake of sustainable growth and job creation in Europe and thus for the sake of legitimacy and, not least, for the sake of the future of European unification. This is what is at stake. I trust you will also make the choice for European unification and for these objectives, because that is what our citizens expect.

(Applause)

  Paulo Rangel, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président en exercice, Monsieur le Vice-président, chers collègues, je m'adresse à vous au nom du président de mon groupe parlementaire, Joseph Daul, qui m'a demandé de le remplacer dans ce débat.

Je voudrais commencer cette intervention en exprimant ma vive satisfaction qu'après le feu vert du Parlement européen, le Conseil européen s'apprête maintenant à signer le traité d'adhésion avec la Croatie.

Je félicite la première ministre croate pour la détermination politique dont elle a fait preuve pour amener son peuple à ce résultat historique et je suis sûr que sa volonté politique influencera positivement ses pairs européens.

Quant à la situation dans l'Union européenne, nous pouvons dire que les signaux sont passés de l'orange au rouge. L'OCDE prévoit une récession en Europe en 2012. Les fonds souverains trouvent de moins en moins preneurs. Les taux de chômage atteignent des niveaux qui désespèrent nos concitoyens, en particulier les jeunes.

Face à ces défis, l'Union européenne doit en même temps agir et décider de sa gouvernance. Il est beaucoup question, ces derniers temps, d'une réforme des traités mais, que je sache, ce n'est pas d'une crise des traités dont il s'agit mais de la crise de la dette.

Par conséquent, pour le groupe PPE, ce qui est urgent, c'est d'agir sur les déficits nationaux en visant une fois pour toutes un équilibre budgétaire et non pas en se contentant d'un déficit de 3 %. Ce qui est urgent, c'est de redonner ses chances à la croissance en faisant du grand marché une réalité. Ce qui est urgent, c'est de faire confiance à la BCE pour qu'elle adopte un comportement utile à nos pays en s'alliant avec le Fonds monétaire international. Ce qui est urgent, c'est que des euro-obligations puissent voir le jour, à condition que l'effort budgétaire national, non seulement ne se relâche pas mais se renforce. Ce qui est urgent, c'est d'écouter Radek Sikorski qui nous exhorte à l'action et au respect de nos engagements.

Le deuxième pilier de l'action européenne doit être la gouvernance de la zone euro, qui nous fait cruellement défaut depuis le début de la création de l'euro, ce qui explique la méfiance des marchés. Sa mise au point est donc la condition sine qua non de tout plan de sortie de crise.

Par gouvernance, nous entendons réduction des déficits budgétaires, convergence fiscale et, si possible, convergence sociale. Cette gouvernance doit être européenne. J'entends par là qu'il ne suffit pas qu'elle se fasse entre deux, voire trois pays, voire même dans le cercle – de plus en plus restreint d'ailleurs – des pays du triple A. Non, cette gouvernance doit concerner l'ensemble des pays de la zone euro, de la zone euro plus.

Elle doit reposer sur la méthode communautaire, ce qui signifie au moins deux choses: la première, c'est qu'elle doit faire l'objet d'un accord, non seulement au Conseil, mais entre le Conseil et les deux institutions communautaires que sont le Parlement européen et la Commission européenne. La deuxième, c'est que la seule institution qui peut, de façon légitime, juger du fait que les nouvelles règles sont appliquées ou non et, le cas échéant, agir auprès de la Cour de justice européenne, c'est la Commission européenne.

Cette gouvernance, enfin et surtout, doit être démocratique. Qu'est-ce que cela veut dire? Ni plus ni moins que ce Parlement et que les parlements nationaux, directement issus du suffrage universel, doivent faire pleinement partie des négociations sur les modalités de la gouvernance européenne et du processus de décision qui en découlera. Cette participation des élus à la prise de décision est le b.a.-ba de notre système d'état de droit, le fondement de nos démocraties parlementaires.

Monsieur le Président, je termine. Pendant que nous débattons des réformes institutionnelles, l'eau continue de monter: pour certains jusqu'au menton, pour d'autres jusqu'aux genoux, mais l'inondation atteint désormais toute la zone euro et elle menace de gagner d'autres régions du monde. Comme le dit le ministre allemand des finances, il faut aller vite. Chers collègues, il faut aller vite.

(L'orateur accepte de répondre à une question "carton bleu"(article 149, paragraphe 8, du règlement)

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). - Eu vou falar em português. O Senhor falou em francês, não sei se isso significa ter alguma preocupação em que aqui se conheça o grave problema que se vive hoje em Portugal, com a aplicação desse pacto de autêntica agressão ao nosso país, a Portugal, que é também o seu país, e que está a conduzir não só a um desastre social, mas também a um desastre económico, anunciando-se para o próximo ano uma recessão, como disse, anunciada já pela OCDE, que pode ultrapassar os três pontos percentuais. Eu pergunto-lhe:

- Não considera que é tempo de mudar de política?

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). - Respondo-lhe também em português, mas não tenho nenhum problema em usar nenhuma das línguas europeias porque elas existem para ser usadas e eu sou daqueles que defendo que todos os cidadãos europeus devem falar mais que uma, mais que duas, se possível, três línguas, para que todos respeitem e conheçam as situações de todos. Muitas vezes não há entendimento porque nem todos fazem um esforço para compreender as outras culturas, mas como tenho essa perspectiva universalista também lhe digo uma coisa: não venha cá fazer política portuguesa porque comigo não tem hipóteses.

A resposta? Os portugueses deram-na nas urnas, em Junho, onde deram mais de 80% aos países que fizeram a negociação com a troika, onde tem mais de 90% dos deputados e onde ainda hoje foi aprovado o orçamento, em Portugal, esse orçamento restritivo, por mais de 90% dos deputados.

  Martin Schulz, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir diskutieren die Vorbereitung des Europäischen Rates in der kommenden Woche. Das diskutieren wir nach dem historischen Befreiungsschlag des Europäischen Rates vom 26. Oktober, der wiederum einem historischen Durchbruch im Sommer folgte. Was ist eigentlich von dem historischen Durchbruch vom 26. Oktober übrig geblieben, Herr Ratspräsident und Herr Vizepräsident der Kommission? Die nachhaltige Lösung, die erhoffte Wende, die ist nicht eingetreten. Ich glaube, das können wir jetzt schon mal feststellen.

Der prognostizierte vier- bis fünffach gehebelte EFSF hat sich als – in dieser Dimension zumindest – nicht realisierbar erwiesen. Es macht sich die Einsicht breit – ich denke, mehr hier im Parlament als im Rat und in der Kommission –, dass es keine Lösung ist, wenn wir jetzt über eine lange Vertragsrevision diskutieren. Denn eine lange Vertragsrevision bringt nicht die Lösung der aktuellen Probleme. Wir haben nach Sicherheit und Vertrauen gesucht, das tun wir eigentlich jeden Tag. Und was finden wir? Ungewissheit! Jeden Tag ein Stück mehr Ungewissheit!

Die aktuelle Debatte ist nämlich von einem Wahrnehmungsproblem in den Hauptstädten der Europäischen Union geprägt. Dieses Wahrnehmungsproblem in den Hauptstädten in Verbindung mit dieser merkwürdigen Hauptstadtdiplomatie, die nach wie vor die Gemeinschaftsinstitutionen außen vor lässt, kann man auf einen Satz bringen: Die Schulden unserer Nachbarn gehen uns nichts an! Das ist aber ein schwerwiegender Irrtum. Die Schulden unserer Nachbarn gehen uns alle etwas an, sie belasten uns alle gemeinschaftlich!

Und deshalb müssen wir statt über die Stabilitätsunion zu diskutieren, über eine Wachstumsunion zu diskutieren, über die Schuldenunion zu diskutieren, vielleicht mal zu folgendem Schluss kommen: Wir brauchen die Stabilitätsunion, ja! Aber wir müssen feststellen, ohne eine Wachstumsunion wird es in Europa keine Stabilitätsunion geben. Das sind zwei Seiten der gleichen Medaille.

(Beifall)

Die Schulden unserer Nachbarn gehen uns deshalb etwas an, weil sie in einer Währungsunion, in der wir alle gemeinschaftlich sitzen, unser gemeinsames Schicksal sind. Jetzt kann man lange darüber diskutieren, wer die Schulden verursacht hat. Worüber wir in der jetzigen Situation diskutieren müssen, ist aber vielmehr, wie wir sie loswerden. Wie können wir die Schulden begrenzen, um das Vertrauen der Anleger in die Eurozone und in unsere Währung zurückzugewinnen? Deshalb glaube ich, nur wenn wir in der Eurozone zu einem gemeinsamen Schuldenmanagement, zu einer gemeinsamen Schuldenverwaltung kommen, werden wir dieses Vertrauen zurückgewinnen.

Der Sachverständigenrat der Bundesregierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland hat erstaunlicherweise gestern eine gemeinschaftliche Schuldenverwaltung vorgeschlagen, wie es sie übrigens in anderen Fällen schon in ähnlichen Währungskrisen gegeben hat: ein Poolen der Schulden, ein Definieren eines Zeitziels, innerhalb dessen man diese Schulden abbaut, um sich dann darauf zu konzentrieren, wie man das schafft, was Europa dringender braucht als alles andere: Wachstum! Wachstum, das Arbeit schafft, und Wachstum, das Steuerkraft in den Staaten schafft, die sich darüber wieder eigene Einnahmen verschaffen!

Was wir für die nächsten Tage, Wochen und Monate brauchen, sind beherzte Schritte unterhalb einer Vertragsrevision. Denn seien wir doch mal ehrlich: Wozu führt denn eine Vertragsrevision? Wir können die Verträge revidieren, da gibt es überhaupt kein Vertun, alles wunderbar und schön. Aber das Argument, die Vertragsrevision bringt das Vertrauen der Märkte in den Euro zurück, das würde bedeuten, dass wir zwei Jahre Zeit brauchen, um dieses Vertrauen zurückzugewinnen. Denn so viel Zeit ist nötig, bis die Vertragsrevision unter Dach und Fach ist mit Konvent, mit Regierungskonferenz, mit Ratifizierungsverfahren, inklusive Referenda in 27 Staaten. Doch so viel Zeit haben wir nicht!

Was jetzt auf der Tagesordnung steht, ist die Beantwortung folgender Fragen: Wollen wir Eurobonds – ja oder nein? Wollen wir die Kommission unterstützen bei den Eurobonds? Wir – ja! Will der Rat das auch? Was ist mit der Rolle der Europäischen Zentralbank? Ist sie ein lender of last resort, oder nicht? Es ist ja interessant, zu hören, wie die Regierungschefin meines Landes sagt: Nein, das ist sie nicht. Sie ist kein lender of last resort. Aber natürlich handelt sie in völliger Unabhängigkeit. Das ist ein wörtliches Zitat von Angela Merkel. Und wir wissen alle, in der völligen Unabhängigkeit, in der die Europäische Zentralbank handelt, kauft sie jeden Tag Staatsanleihen auf. Sie handelt bereits als ein lender of last resort!

Die Beantwortung der Frage, ob wir das auch so systematisieren, oder der Frage, ob wir die Schulden tatsächlich unter ein Management bringen und abbauen, oder der Frage, ob wir tatsächlich in der Lage sind, über Bonds die Investitionen zu finanzieren, die wir brauchen, damit die Triple-A-Staaten nach wie vor Triple-A-Staaten bleiben, und die, die es nicht sind, es werden können, das muss das Ziel der Eurozone sein, und nicht eine Debatte über eine artifizielle Vertragsreform, die am Ende kein Vertrauen in den Euro bringt!

(Beifall)

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ zu beantworten (Artikel 149 Absatz 8 GO).)

  Barry Madlener (NI). - Voorzitter, ik heb in Duitsland met heel veel kiezers van de heer Schulz gesproken, en die willen natuurlijk helemaal niet opdraaien voor de schulden van Griekenland, Spanje en Italië. Dus, meneer Schulz, pleegt u niet een enorm kiezersbedrog als u hier zegt dat de Duitse kiezer, uw kiezer, moet opdraaien voor de Griekse schulden, en dat de Griekse belastingbetaler eigenlijk de eigenaar is van die Griekse schulden?

  Martin Schulz (S&D). - Herr Madlener, auch wenn ich nicht viel Hoffnung darauf habe, dass Sie das verstehen, was ich jetzt sage: Ich will nicht, dass die Deutschen die Schulden anderer bezahlen, sondern ich will, dass die Deutschen ihren Beitrag dazu leisten, dass die anderen ihre Schulden selbst bezahlen können. Das habe ich gerade umfangreich zu erklären versucht, ich bin aber gerne bereit, Ihnen das im bilateralen Gespräch noch einmal etwas genauer zu erläutern.

(Beifall)

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I think that the end game is coming closer. According to the specialised press – I am quoting the Financial Times of today – international companies have started preparations for the break-up of the euro zone. That is the reality today. Italy yesterday managed to raise EUR 8 billion on the markets at an interest rate of 7.56% and the yield for three-year bonds was even higher, nearly 8%. And it is not only a question of Italy or a question of Spain or a question of Greece or a question of Ireland, for a few days now it has also been a question of Germany, which is not capable of raising the necessary money in its own auction that it launched a few days ago.

So I think that we are fast approaching the breaking point of the euro. Let us be blunt about this, it is not because of Greece and it is not because of Italy. It is because of the incapacity of the two main players today in European politics, the incapacity of Merkel and Sarkozy to deal with this crisis. That is the euro crisis of today; their incapacity to find a solution.

(Applause and heckling)

I think there are a few Germans here, the supporters of Mrs Merkel. Well, today Merkel and Sarkozy are not the solution; I think they are the obstacle to the solution of the crisis. Let us be clear. Merkel is excluding Eurobonds, is resisting a bigger role for the European Central Bank; she is even against the idea of her own wise economists. In other words she is denying greater solidarity. That is the German position.

Sarkozy, for his part, is opposing a real fiscal union. In other words, yes, he is in favour of a fiscal union but in reality he still wants a political reading of the sanctions mechanism, and he is even opposed to the fact that the European Court of Justice should have the right to intervene in the budget. So in fact the French position of today is still defending the old ‘Deauville deal’, as if the Parliament had not changed the Deauville deal and the ‘six pack’, and has voted another ‘six pack’ a few months ago as if there were no euro crisis.

So let me say it very openly. It is true that Germany and France have, in the past, made agreements which have been beneficial and important for the Union; today, however, they form an obstacle to the survival of the Union. Today all who do not want to give up the Union and the euro have, in my opinion, to stand up and to say no to this; we have had enough of their half measures, their bad compromises and their deals that only calm the markets for 24 hours, which is the only thing they are capable of doing for the moment.

The time is right today to say yes to an economic union, to a political union, yes to a Eurobond market and yes to the proposal of the five wise Germans. It is time to say yes again to the euro.

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

  Derk Jan Eppink (ECR). - Mr President, I listened to Mr Verhofstadt who again supported the idea of Eurobonds. I would just like to know whether this idea and his speech are supported by the members of the German Liberals, of whom I see no representatives here, and whether he also has the support of the Dutch Liberals of the VVD. I would like to know whether he speaks on behalf of his own group or whether Mr Verhofstadt speaks on behalf of himself.

  Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE). - Mr President, I think that Mr Eppink is not following politics very well here in this Parliament. I can understand that maybe, but the FDP has backed the idea of the ‘five wise men’, the German economists, for the creation of a European collective redemption fund. Mr Lambsdorff has published an article in Die Welt – Mr Eppink has not read it – saying that this collective redemption fund is the solution.

What I do not understand is that Germany can accept it here in this plenary session of the European Parliament but the problem is not here; the problem is in Berlin, where for the moment the German Government, and mainly Mrs Merkel, does not want to follow the advice of her own advisers, her own counsellors, who are saying that the only way to tackle the problem is to create this collective redemption fund, where you put together the debt above 60% of those countries which are not using the rescue fund, and combine that with very bold debt reduction schemes for all the countries.

This is on paper. It is in the press. What are you waiting for? I think what some people are waiting for is the end of the euro and only then...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Jan Zahradil, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, this item on the agenda is called ‘Preparations for the European Council meeting’, but sometimes I do not know to which European Council we are referring. At the moment, I have the feeling that we have at least two councils: one council is the formal one which is represented by 27 Member States and takes place occasionally according to an agreed schedule. The other one has only two members who are Mr Sarkozy and Mrs Merkel, and it seems to be in session permanently. This is the one which really decides.

That, by the way, is a good example and good evidence that when hard times arrive the whole so-called Community method turns into a big illusion and it is the powerful ones who decide. Please do not get me wrong, this is not sarcasm. I have a certain understanding for Mrs Merkel because – there are many quotations in many languages and I will use the English one – ‘he who pays the piper, calls the tune’. And Germany pays. Mr Schulz is right, Germany pays. But it also wants some pay-back. That pay-back is the ultimate control over fiscal policy of all the eurozone members. If all of you in the eurozone want to keep the same currency you must be prepared for that; you must be prepared to give up your fiscal sovereignty.

Perhaps you can even save some public money by dissolving your national finance ministries, because you will not need them anymore. Your national budgets will be drawn up somewhere else. Anyway, this is your responsibility in the eurozone. I can only wish you good luck.

However, I cannot agree with one thing. I cannot agree with this fiscal protectorate being spread over all 27 Member States, as Mr Schäuble proposed only very recently. That is something which is unacceptable because one thing is clear from now on: today, there are two European Unions within one. We definitely have a two-tier Europe: we have the eurozone and the non-eurozone.

This is not disintegration. That does not mean an end to the European Union. This is just a reality that should be not only admitted but should be also reflected in our actions. Therefore both parts of the European Union must remain equal. Eurozone members should not be superior to non-eurozone members and the eurozone cannot just automatically drag the others with them.

Any further arrangement must recognise this reality. It does not matter whether this is a Treaty change or some other ways and means, such as an enhanced stability pact. If the eurozone states want to move forward in one direction, they must allow the others to move in their own direction as well. This is no longer a one-way street. This is reality. No longer do we go at the same speed and in the same direction. To use this crisis only as a platform in order to pursue further the project of political union and to further centralise power is short-sighted. It is wrong and in the end it will tear the EU apart.

It is also wrong to accuse others of wanting to destroy the euro. No one wants to destroy the euro here, definitely not my group, because our countries are very much dependent on the stability of the eurozone. We are not opposing the very existence of the euro; what we are opposing are wrong measures which will not save the euro. The EU must either be flexible or multispeed, whatever you wish to call it, or unfortunately very soon there will be no EU – with or without the euro.

  Rebecca Harms, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Herr Verhofstadt, Sie haben Ihre Kritik an Frau Merkel und Herrn Sarkozy wieder sehr schön zugespitzt. Wir haben uns aber auch immer mit Herrn Van Rompuy auseinanderzusetzen, der steht Ihnen ja politisch näher als die beiden. Ich würde mir wünschen, dass da irgendwie auch unter Belgiern ein klares Wort gesprochen wird.

(Zwischenruf von Herrn Verhofstad: „He’s from the PPE“.)

Ja, ich weiß, da scheint mir die Nähe eine sehr große zu sein. Ich hätte gerne, dass das, was wir hier debattieren, dann auch tatsächlich konsistent durchgehalten wird. Es ist zu Recht darauf hingewiesen worden, dass die FDP in Deutschland in Regierungsverantwortung steht. Und die Kommission – das haben wir hier oft gesagt – hat auch viele liberale Kommissare, deren Einfluss ich immer wieder vermisse.

Wir sind uns einig, was die Bewertung des letzten Gipfels angeht, und wir haben das schon nach der Krisennacht vorgetragen. Es ist ja leider genauso gekommen, wie im Europäischen Parlament diskutiert wurde: Der EFSF – und das will ich schärfer sagen als der Kollege Schulz –, der Hebel ist ein Flop, das funktioniert überhaupt nicht! Die Rekapitalisierung der Banken, die so dringend erforderlich ist, funktioniert genauso wenig wie die gesamte strenge Bankenregulierung, die wir seit über einem Jahr wie eine Monstranz als notwendig vor uns hertragen. Die Auseinandersetzung um den vereinbarten Schuldenschnitt für Griechenland stagniert. In Griechenland gibt es heftigen Streit, darüber wird nur nicht gesprochen. Wir haben – anders als zum Zeitpunkt des Krisengipfels – in Italien und in Griechenland inzwischen mit unterschiedlicher Begründung sogenannte technische Regierungen. Alle haben das gelobt, dass jetzt zum Beispiel Herr Monti die Regierungsverantwortung übernimmt. Aber was passiert? Unter den Vorgaben aus Brüssel hat Monti genau die gleichen Probleme wie vorher Papandreou. Das Land befindet sich in derselben tödlichen Zinsspirale, weil es alleine mit den Austeritätsvorgaben eigentlich nicht besser werden kann. Das wissen wir seit langem.

Was ist zu tun? Ich will das aus der Sicht meiner Fraktion jetzt nochmals sagen. Kurzfristig muss die EZB eine andere Rolle spielen, dazu müssen sich die Staats- und Regierungschefs bekennen. Das kann nicht immer – zu Recht, aber nicht immer – nur von Polen gefordert werden. Ich möchte mich erneut für die Intervention von Herrn Rostowski bedanken. Es war genau richtig, was er gesagt hat.

Die Eurobonds müssen vorbereitet werden, sie kommen jetzt schon zu spät. Wir müssen jetzt bei der EZB ansetzen, wir müssen eben trotzdem die Eurobonds vorbereiten. Und wir müssen dafür sorgen, dass nicht immer diese Lüge verbreitet wird, die in Deutschland grassiert, dass nämlich die Eurobonds bedeuten, dass wir in Deutschland z. B. die Risiken der Defizitländer übernehmen und dass in diesen Ländern weiter in Saus und Braus gelebt wird. Mit den Eurobonds geht natürlich auch eine Politik der Solidität einher – Solidarität und Solidität, das ist Teil der Eurobonds-Idee. Jeder, der das bestreitet, versündigt sich eigentlich an der Zukunft der Europäischen Union.

Es ist wirklich erschreckend, was Herr Verhofstadt zitiert hat: Die Realwirtschaft, große Unternehmen bereiten schon mal die Szenarien für das Ende der gemeinsamen Währung vor. Im selben Artikel heißt es heute in der Financial Times: „Traders prepare for the end game“. Ich bin mir nicht sicher, ob Frau Merkel und Herr Sarkozy andere Zeitungen, andere Analysen lesen als ich. Aber als ich heute diese Feueralarmglocke hier im Parlament gehört habe, dachte ich, es handele sich eigentlich um eine Verstärkung der Alarmsignale, die von hier aus in die Hauptstädte gesendet werden sollen. Es wäre zumindest einen Versuch wert, weil alle Argumente bisher ja nichts ausgerichtet haben.

Lassen Sie mich ein letztes Wort zu einer Vertragsänderung sagen. Ich weiß, es geht jetzt um akute Krisenbewältigung. Ich hoffe, dass ich das deutlich gemacht habe. Aber wenn man weiß, dass Demokratie unter diesen Vertragsbedingungen nicht funktioniert, sondern auf der Strecke bleibt, dann kann man zwar sagen, Vertragsänderungen dauern zu lange in der akuten Krise, doch wenn eine Änderung wirklich erforderlich ist, dann wäre es falsch, sie auf die lange Bank zu schieben. Ich glaube nicht, dass die Feinde der europäischen Integration – die Nichtdemokraten, die Rechtsnationalen – stärker würden, wenn man jetzt über eine Vertragsänderung und eine Neuordnung von Souveränität sprechen würde. Die sind nicht das Problem! Ich glaube, man tut sich in der Auseinandersetzung mit Rechts keinen Gefallen, wenn man demokratische Neuanfänge und gute demokratische Regelungen auf die lange Bank schiebt. Wir haben das heute Morgen in der Konferenz der Präsidenten ja ausgiebig besprochen. Aber wenn etwas lange dauert, dann hat es keinen Sinn, es noch länger hinauszuschieben, überhaupt darüber zu diskutieren.

  Lothar Bisky, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Das Krisenkarussell dreht sich immer schneller und immer mehr Euroländer werden in den Sog hineingezogen. Selbst die Länder mit den besten Risikobewertungen mit Dreifach-A wie Deutschland, Frankreich und die Niederlande spüren die widrigen Aktivitäten der Finanzmärkte. Diese Märkte spielen mit den Eurostaaten Katz und Maus. Alle unsere bisher beschlossenen Maßnahmen zu deren Regulierung haben kaum gewirkt. Damit stellt sich die berechtigte Frage nach einer Änderung der Regeln des Spiels. Diese müssen aber von den EU-Institutionen beschlossen werden und nicht durch zwischenstaatliche Vereinbarungen, wie von Merkel und Sarkozy anvisiert.

Der Teufelskreis von Herabstufungen von Staaten und steigenden Zinsen muss durchbrochen werden. Deshalb fordern wir entschieden eine Qualifizierung der Bewertung von souveränen Staaten durch private Ratingagenturen und eine unabhängige europäische Agentur. Des Weiteren muss die Europäische Zentralbank unbegrenzt Anleihen kaufen können. Kanzlerin Merkel scheint ja bereit zu sein, ihren Widerstand dagegen für eine schärfere Überwachung der Haushalte einzelner Länder und automatische Sanktionen eintauschen zu wollen. Dabei soll aber in die Souveränitätsrechte einzelner Staaten bei den Haushaltsrechten eingegriffen werden können. Damit würden die ureigenen Rechte der Parlamente missachtet.

Der Weg der Sozialkürzungen, der Verlängerung der Arbeitszeiten, der Erhöhung des Renteneintrittsalters soll künftig von der Kommission erzwungen werden können. Vor dieser Politik kann ich nur warnen! Denn die Ergebnisse in Deutschland zeigen, dass sie sehr einseitig die Masse der Bevölkerung belastet. Die soziale Schere klafft dann immer weiter auseinander. Der Billiglohnsektor hat 20 % aller Beschäftigten erreicht! Die Altersarmut erfasst immer mehr Menschen. Dem gegenüber wächst der Reichtum von einigen wenigen. Mit dieser Politik funktioniert der soziale Ausgleich nicht mehr, die Gesellschaften drohen zu zerbrechen. Diese Perspektive der Europäischen Union lehne ich ab!

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. ROBERTA ANGELILLI
Vicepresidente

  Bastiaan Belder, namens de EFD-Fractie. – Voorzitter, de eurozone staat onder druk. Laten we dat duidelijk onderkennen. Drastisch ingrijpen van de Europese Centrale Bank en de invoering van euro-obligaties kunnen slechts tijdelijk de druk op het financiële systeem verlichten.

Europa moet de tijd gebruiken om de onderliggende problemen aan te pakken. Ten eerste, een gecontroleerde afbouw van onhoudbaar hoge schuldenniveaus bij overheden, de private sector, en met name banken. En ten tweede, het dempen van het destabiliserende effecten van grote verschillen in economische concurrentiekracht tussen lidstaten op het financiële systeem.

De vraag die zich nu steeds krachtiger opdringt: kunnen de maatregelen die zijn afgesproken of worden besproken op weg naar de Europese Raad van 8 en 9 december een afdoend antwoord bieden? Kunnen strengere begrotingsdiscipline en hulp van het Internationaal Monetair Fonds volstaan? Met het oog op de financiële stabiliteit op korte termijn hoop ik het, maar voor de langere termijn ben ik ernstig bezorgd.

De vraag is of te ontkomen valt aan een stap in de richting van een eurozone met strengere voorwaarden, waarvan te vrezen valt dat een aantal lidstaten op dit moment hieraan niet kan voldoen. Werken aan de noodzakelijke oplossingen vergt tijd. Wellicht moeten we met elkaar de eurozone tijdelijk grondig reorganiseren om meer stabiliteit in het financiële systeem en de economie op de middellange termijn te krijgen. Dat biedt perspectief aan alle landen van de eurozone en de Europese Unie.

  Barry Madlener (NI). - Voorzitter, de ECB heeft nu echt de geldpersen aangezet, en daarmee overtreedt de Europese Centrale Bank de eigen Verdragsregels. Dit Parlement zegt altijd te hechten aan het nakomen van verdragen. Dus ik wil de heer Rehn vragen wat hij vindt van de opkoopacties van de ECB. Vindt u ook niet dat de ECB onmiddellijk moet stoppen met het opkopen van de staatsobligaties van Italië? Ik vraag de heer Rehn om er alles aan te doen - zelfs eventueel naar de rechter te stappen - als de ECB doorgaat met dit desastreuze beleid.

Verder is natuurlijk de uitbreiding met Kroatië absurd op dit moment. De Europese Unie is failliet. De Europese Unie kampt met een enorme corruptie, en Kroatië scoort op dit moment een 4,1 op de Transparancy International Index. Op dit moment uitbreiden met zo'n corrupt land is natuurlijk absurd.

Tenslotte, meneer Verhofstadt, u moet uw grote mond eens houden. U spreekt helemaal niet namens de Nederlandse VVD-liberalen, en uw eigen partij, de Open VLD, heeft Vlaanderen verraden door deze vreselijke socialistische regering-Di Rupo mogelijk te maken. Dus ik vraag de heer Verhofstadt nogmaals zijn grote mond een beetje te houden.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, mai come oggi credo che valga l'immagine di una Commissione europea e di una costruzione europea a metà del guado di un fiume in tumulto. Se non ha il coraggio di andare avanti con delle proposte convincenti e se non ha la rassegnazione che la porta a tornare indietro, e quindi alle scelte di politica nazionale e a una visione nazionalista, inevitabilmente è obbligata a essere preda della corrente ed essere trascinata e spazzata via.

In questo senso però i segnali che vengono dalle nostre Istituzioni non sono chiari. Certo, sentiamo la Commissione impegnata in un processo di riforme, ma è anche vero che poche settimane fa le proposte del Commissario Barnier sono state dal collegio dei Commissari fortemente ridimensionate, e ci piacerebbe poter discutere in Parlamento quale Commissario e con quali motivazioni ha avuto da osservare sulle proposte, per esempio, sulle agenzie di rating, cioè sulla nascita di una agenzia di rating europea.

Perché chiedo questo? Perché in questo momento la vera discussione è sì su misure economiche e finanziarie, ma anche sulla natura della nostra democrazia, e se non avremo la forza di spiegare ai nostri cittadini europei di che cosa stiamo discutendo e chi è schierato da quale parte e sta con chi, verremo travolti da un'altra corrente ben peggiore, che è quella di un qualunquismo che sempre più si diffonde, di uno scetticismo che sempre più si diffonde e che prenderà le distanze dall'intero progetto europeo.

  Elisa Ferreira (S&D). - Basta deste caminho. Quando o diagnóstico está errado, os remédios não funcionam. No caso da zona euro, os sucessivos remédios têm-na levado até junto à morte.

As sucessivas soluções milagrosas que foram sendo propostas foram também igualmente descredibilizadas pelos mercados. O Fundo de Estabilização Financeira, os sucessivos espartilhos de reforço do Pacto de Estabilidade e Crescimento, as receitas da troika nos países abrangidos por um programa, a disciplina cega, sem crescimento, gerou uma onda recessiva entre economias totalmente interligadas que, por isso, se contaminaram em falências e em desemprego. Às mãos dos mercados, isto é, das agências de notação e dos especuladores, os governos vão caindo um atrás do outro e os países solventes vão-se transformando em insolventes.

Alterar os Tratados agora é mais um passo nesta trajectória desastrosa, com uma agravante: arriscamo-nos a destruir o que resta da soberania nacional, pondo os países às mãos do Tribunal de Justiça Europeu. Não, não é preciso alterar os Tratados. É preciso, nesta emergência em que estamos, tomar duas decisões. Em primeiro lugar, é preciso concretizar uma verdadeira agenda para o crescimento e a coesão sustentada. Onde está a Agenda 2020? Onde está o orçamento de relançamento? Onde estão os tais projectos, os project-bonds para os investimentos estruturantes da Europa? Em segundo lugar, é preciso proteger a dívida soberana. Naturalmente que os eurobonds são necessários, mas nesta emergência em que estamos é urgente que o Banco Central Europeu, directa ou indirectamente, defenda a dívida soberana contra os especuladores, não de uma forma envergonhada, mas com uma posição definitiva, decidida, como compete a qualquer banco central que defende a sua moeda e a economia que a suporta.

Para isto, não é preciso mudar os Tratados, é preciso vontade política e convicção europeia. Mudemos o Tratado quando tivermos retirado todas as lições da presente crise - e não há poucas lições a retirar - mas este não é, seguramente, o momento.

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE). - Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, je vais m'adresser d'abord à vous. Je pense que nos concitoyens savent très bien que nous vivons une période difficile et que des efforts considérables sont à faire.

Trois conditions sont nécessaires pour que ces efforts soient acceptés par nos concitoyens. Première condition: que ces efforts soient justes. Or, l'expérience montre que, dans les plans d'adaptation, dans les plans de réforme structurelle que votre Commission et votre direction générale imposent aux États membres qui sont aujourd'hui sous programme, le critère de justice sociale est très loin d'être respecté.

Deuxième condition: que les efforts demandés soient suffisamment crédibles pour être reconnus comme apportant une solution. Et là aussi, on est loin du compte. Deux ans après le début de la crise de la dette souveraine, on n'a pas l'impression qu'on en sort.

Troisième élément: que les efforts demandés le soient avec une légitimité démocratique. Je m'adresse à vous à propos des deux propositions que vous avez faites mercredi dernier. Je suis réellement inquiet lorsque vous voulez donner à la Commission, au vice-président de la Commission, des pouvoirs de supervision des budgets des États membres, des pouvoirs d'intervention directe dans les affaires des États membres, sans aucun souci de ce qu'on appelle aux États-Unis les checks and balances, autrement dit de la légitimation démocratique des solutions. Je n'ai aucun problème, en tant que démocrate, à reconnaître que je peux être idéologiquement minoritaire. J'ai un problème lorsqu'une idéologie s'impose sans aucun contrôle démocratique quel qu'il soit.

Aujourd'hui, si les mesures que vous recommandez sont votées par ce Parlement, je les accepterai. Mais lorsqu'elles sont décidées derrière des portes fermées par une DG ECFIN qui opère sans aucun contrôle, c'est quelque chose que personne en Europe ne pourra accepter.

  Mario Borghezio (EFD). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, poche ore fa il Presidente Van Rompuy ha dichiarato che, per trovare una soluzione per salvare la situazione economico-finanziaria dell'area euro e dell'Europa, bisogna che gli Stati rinuncino alla propria sovranità.

Questo potrebbe essere un grosso sacrificio per chi tutti i giorni, o almeno durante le celebrazioni – il nostro paese per il centocinquantesimo anniversario dell'Unità d'Italia – si affolla e si compiace dei simboli dell'unità nazionale e delle bandiere. Per noi che rappresentiamo la Padania potrebbe essere un sacrificio minore, ma io domando al Presidente Van Rompuy e agli altri esponenti dell'élite europea in cambio di che cosa dovremmo rinunciare alla sovranità nazionale. In cambio di un bluff, perché quello, per esempio, che si promette al nostro paese, almeno stando alle voci di corridoio – un sostegno dai quattrocento ai seicento miliardi – dove lo andiamo a prendere? Non certo dal Fondo monetario internazionale.

Per quanto riguarda l'intervento della BCE c'è l'ostacolo apparentemente insormontabile dei trattati, e allora ci domandiamo: sono domande vere o è un bluff? Stiamo scherzando? Di che cosa stiamo parlando?

Io credo che l'attuale situazione del nostro paese, con i titoli pubblici a tre anni all'8%, non faccia sperare molto almeno per quanto riguarda il breve e medio periodo. C'è da tremare! E vorrei anche sapere qualcosa di più sul piano B che si vocifera stiano preparando diversi Stati – addirittura si dice che in Germania si preparino a colorare gli euro con una scritta indelebile che dovrebbe garantire il carattere tedesco di quegli euro. Vorremmo sapere qualcosa di più dai misteriosi consiglieri del signor Monti.

(L'oratore accetta di rispondere a un'interrogazione "cartellino blu", articolo 149, paragrafo 8, del regolamento).

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). - Frau Präsidentin! Ich höre jetzt schon den dritten Redner, der hier über Souveränitätsverzicht jammert. Deshalb möchte ich den Kollegen einmal fragen, ob er nicht weiß, dass das längst eine Scheinsouveränität ist, die nur auf dem Papier besteht, und dass wir Europäer nur gemeinsam gegenüber den USA oder China oder anderen Mächten souverän sein können. Wir müssen gemeinsam souverän werden. Meint er das nicht auch?

  Mario Borghezio (EFD). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, rispondo al collega che la sovranità rappresenta l'identità culturale e quindi politica dei paesi membri. È inalienabile dal punto di vista, diciamo, dell'appartenenza, e l'Unione che i paesi liberi hanno raggiunto attraverso la costruzione europea non potrà mai dimenticare e asfaltare e annullare il principio della sovranità nazionale, che deve restare valido a meno che si accetti, e noi non l'accetteremo mai, un principio: il principio dell'edificazione di un superstato annullatore dell'identità e quindi anche dei diritti e delle libertà dei singoli Stati e delle singole regioni.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE). - Madame la Présidente, je voudrais tout d'abord saluer la Présidence polonaise qui a fait preuve de dynamisme et de volontarisme.

La semaine prochaine, au Conseil, nos chefs d'État et de gouvernement vont devoir prendre des décisions essentielles pour l'avenir de la zone euro, pour l'avenir de l'Union. Ils vont devoir également sérieusement traiter de la relance de la croissance.

Ceci dit, nous voyons bien que, aujourd'hui, la stabilité financière est devenue la priorité des priorités et que les pressions, les tensions qui s'exercent de l'extérieur sur les pays de la zone euro, mais également à l'intérieur de la zone euro, ruinent notre crédibilité et minent la confiance. Pour espérer le retour de la confiance, il faut restaurer la stabilité financière et casser la terrible progression des déficits nationaux et des dettes souveraines.

La stabilité financière est donc bien devenue la priorité des priorités et une ardente obligation pour tous. Nos démocraties se sont d'ailleurs toutes engagées dans des programmes très courageux d'assainissement de leurs finances publiques, de réduction de leur dette, et la stabilité financière est aussi le préalable à toute reprise de la croissance. Cependant, qui dit stabilité financière, discipline budgétaire – parce que cela va de pair, bien sûr – doit aussi dire solidarité. Il me semble important d'assurer ce double mouvement de stabilité financière, de discipline budgétaire et de solidarité.

Un dernier mot sur la démocratie. Attention à ne pas déresponsabiliser nos institutions démocratiques. Plutôt que de songer à recourir à un mécanisme juridictionnel, pour, disons, sanctionner dans le cas de dérives budgétaires, songeons plutôt à des mécanismes de contrôle et de sanctions exercés par les institutions démocratiques.

(L'oratrice accepte de répondre à une question "carton bleu" (article 149, paragraphe 8, du règlement))

  Barry Madlener (NI). - Voorzitter, ik wil graag mevrouw Le Grip vragen of haar partijgenoot, minister Alain Juppé, gek geworden is, of dat het waar is dat het om een partijstandpunt gaat. Hij heeft namelijk vandaag gezegd dat er zonder de euro gewelddadige, gewapende conflicten zullen uitbreken in Europa. Is dat ook uw standpunt, mevrouw Le Grip, of is meneer Juppé een beetje gek geworden?

  Constance Le Grip (PPE). - Pour être tout à fait franche, je ne suis pas la porte-parole du ministre français des affaires étrangères et, même si j'appartiens à la même formation politique que lui, je ne suis pas en permanence en situation de relayer les déclarations du ministre français des affaires étrangères. Pour être encore une fois tout à fait franche, je n'ai pas connaissance de déclarations récentes d'Alain Juppé en ce sens.

Je pense simplement que la position actuelle de la France est d'affirmer, et de réaffirmer sans cesse, que l'euro est véritablement le cœur de notre construction européenne, que la sauvegarde de l'euro cela veut dire la sauvegarde de ce projet commun et la sauvegarde de l'Union européenne, et que, dans ce mouvement de sauvegarde de l'euro, il nous faut bien sûr penser à l'avenir, penser à la protection des jeunes générations et à la préservation de la paix sur notre continent.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la situazione sta precipitando ed è tempo di agire con la tempestività e l'efficacia che finora sono mancate.

Confidare nell'effetto taumaturgico dell'annuncio di una riforma dei trattati sarebbe inutile e controproducente. Spingersi sulla strada avventuristica di un trattato intergovernativo avrebbe conseguenze addirittura devastanti sui mercati. La riforma dei trattati è troppo lunga; un accordo intergovernativo non può produrre alcuna unione fiscale. La verità è che il problema che l'UE ha oggi dinnanzi a sé è un problema politico e non istituzionale.

Nel trattato vigente è possibile rafforzare la convergenza economica, la disciplina fiscale, difendere la stabilità dell'eurozona e rilanciare la crescita. Le due nuove proposte di regolamento presentate dalla Commissione lo dimostrano, e con quella base giuridica, l'articolo 136, è possibile andare anche oltre, anche per quel che riguarda il ruolo della Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea. La clausola di flessibilità consentirebbe di aumentare i poteri dell'eurozona e l'articolo 122, paragrafo 2, è una base adeguata per quel fondo straordinario di redenzione del debito attraverso eurobond ideato dal consiglio tedesco degli esperti economici.

Si ha insomma la sensazione che si voglia la riforma dei trattati per evitare la codecisione, per avere meno e non più Europa. Dunque non esistono alibi, occorre agire subito e gettare le basi per la compiuta realizzazione, con il consenso dei cittadini, di un'unione fiscale fondata sulla stabilità, la crescita, la solidarietà e la democrazia, che è la base, poi, per quella riforma dei trattati che è un obiettivo troppo importante per essere compromesso da una riforma maldestra e intempestiva, che sarebbe oggi giuridicamente inutile, economicamente insignificante, politicamente dannosa.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE). - Madam President, at this critical juncture, with the European Union in crisis, let me say the following.

First, the problem we are facing is excessive debt and the macroeconomic imbalance of some eurozone Member States and some candidates. It is not a problem of the euro as a currency. It is problem of excessive indebtedness and the problem of healthy and unhealthy countries. It is therefore a horizontal problem of the whole Union and not of a euro club. Therefore the answer should be given at EU level, not at a subgroup level. Attempts to organise or institutionalise a small Union within the big Union are detrimental to European unity and destructive for overall EU architecture, as well as for growth.

After the great success of reuniting our continent, we risk dividing, unravelling, undoing reunification and risk starting ‘détricotage’ as the French say, negative spillback, encouraging divergence rather than convergence. Candidates, mostly from Central and Eastern Europe, are worried about being excluded and relegated to second-class membership and bound to enter the core Union for the second time. A large or small Treaty change should be done by all 27 countries – or at least 23: eurozone members and candidates willing and committed. Instruments like Eurobonds and the ECB’s new role should eventually be open to all of them.

In conclusion, we should save the euro in the whole boat of the European Union, not only the first-class compartments of the European vessel. Cutting the vessel into pieces is not a solution: all of it will sink. We need more Community Europe and not to go back to two Europes.

  Άννυ Ποδηματά (S&D). - Κύριε Αντιπρόεδρε της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, Επίτροπε Rehn, είπατε στην εισαγωγική σας ομιλία ότι έχουμε πια πολύ περιορισμένα περιθώρια ελιγμών, δηλαδή ότι δεν έχουμε χρόνο. Και έχετε απόλυτο δίκιο αλλά, εφόσον είναι σαφές ότι δεν έχουμε χρόνο, γιατί δεν λέμε ευθέως και ανοικτά, κύριε Αντιπρόεδρε της Επιτροπής, ότι είναι λάθος να μπαίνουμε τώρα σε συζητήσεις για αλλαγή Συνθηκών; Και είναι λάθος, όχι μόνο γιατί οι θεσμικές αλλαγές δεν μπορεί και δεν πρέπει να γίνονται υπό καθεστώς πίεσης και κρίσης – δεδομένου ότι υπάρχει κίνδυνος να οδηγήσουν σε τερατογενέσεις – αλλά γιατί αναπόφευκτα θα παρατείνουν την αβεβαιότητα, θα ενισχύσουν τις ενδοευρωπαϊκές διαφωνίες και, άρα, τις αμφιβολίες των αγορών.

Χρειαζόμαστε σταθερότητα, δημοσιονομική πειθαρχία, αλλά χρειαζόμαστε, επίσης, ανάπτυξη και κοινωνική δικαιοσύνη, χρειαζόμαστε έναν δίκαιο επιμερισμό του κόστους. Χρειαζόμαστε ένα συνδυασμό αλληλεγγύης και υπευθυνότητας, όχι μόνο μεταξύ των κρατών μελών, αλλά και εντός των κρατών μελών. Χρειαζόμαστε, δηλαδή, κύριε Επίτροπε, ένα νέο πακέτο που θα συνδυάζει αυστηρότερη δημοσιονομική πειθαρχία – έχουμε τους κανόνες, ψηφίσαμε το πακέτο των έξι προτάσεων, παρουσίασε η Επιτροπή τις νέες της προτάσεις την προηγούμενη εβδομάδα.

Χρειαζόμαστε, λοιπόν, αυστηρότερους δημοσιονομικούς κανόνες, ευρωομόλογα και φόρο χρηματοπιστωτικών συναλλαγών, ως ένα ενιαίο πακέτο για να διασφαλισθούν αυτές οι αρχές.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). - Elnök Asszony! Engedjék meg, hogy először az általános gazdasági helyzetből határozzam meg a jövőt és a mondandómat, mert ezek határozzák meg a kereteimet.

Nagyon örülök annak, hogy a Tanács végre meghatározta azokat a prioritásokat, amelyekkel kapcsolatban gyors lépéseket kell tenni. És itt meg is álltunk. A gyors lépések valahogy elmaradtak. Sokkal nagyobb figyelmet kell fordítani az európai politikák növekedését ösztönző vonatkozásokra. Annak érdekében kell ezt megtenni, hogy maximalizálni tudjuk az Uniónak a gazdasági fejlődéséhez való hozzájárulását.

Ebben a helyzetben nem kétséges: rendkívül fontos a tagállami költségvetési konszolidáció, és rendkívül fontos az adósságcsökkentés. Ha ezt nem tesszük meg, akkor az Európai Unió problémái újra- és újratermelődnek, újabb aggodalomra adva okot.

Az Európai Tanács ülésen Önök minden esetben nagyvonalú elképzeléseket vázolnak fel és hosszú távra szóló terveket. Sajnos ezek a kezdeményezések rövid távon egyáltalán nem nyugtatják meg a piacokat. Sőt. A negatív visszacsatolások, téves nyilatkozatok eredményeképpen egyre magasabb költségszinten lehet finanszírozni a tagállamokat.

Meglátásom szerint sokkal határozottabb fellépésre van szükség a konkrét célok megvalósítása érdekében. Rendkívül fontos, hogy ennek érdekében összehangolják a tagállami cselekvéseket és az Önök terveit. Ehhez azonban hitelesség kell és határozott fellépés. Határozott fellépés és tettek. Biztos Úr, én kerestem ezt a határozott fellépést. Nagyon kerestem az Ön beszédében.

  Μαριέττα Γιαννάκου (PPE). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, μιλάμε όλοι για την κρίση, συχνά, σαν να πρόκειται για ένα εξωγενές φαινόμενο που δεν συνδυάζεται με καμία από τις πραγματικότητες που ζήσαμε πριν, ή δεν συνδυάζεται με συγκεκριμένα λάθη που έγιναν. Αυτό όμως δεν είναι η αλήθεια. Έχουμε φθάσει στο σημείο να συζητάμε την αλλαγή των Συνθηκών χωρίς να έχουμε εξαντλήσει τη δυνατότητα από πλευράς νομολογίας της Συνθήκης της Λισαβόνας, ενώ, ταυτόχρονα, ζητάμε την αλλαγή των Συνθηκών με περιορισμένο θεματολόγιο, ενώ γνωρίζουμε ότι αυτό δεν μπορεί να γίνει. Γιατί αυτό σημαίνει τη δημιουργία μιας Ευρωπαϊκής Συνέλευσης, και σε ένα πολιτικό Σώμα δεν μπορείτε να περιορίσετε το θεματολόγιο. Κανείς δεν μπορεί να το κάνει.

Είναι λοιπόν ανάγκη να ξεκαθαρίσουμε τη θέση μας. Να ξεκαθαρίσουμε τι ακριβώς θέλουμε. Διότι η αλλαγή των Συνθηκών είναι διαδικασία. Δεν είναι η πραγματικότητα και η ουσία. Να ξεκαθαρίσουμε τι θέλει ο καθένας από εμάς. Να ξεκαθαρίσουμε, δηλαδή, εάν θέλουμε μία Ευρώπη πιο προηγμένη, πιο πολιτική, με ενιαίους οικονομικούς κανόνες, με δημοσιονομική πειθαρχία, με έναν ενιαίο τρόπο λειτουργίας, δηλαδή μία πραγματική οικονομική και νομισματική ένωση, ή εάν θέλουμε κάτι άλλο. Και σε αυτό το θέμα, ρόλο έχουν όλα τα μέλη της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και όχι μόνο τα μέλη της ευρωζώνης.

Κυρία Πρόεδρε, δεν υπάρχει αμφιβολία ότι το Συμβούλιο του Δεκεμβρίου είναι καίριο. Νομίζω ότι πρέπει να υπάρξει και λίγη αυτοκριτική. Οι καθυστερήσεις που σημειώθηκαν έδωσαν ευκαιρία στις αγορές να γίνουν κυρίαρχες. Επομένως, κινδυνεύουμε από ένα είδος έμμεσης κατάργησης της δημοκρατίας. Είναι, λοιπόν, απόλυτη ανάγκη όλες μαζί οι ευρωπαϊκές ηγεσίες να καθορίσουν τη στάση τους επί του προκειμένου.

  Theodor Dumitru Stolojan (PPE). - Aşteptăm, desigur, cu nerăbdare noile măsuri pe care le va lua Consiliul European - se discută foarte mult despre aceasta. Eu sunt întru totul de acord cu ceea ce spunea domnul comisar Rehn, şi anume că credibilitatea Uniunii Europene, a tuturor actorilor din Uniunea Europeană, depinde foarte mult şi de modul cum îndeplinim deciziile care au fost luate. Or aici, din păcate, lucrurile nu merg prea bine. Iată, de pildă, Fondul european de stabilitate financiară: decizia luată în octombrie, de creştere a angajamentelor acestui fond, nu se întâmplă. De asemenea, nu avem deocamdată veşti prea bune despre modul în care decurg negocierile între creditorii privaţi şi guvernul Greciei, existând angajamentul creditorilor privaţi de a reduce cu 50% datoria publică.

Iată, deci, că îndeplinirea deciziilor pe care le-am luat trebuie făcută cu maximă rigoare, pentru că şi de aceasta depinde credibilitatea Uniunii Europene, credibilitatea euro. Sigur că aş fi bucuros dacă, până la sfârşitul acestui an, am putea avea o comunicare a Comisiei Europene cu privire la modul în care se îndeplinesc aceste decizii.

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE). - Pani Przewodnicząca! Chciałbym zabrać głos w imieniu moich i naszych wyborców, tej rzeszy milionów Europejczyków, którzy od co najmniej dwóch lat czują się zagubieni, zaniepokojeni sygnałami płynącymi z kolejnych szczytów z Brukseli. Są to w większości obywatele wierzący w projekt europejski i życzący mu jak najlepiej. Naszym obowiązkiem jest dzisiaj przedstawić im wiarygodny sposób na wyjście z sytuacji kryzysowej. Potrzebna jest prawda. Trzeba powiedzieć im prawdę, trzeba komunikować się z obywatelami, ze społeczeństwem obywatelskim. Dlatego wyposażyliśmy się w takie instrumenty po traktacie lizbońskim jak wysoki przedstawiciel do spraw zagranicznych, jak przewodniczący Rady Unii Europejskiej, by głos Unii Europejskiej był słyszalny, by były osoby, z którymi można kojarzyć ideę zjednoczonej Europy.

Dlatego apeluję z tego miejsca do przewodniczącego Rady Europejskiej pana Van Rompuya, aby wykorzystał tę sytuację i zwrócił się z uroczystym orędziem, z uroczystym exposé do obywateli Europy transmitowanym przez wszystkie telewizje krajów członkowskich w tym samym momencie. Przejdźmy na następny etap komunikowania. Obywatele potrzebują wymiany opinii, oczekują jednoznacznej opinii płynącej z Brukseli. Proszę pana ministra Dowgielewicza, reprezentującego prezydencję polską, aby przekazał tę prośbę przewodniczącemu Van Rompuyowi.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). - Najwyższy czas, byśmy przestali żyć złudzeniami, iż problemy strefy euro dotykają jedynie kraje, które prowadziły rozrzutną lub nieodpowiedzialna politykę makrofinansową. Ostatnie wydarzenia – kłopoty ze sprzedażą niemieckich papierów dłużnych, filara europejskiej gospodarki – prowokują do zadania pytania, gdzie jest granica? Ostatnie wydarzenia potwierdziły, że żaden kraj w Europie nie jest bezpieczny w obliczu bezprecedensowej paniki rynków finansowych. Najwyższy czas na radykalne oraz szybkie działania i do tego powinniśmy wzywać Radę Europejską.

Słyszymy, że ma się zająć propozycjami nowelizacji traktatów. Mam więc pytanie, jak ma wyglądać przeprowadzenie ratyfikacji tych nowelizacji? Przecież nie mogą być one przeprowadzone przy pomocy uproszczonej procedury zmiany ze względu na silną ingerencję w suwerenność państw członkowskich. Musimy pamiętać, że jakakolwiek zmiana wymaga przeprowadzania w niektórych krajach referendum. Jak Rada zamierza na przykład przekonać społeczeństwo Irlandii, że proponowane zmiany są w jego interesie, a nie międzynarodowych banków? Niewątpliwie przyszła pora na radykalne decyzje i nieszablonowe pomysły, by zapewnić stabilność finansową. Nie można niczego z góry odrzucać, ani negować. Każde rozwiązanie, które może doprowadzić do zbudowania silniejszej wewnętrznie całej Europy 27 krajów, powinno być wdrażane.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). - (…) a instytucje finansowe tracą cierpliwość. Dotychczas ciągle zapowiadano podjęcie ważnych decyzji, a w rzeczywistości miały one charakter ograniczony, cząstkowy i spóźniony. Takie działania nie dają wiarygodności dla podejmowanych czy zapowiadanych decyzji. Oczy wielu z nas są skierowane na Francję i Niemcy. Spotkania ich przywódców odbywają się bardzo często, ale konkretnej propozycji brak. Rozumiemy ich sytuację wynikającą ze zbliżających się wyborów. To może niech przewodniczący Rady Europejskiej pan van Rompuy zacznie odgrywać należną mu rolę i sformułuje konkretne propozycje. Z jego wypowiedzi widać, że ma dobre przemyślenia odnośnie przyszłego ładu gospodarczego Unii.

Rozpoczęcie koordynacji gospodarczej należy zacząć od monitoringu budżetów krajowych na szczeblu unijnym. Ocena i uwagi dotyczące budżetów narodowych przydałyby się wszystkim krajom członkowskim łącznie z tymi już wymienionymi. Monitoring budżetu to jeszcze nie zamach na suwerenność narodową. Suwerenność jest ograniczana życiem na kredyt i zadłużeniem.

  Γεώργιος Κουμουτσάκος (PPE). - Κύριε Επίτροπε, πριν από δύο χρόνια, η αποσύνθεση της ευρωζώνης και το τέλος του ευρώ ήταν, απλώς, αδιανόητο. Μετά, το αδιανόητο έγινε εφιάλτης και τώρα είμαστε στο στάδιο λίγο πριν ο εφιάλτης γίνει ζοφερή πραγματικότητα. Δεν έχουμε χρόνο. Ο χρόνος είναι δραματικά λίγος και αυτό είναι αποτέλεσμα της αδυναμίας των ηγεσιών μας να λάβουν έγκαιρα ολοκληρωμένες αποφάσεις. Συμπεριφερόμαστε ως μαραθωνοδρόμοι ενώ τρέχουμε αγώνα ταχύτητας και δεν υπάρχει άλλο περιθώριο.

Η αναθεώρηση των Συνθηκών δεν απαντά στο επείγον του πράγματος, δεν απαντά στην κρισιμότητα των στιγμών. Αυτό που απαντά στην κρισιμότητα των στιγμών είναι μέτρα άμεσης απόδοσης και δεν πρέπει να αποκλείσουμε από αυτά έναν ενεργότερο και δυναμικότερο ρόλο της Ευρωπαϊκής Κεντρικής Τράπεζας. Γνωρίζω τα προβλήματα, γνωρίζω τα αντεπιχειρήματα αλλά πιστεύω ότι, με ισχυρή πολιτική βούληση και την απαραίτητη ευελιξία, μπορούμε να έχουμε στα χέρια μας αυτό το μεγάλο όπλο για να αντιμετωπίσουμε, τώρα, την κρίση.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). - Señora Presidenta, de nuevo un Consejo Europeo en una situación crítica aún peor que la anterior, que ya lo era. Hemos cometido errores de diagnóstico, de estrategia y de receta, no por falta de lucidez en estos debates, sino por falta de voluntad para actuar en consecuencia.

La Comisión arrastra los pies ante las iniciativas adoptadas por un directorio de dos Gobiernos que no solamente no cuentan con los demás Estados, sino que ni siquiera escuchan a la Comisión y al Parlamento Europeo.

Y lo que necesitamos no es una reforma de los Tratados que imponga todavía mayores castigos a los países que ya sufren, para causarles mayor padecimiento; lo que necesitamos, por el contrario, es corregir los defectos congénitos con que nació la moneda única, el euro. Y eso requiere autorizar al Banco Central Europeo a actuar de prestamista de último recurso, a intervenir en los mercados y, por supuesto, a autorizar la emisión de bonos.

A los errores que ya hemos cometido no nos podemos permitir añadir un error de juicio, que suponga confundir los males que debemos afrontar con lo que son solo sus síntomas.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - A casa alemã já começou hoje também a ser tocada pelo fogo que a Chanceler Merkel ateou, com as suas declarações desastrosas, e que tem tido de engolir sem, porém, deixar de enterrar cada vez mais a Europa na incapacidade para fazer face à especulação nos mercados. A fuga para a frente, para a qual a Alemanha nos quer agora arrastar, é um disparate. É um disparate político que não vai travar a desconfiança nos mercados, não vai travar a destruição do euro.

O dever da Comissão, Senhor Comissário, não é ir atrás, é travar essa insanidade criminosa. O que precisamos, nesta aflição, é que o Conselho Europeu aprenda com os bombeiros, anuncie que o BCE vai funcionar como um banco central, vai, portanto, ser financiador do último recurso para os nossos Estados, que vamos mutualizar a dívida, que vamos tratar de harmonizar a fiscalidade e de declarar o imposto sobre as transacções financeiras para travar a drenagem de recursos para os paraísos fiscais e para os investir em políticas europeias que façam das palavras solidariedade e convergência realidades para sustentar o euro.

  Phil Prendergast (S&D). - Madam President, in these times of crisis, in the face of urgent market-led pressures, the agenda set by the leaders of Europe seems to keep ignoring the root causes of the threat to the survival of our common currency.

The major trigger was cataclysmic financial market failure in 2008, subsequently fuelled by deepening asymmetries between the centre of Europe and its periphery. State-led intervention to rescue the banking system then precipitated a sovereign debt crisis made unsustainable by the current architecture of the euro. The reason why I often choose to reiterate this exercise of hindsight is the fact that it seems to be forgotten when our European leaders meet to resume their exercise in crisis management. Instead the focus has been on dealing with sovereign debt as if it were the cause of our predicament rather than a dangerous symptom of a serious malady. The systemic nature of external trade disparities and current account imbalances when Member States are bound by the same currency while at different stages of economic development has not proved self-correcting and it is in fact self-aggravating.

  Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL). - Continuamos, cimeira após cimeira, a assistir ao agravamento da crise, sempre com a promessa das melhores decisões e das medidas capazes de reforçar a confiança no euro e na economia europeia, como acaba de referir o Senhor Comissário Rehn, mas na vida real, o que temos é o agravamento das desigualdades, do desemprego, da pobreza, a caminho da recessão económica e do desastre social, enquanto se intensificam os ataques à soberania dos países de economias mais frágeis, aos princípios mais elementares da democracia, dos direitos sociais e laborais. Por isso, cresce a frustração com as políticas da União Europeia e intensificam-se as lutas sociais em diversos Estados-Membros.

Com as medidas que propõem, designadamente a revisão dos Tratados, o que pretendem é apressar a concentração e centralização do poder económico e político, transformando os países periféricos em meros protectorados sujeitos a autênticas relações de colonia. É um caminho inadmissível que só pode conduzir à implosão da zona euro e da própria União Europeia.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). - Frau Präsidentin! Unsere Bürger und Bürgerinnen verlangen ein wirkungsvolles Agieren. Immer wieder werden in den Augen der Öffentlichkeit die Politiker zu hektischem Handeln gedrängt und vor allem von den Ratingagenturen und Finanzmärkten vor sich her getrieben. Sie fragen sich: Wo gibt es denn noch eine wirkliche Regierung? Solange wir dem Finanzmarkt die Macht zugestehen und sogar geben, bleibt die Politik in ihrem Handeln hintan.

Wir wollen auf diesem Ratsgipfel vor allem konkrete Schritte im Sinne unserer Bürger und Bürgerinnen sehen. Sie sind es, die arbeitslos sind. Investieren wir in nachhaltige Projekte, um den Arbeitsmarkt zu stärken mittels gut ausgebildeter Arbeitnehmer und Arbeitnehmerinnen!

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Madam President, there is no doubt that, other things being equal, the European Council would indeed like to maximise economic growth throughout the Union, but decision-taking involves not just what we would like, but the priority we give to each desired end.

I am afraid the European Council has greater priorities: to preserve the eurozone and fiscal and political union as ends in themselves, as well as to save the euro. The whole current debate about bailouts for Greece and other countries is as though the purpose were a charitable one. It is not. It is not about providing help for the Greek economy, but about sacrificing the Greek economy for the integrity and prestige of the eurozone.

If Greece and other ailing countries were allowed to withdraw from the zone and revert to their own currencies, the value of those currencies would fall, reducing the price of their exports – visible and invisible – such as tourism, and bring about an export-led boom. Whilst their debt burdens would increase, there will be default anyway, inside or outside of the zone.

  Olli Rehn, Vice-President of the Commission. − Madam President, we are indeed entering a critical period of ten days to complete a comprehensive and effective response to the crisis by the European Union. European citizens are calling for decisive action from leaders in order to protect sustainable growth and employment and in order to counter the contagion that is currently going on in the financial markets, which is threatening our jobs and growth.

This means that countries under market pressure need to continue to put their fiscal house in order and reform their economies to generate growth and jobs. This work is going on, not only in the ‘programme countries’, but more recently, for instance in Belgium and Italy with new governments, new budgets and/or other new perspectives.

In parallel we must reinforce our economic governance and strengthen massively our financial firewalls to counter the speculation in the markets. To be credible and effective these efforts must be based on the Community method. That is the Commission’s position on how to tackle the crisis.

We need to work on all relevant fronts. Yes, the decisions of the eurozone summit of October need to be fully implemented. That is a necessary, even if not sufficient, condition of overcoming the crisis.

As to the Treaty-change debate, let us be clear on that. A Treaty change cannot offer an immediate contribution to the solution of the current crisis. But it is true that reinforcing fiscal prudence and economic surveillance, in the euro area in particular, may help to prevent any future fiscal crisis. Thus it matters to the confidence in the construct of the euro, which has been questioned in recent weeks.

In the meantime, the Commission has taken the initiative and we have proposed new legislation that will strengthen economic governance significantly. We have done that within the scope of the current Treaty.

The two regulations which I introduced today, based on Article 136, will ensure closer monitoring of fiscal and economic policies. They add another building block onto the economic and fiscal union and especially onto tighter fiscal surveillance based on the ‘six-pack’ legislation which you have recently approved. I sensed yesterday in the Euro Group and today in the Ecofin meeting of Finance Ministers that there is strong support for these proposals – and even going beyond these proposals – among the Ministers. I trust that is also the case here in the European Parliament.

Concerning our financial firewalls, the Euro Group yesterday took important decisions on the leveraging of the EFSF and thus reinforcing the financial firewalls. These have already been welcomed by several market participants, including the Institute of International Finance. In the very short term – or rather immediate term – this work must continue and we must consider further means to reinforce this leveraging effect, for instance through increasing resources available from the IMF for the European Union. In the longer – or rather already medium term – the Green Paper on stability bonds lays out credible options which to a different extent, depending on the option considered, could bring us closer to a fiscal union, could protect us better against speculative attacks, and would also reassure markets to have confidence in the credibility of the euro.

Let me underline again – as I said in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs a few days ago and I have said several times before other compositions of the Parliament – the necessary condition for considering any serious move towards Eurobonds or stability bonds is a further and very substantial reinforcement of economic governance to ensure fiscal discipline and economic stability, in fact to build a real fiscal union or an ever-closer economic union.

The European Council will at this critical juncture need to take bold and determined action to reverse the current negative dynamics in the financial markets. It calls for immediate decisions both to ensure fiscal consolidation and growth-boosting reforms in the Member States. It calls for further reinforcement of our financial firewalls and for a road map on how to further reinforce economic governance and in parallel to put in place new stability instruments and thus to create a true economic union. Our citizens expect us to do whatever is needed in order to protect jobs and growth and we can best do it by deeper economic integration in Europe.

  Mikołaj Dowgielewicz, President-in-Office of the Council. − Madam President, Vice-President of the Commission, honourable Members, I want to start where Commissioner Rehn ended. I think we will best use the 10 days left before the European Council to prepare it in such a way that we can find the right responses and that it will be a set of decisions that will bring confidence and will allow us to set the course for long-term solutions for the eurozone.

Now I also want to reiterate what Commissioner Rehn stressed: that we believe very strongly that solutions must be found in full unity in the circle of twenty-seven; they must be found in a very ambitious way, with open minds and, when I say this, I also think that the European Council will have to balance a number of positions and interests to deliver a solution – a package deal – which will mean that delegations will also have to shift.

A number of Members of Parliament have today referred to their national discussions on the Eurobonds, on various consolidating measures, on the role of the Commission in the surveillance of national budgets. I think we all have to realise that the stakes are so high that everybody will have to show flexibility and I think this is very much the appeal that the Commission, the President of the European Council and the Presidency share and try to promote.

I also want to say that in fact I find in this debate today a very large degree of consensus on what needs to be done. I think this is exactly what unites us: the determination to provide more solid economic governance, to provide more stability and at the same time to provide more solidarity. I think that this is the message that we all share: solidity, solidarity, stability, three ‘S’s.

My last word is on the MFF because I did not mention the MFF in my introductory remarks. As you know, the Presidency has started those difficult negotiations; I would just like to inform the House that we have advanced them and we have prepared the Presidency report, which will be presented and discussed at the General Affairs Council but also presented to the European Council for information.

We do not believe this is the moment for the European Council to discuss the MFF; nevertheless the Presidency is finishing a certain very important stage of those negotiations and, as we pass the baton to the Danish Presidency, wishing them much good luck with this file, I hope that we will also be able to set out some guidelines concerning the timetable of the work on the MFF for next year. I think that the objective, shared also with Parliament, should be to agree on the MFF by the end of 2012.

  Presidente. − La discussione è chiusa.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 149)

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – A crise na zona euro, incluindo a sua expressão ao nível das dívidas soberanas, tem causas estruturais e outras mais conjunturais. As primeiras têm que ver com a expressão que assume na UE o característico desenvolvimento desigual do capitalismo; a interdependência assimétrica, que relega para uma posição subordinada e desfavorável, no processo de divisão internacional do trabalho, os países da periferia, de economias mais débeis. Neste processo, os respectivos sistemas produtivos são desarticulados e, em consequência, aumentam a dependência externa, os défices diversos e a dívida externa. As segundas têm que ver com as condições criadas para que os especuladores financeiros, à medida que outras bolhas especulativas foram secando ou rebentando, se concentrassem nas dívidas soberanas. A libertina circulação dos capitais, os paraísos fiscais, os produtos financeiros derivados e as práticas especulativas que lhes estão associadas, a ausência de taxação das transacções financeiras, o papel atribuído às agências de notação – tudo isto cria o quadro que permite que a especulação sobre as dívidas soberanas faça o seu caminho.

Cimeira após cimeira, debate após debate, estas causas permanecem intocadas. Esta é a questão de fundo a que fugiram, neste debate, quer a Comissão, quer a maioria deste Parlamento. Pior, o que fazem é dar passos para aprofundar algumas destas causas.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. – Decembrové stretnutie Rady bude zlomové. V povojnovej histórii EU nemá aktuálna situácia obdobu a dnes ide o prežitie a zachovanie európskeho projektu. Hlavným bodom bude zastavenie krízy v eurozóne. V programe stretnutia ma ale zaujala jedna formulácia. Na stretnutí sa bude diskutovať o „hospodárskej konvergencii v eurozóne“. Mňa by ale veľmi zaujímalo, o akej konvergencii chcú lídri EÚ diskutovať. O tej, ktorá neexistuje? O tej, ktorú nastavenie eurozóny neumožňuje? Pretože práve spôsob, akým bola eurozóna od začiatku modelovaná, prispel k tomu, že dnes v Európe hovoríme o štrukturálnych nerovnováhach. Je len logickým dôsledkom nastavenia eurozóny, že dnes máme krajiny s prebytkom ako Nemecko a krajiny s deficitmi ako Grécko, Taliansko, Portugalsko, či Španielsko. Konvergencia teda v eurozóne nielenže neexistuje, práve naopak, eurozóna prispieva k prehlbovaniu vnútorných nerovnováh. A keby sa chceli lídri baviť skutočne o „posilňovaní konvergencie“, tak nemôžu obísť fundamentálnu otázku, čo s eurozónou. V programe stretnutia figuruje aj bod „prehĺbenie hospodárskej únie“. Ak bude Rada trvať na tom, že prioritou je rozpočtová disciplína, a ak si lídri neuvedomia, že nevyhnutná bude istá forma transferovej únie, tak stretnutie nepovedie k ničomu. Treba pochopiť, že je čas na zásadné rozhodnutia. A keď zaváhame, nemusí sa nám už podobná šanca naskytnúť.

  András Gyürk (PPE), írásban. – Tisztelt Képviselőtársaim! A december 8-9-ei Tanácsülést az euró válságára vonatkozó megoldáskeresés fogja meghatározni. Fontosnak tartom azonban, hogy a rövid- és középtávú válságkezelés mellett az Európa 2020 stratégiára és az uniós energiapolitikára is kellő figyelmet fordítsunk. Egy esetleges gázkrízis ugyanis a pénzügyi válság negatív hatásait csak tovább tetézné. Nagy örömömre szolgál, hogy az uniós energiapiac megvalósítására irányuló törekvések a beruházások szintjén folytatódnak a pénzügyi nehézségek ellenére is. Ezt kiválóan példázza, hogy a múlt heti Energiatanács előestéjén a kelet-európai térség országai aláírták az észak-déli energiafolyosó létrehozásáról szóló szándéknyilatkozatot. Az együttműködésben részt vevő tagállamok alapvető célja a régió importfüggőségének csökkentése az észak-déli irányú energiaszállítás lehetővé tételével. Ezt a gáz-, kőolaj- és villamosenergia-hálózatok megfelelő összekapcsolásán keresztül kívánják elérni. Érthető az aláíró országok sietsége, hiszen a régió állampolgárai még tisztán emlékeznek arra a 2009-es télre, amikor Oroszország éppen a leghidegebb napokon zárta el a gázcsapokat. A szűk keresztmetszetek azonban nemcsak gázválságok idején, hanem a mindennapokban is jelentős problémát jelentenek. A közép-kelet-európai energiapiacok között ugyanis nem megfelelő az infrastruktúra, így az energia áramlása gyakran nem akadálymentes. Az együttműködés véleményem szerint kiválóan példázza a régiós és uniós szintű koordináció szükségességét gazdasági válság esetén is. Rávilágít továbbá arra is, hogy nincs időnk késlekedni, ha egy ténylegesen működő, egységes energiapiacot szeretnénk 2014-re létrehozni.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE), kirjallinen. – Arvoisa puhemies, kansalaisilta on loppumassa usko EU-johtajien kykyyn ratkaista talouskriisi. Euroalueen työttömyysaste on noussut kaikkien aikojen ennätykseen. EU:n tilastotiedoista vastaavan Eurostatin mukaan työttömyysaste oli 10,3 prosenttia lokakuussa. Työttömyyden pelätään yhä edelleen lisääntyvän lähiaikoina. Pahenevasta tilanteesta on syytä olla erittäin huolissaan.

EU on jälleen kerran valmistautumassa niin sanottuun ratkaisevaan huippukokoukseen. Näitä EU:n talouskriisin kannalta "ratkaisevia" kokouksia on viimeisen vuoden aikana ollut jo lukematon määrä. On tärkeää yrittää pelastaa euro ja EU. Mutta tämä ei saa tapahtua kaiken muun kustannuksella.

Yhteiskuntamme eriarvoistuu tällä hetkellä kovaa vauhtia. Kansalaiset jakautuvat yhä enemmän voittajiin ja häviäjiin. Rikkaat rikastuvat. Köyhät köyhtyvät. On syytä kysyä, missä on se kuuluisa sosiaalinen Eurooppa? Tai ehkä pikemminkin, minne se on oikein kadonnut? EU-johtajien on tullut aika kääriä hihansa. On ryhdyttävä todellisiin talkoisiin sosiaalisesti oikeudenmukaisemman Euroopan puolesta.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), în scris. – Pe agenda viitorului Consiliu European se află şi discuţia referitoare la extinderea zonei Schengen la România şi Bulgaria. Cele două state au aplicat integral dispoziţiile acquis-ului Schengen, îndeplinind deci toate criteriile necesare intrării în spaţiul european de liberă circulaţie. Aderarea trebuie să aibă loc cât mai curând posibil. Din păcate, Olanda este singura ţară care, fără motive bazate pe legislaţia europeană, are o poziţie negativă. Consider că, în cadrul viitoarei reuniuni a Consiliului European, această situaţie trebuie să se clarifice. Consiliul trebuie să evalueze această situaţie în funcţie de legislaţia şi tratatele europene şi să ia o decizie pe care să o transmită miniştrilor europeni ai justiţiei şi afacerilor interne. Consiliul JAI care va avea loc în decembrie trebuie să facă ceea ce este necesar pentru ca cele două state să primească ceea ce merită în urma îndeplinirii tuturor cerinţelor.

  Alfredo Pallone (PPE), per iscritto. – La solidarietà tra i paesi membri dell'Unione deve essere accompagnata da un senso di responsabilità e conformità alle regole, che gli Stati non possono e non devono violare. Ma la solidarietà non può e non deve essere a senso unico, se si fa parte di un'Unione, di cui si condividono ideali e valori, ci si impegna per la crescita e lo sviluppo e ci si sostiene anche nei momenti di difficoltà. Mi chiedo e vi chiedo, quindi, come correlare la disciplina fiscale e di bilancio, il controllo da parte delle istituzioni con la crescita e lo sviluppo? In tale contesto, possiamo e dobbiamo dare vita al sistema degli eurobond. Non può esserci rilancio dell’economia europea se, allo stesso tempo, non si utilizza la forza dell’Euro. Gli eurobond servono a collegare rigore di bilancio e sviluppo del continente, sono il punto di approdo di quella interdipendenza che ormai caratterizza la convivenza europea, ferma restando una ferrea disciplina fiscale. Abbiamo a disposizione un’Unione europea dall’incerta capacità operativa e dal vistoso deficit democratico e non la forza di una costruzione in cui sono individuate con chiarezza le responsabilità degli Stati come quelle di una entità federale. Occorre passare dall'Unione europea agli Stati Uniti d'Europa.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. – Consiliul European din 9 decembrie 2011 va dezbate cu prioritate situaţia economică din UE, criza datoriilor statelor membre şi creşterea convergenţei în cadrul zonei Euro, dar şi elemente legate de realizarea Pieţei Interne şi de implementarea Agendei Digitale. Liderii europeni ar trebui însă să adopte măsuri urgente de creştere economică şi de creare de locuri de muncă. În acest context, măsurile aferente creşterii eficienţei energetice, realizării pieţei interne de energie, dezvoltării infrastructurii de energie devin extrem de importante pentru securitatea energetică şi pentru echilibrarea balanţei comerciale a UE. Consiliul European ar trebui să analizeze rezultatele testelor de rezistenţă la care au fost supuse centralele nucleare din diferite state membre şi să adopte decizii pentru creşterea siguranţei reactoarelor nucleare europene. De asemenea, dezvoltarea infrastructurii de transport şi a celei de comunicaţii şi tehnologia informaţiilor este esenţială pentru realizarea Pieţei Interne şi pentru dezvoltarea economică şi socială a UE. Toate aceste măsuri destinate creşterii economice şi creării de locuri de muncă ar trebui corelate şi susţinute prin Cadrul financiar multianual pentru 2014-2020. Salut includerea pe agenda Consiliului European din decembrie a unui punct privind aderarea României şi a Bulgariei la spaţiul Schengen, precum şi semnarea Tratatului de aderare al Croaţiei la UE.