Stenograma dezbaterilor

Miercuri, 18 ianuarie 2012 - Strasbourg

16.2. Concluziile reuniunii Consiliului European (8-9 decembrie 2011) privind un proiect de acord internaţional referitor la o uniune a stabilităţii fiscale (vot)

- Nach der Abstimmung über Ziffer 3

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). - Herr Präsident! Ich möchte Sie nicht korrigieren. Aber ich glaube, wir hatten ausgemacht, dass es vor der Abstimmung erst eine Runde der Fraktionsvorsitzenden gibt. Wenn ich mich irre, entschuldige ich mich, wenn nicht, sollten Sie sich entschuldigen.

  Der Präsident. − Herr Cohn-Bendit, Sie haben Recht. Jetzt muss ich sagen, die Sitzungsdienste sagen mir grade, es sei ihre Schuld. Das stimmt nicht, es ist ausschließlich meine Schuld. Und ich kann Ihnen sagen: Wenn ich noch Fraktionsvorsitzender gewesen wäre, hätte ich genau so reagiert wie Kollege Cohn-Bendit. Ich bin darüber informiert worden, dass nicht die Fraktionschefs reden. Also, es kommt jetzt zu einer richtigen Qualitätssteigerung.

Herr Kollege Brok, wenn Sie aufhören, mit Frau Tymoschenko zu telefonieren, dann können Sie uns jetzt Ihren Vortrag halten.

  Elmar Brok, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es wäre schön, wenn man mit Frau Tymoschenko telefonieren könnte und sie in Freiheit wäre.

(Lang anhaltender Beifall-)

Herr Präsident, ich möchte mich bei Ihnen und Ihrem Vorgänger, aber auch bei den Fraktionsvorsitzenden für den Rückhalt bedanken, den wir bisher für die Verhandlungen gehabt haben. Wir mussten feststellen, dass das nicht in allen Phasen sehr freundschaftlich von allen Seiten im Rat geführt wurde. Aber wir haben den Eindruck, dass nach der letzten Sitzung am vergangenen Donnerstag und nach dem, was wir hören, die Dinge in die richtige Richtung gehen könnten. Aber aufgrund der vorhergehenden Zeit haben wir natürlich Misstrauen, dass es so sein wird, und deswegen warten wir auf den nächsten Entwurf, der morgen kommen soll.

Ich möchte für meine Fraktion, aber ich glaube auch für die beiden Kollegen, die gleich noch etwas sagen werden, deutlich machen: Wir halten diesen Vertrag nicht für unsere erste Wahl. Es wäre besser, wenn alles von vornherein im Gemeinschaftsvertrag wäre. Das Zweite ist: Dieser Vertrag darf nicht zu einer Spaltung Europas führen. Deswegen muss er so abgefasst werden, dass die 26 Länder, die mitmachen wollen, auch mitmachen können. Der dritte Punkt ist: Die Rechte des Europäischen Parlaments und der Gemeinschaftsinstitutionen müssen gewahrt sein, und es muss klar sein, dass jede Implementierung, die in Gesetzgebung übergeht, nach den Regeln des Gemeinschaftsvertrages mit dem Mitentscheidungsverfahren ergeht und dass wir nicht zweierlei Rechtsbasis innerhalb der Europäischen Union bekommen.

Meine Damen und Herren, wir müssen klar machen, dass Sparen allein die Situation nicht löst. Dazu gehören auch Wachstum und Strukturveränderung. Auch dies ist die Position des Europäischen Parlaments.

Als Letztes muss gesagt werden, will ich zum Ausdruck bringen: Es muss nach den Regeln des Vertrages, Protokoll 1, die Zusammenarbeit zwischen nationalen Parlamenten und Europäischem Parlament erfolgen. Hier haben wir eine gemeinsame Pflicht, die wir nach gemeinsamen Regeln wahrzunehmen haben. Da der Vertrag richtigerweise spätestens in fünf Jahren auslaufen und in den Gemeinschaftsvertrag überführt werden soll – diese Position des Europäischen Parlaments ist akzeptiert –, sollten wir dafür Sorge tragen, dass es keine neuen Institutionen gibt, die eine Zusammenführung erschweren. Die Gemeinschaftsinstitutionen sind die einzigen Institutionen, die gelten. Bei dem Euro-Gipfel muss klar sein, dass alle Vertragspartner, die im Euro sind, die in den Euro hineinwollen und die im Euro sein werden, da sind. Wir wollen auch hier keine Spaltung, da müssen alle 26 dasselbe Recht haben. Wir wollen ein einheitliches Europa!

  Roberto Gualtieri, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, come ha ricordato l'on. Brok questo Parlamento ha assunto nei confronti del nuovo accordo internazionale un atteggiamento di impegno critico che è riflesso nella risoluzione che ci accingiamo ad approvare.

Le ragioni della critica le abbiamo più volte espresse. Sul piano istituzionale riteniamo che gli strumenti offerti dai trattati avrebbero consentito di evitare la ferita di un accordo intergovernativo e di rafforzare la governance e la disciplina di bilancio dell'eurozona rimanendo all'interno del quadro giuridico dell'Unione. È davvero paradossale che mentre l'inchiostro su cui è scritto il "six-pack" non si è ancora asciugato, alcuni Stati vogliano emendarlo per via intergovernativa, introducendo elementi che prima non avevano richiesto o che addirittura avevano osteggiato, realizzando un passo indietro e non un passo avanti sulla strada dell'Unione fiscale.

Sul piano politico consideriamo pericolosamente unilaterale l'indirizzo economico di quest'accordo, perché senza misure concrete per rafforzare la crescita e la solidarietà, l'Unione non uscirà dalla crisi e lo stesso obiettivo della stabilità non sarà raggiunto. Abbiamo comunque ritenuto doveroso impegnarci in modo attivo e costruttivo per limitare i danni all'edificio dell'Unione, difendendo il primato del metodo comunitario e le prerogative del Parlamento e ribadendo la necessità e l'urgenza di una gestione comune dei debiti sovrani.

È un fatto di grande rilievo politico che i quattro gruppi pro-europei abbiano definito una piattaforma comune di emendamenti su questa linea.

Ora attendiamo la quarta bozza dell'accordo. È chiaro che se neanche i punti minimi, su cui si è registrata un'intesa positiva, saranno fedelmente riportati nel testo, il Parlamento farà ricorso a tutti gli strumenti di cui dispone per contrastare l'accordo; ma è anche chiaro che soltanto una profonda correzione di linea, istituzionale ed economica, potrà far venir meno le ragioni della nostra critica e la determinazione a costruire un vero governo economico europeo basato sul metodo comunitario e rivolto alla stabilità, alla crescita e alla solidarietà.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, what we are doing is a very dangerous exercise. We are working on this treaty and my fear is that it could be used in future by the Council and the Member States as a way of tackling a number of problems outside the acquis communautaire, outside the secondary legislation and outside the normal Treaty provisions. We agreed with the negotiators – and this is also reflected in today’s resolution – to limit everything as much as possible to the so-called ‘golden rule’. If we go beyond that then we are in fact destroying the Community method.

We have three objectives. First of all there must be no double standards; we cannot accept that in the future in Europe. The Stability Pact is based on the Treaty and the secondary legislation, but the stability and growth policy is based on this treaty. This is unacceptable. There has to be one standard in the European Union and the eurozone, not two.

The same applies to the excessive deficit procedure. In future, if we are not able to amend this treaty, there will be two types of excessive deficit procedure: one on the deficit criterion and another with other rules on the debt criterion. Again double standards, that is my big fear.

Secondly, we have to have a binding provision in the treaty that this new treaty must comply with the provisions of existing treaties within at least five years, if possible within three. This must be a binding provision for the contracting parties.

Finally, we have to secure the role of the European Parliament so that Parliament and the President of the Parliament are able to participate in euro summits. These are informal summits and, as such, Parliament must be represented at them. Having said that, I am not sure that if we improve the treaty we can back the treaty. That is another discussion and another decision which we will have to take in the coming weeks.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, je voudrais d'abord remercier mes trois collègues, qui m'ont intégré d'une manière solidaire dans le groupe de discussion, comme cela avait été décidé par les présidents des groupes parlementaires.

Je voudrais dire deux choses sur ce traité. Premièrement, il est complètement inutile. Nous n'avons pas besoin de ce traité. Ce n'est pas un traité, c'est un accord intergouvernemental qui n'est là que pour, d'après ceux qui l'ont inventé, rassurer les marchés en demandant d'intégrer dans les législations nationales la constitutionnalisation de ce qu'on appelle le frein à l'endettement ou la règle d'or.

Tous les marchés nous disent que, de toute façon, ça ne les intéresse pas. De sorte qu'on est en train de faire un accord intergouvernemental qui n'intéresse pas les marchés aujourd'hui parce qu'ils veulent une conception politique de l'économie de l'Europe pour demain. Et ce traité n'assurera pas cette conception politique.

Nous demandons aux États membres qui signent ce traité, par exemple, de dire: il faut une feuille de route pour la Commission sur la taxe sur les transactions financières. Nous demandons une feuille de route pour le fonds de rédemption, pour les eurobonds. Nous n'aurons pas cela dans le traité. Pour notre groupe, avec cet accord – vous voyez, je dis toujours "traité" alors que c'est un accord –, on est en train de perdre du temps en essayant d'améliorer quelque chose qui, de toute façon, est inutile. Nous sommes intelligents, nous allons l'améliorer, mais ce n'est pas la réponse nécessaire à la crise financière et économique que vit l'Europe aujourd'hui.

Ce Parlement doit être clair. S'il ne prend pas d'initiatives législatives pour demander de faire le nécessaire, il ne sera pas lui-même à la hauteur de ce qu'il faut faire contre la crise d'aujourd'hui.

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I am sorry to have to admit it but I think I partly agree with Mr Cohn-Bendit for a change!

(Cries of ‘Oh!’ from the floor)

Not on all of what he said, obviously, but certainly the bit about the uselessness of this treaty because, while it might well succeed in solving the next crisis – and it may well have prevented this crisis if it had been part of the original Treaty on Monetary Union – it was not and is not going to do anything to solve the immediate difficulties. What is worse, if anything, is that the European Council diverted valuable political energy and resources away from facing the reality of the crisis. In the aftermath, what we have seen from many quarters is an attempt to make scapegoats out of those who neither caused the problem nor have the power to implement a solution. Perhaps this is in order to distract attention from the glaring failure of the summit.

I also agree completely with the Finnish Foreign Minister who said earlier this week that this whole contract is at best unnecessary and at worse harmful, and that Finland has reason to oppose the entire treaty. Congratulations to him for speaking the truth for a change.

But furthermore, let me say a word about the attacks that we have seen in this Parliament, and from the Commission, on the ratings agency. It is a little bit like blaming the weather forecasters for the rain in Brussels – and when the Commission announces that it intends not to tackle the problem but rather to regulate the way in which it is reported, then I know we really are in serious trouble!

Let us speak plainly, because the recommended medicine for many of the eurozone members at the heart of the crisis will kill the patient long before it can possibly achieve a cure. They are being asked to make ultimately futile gestures, and not to pursue serious solutions, because their debts in many cases are simply unsustainable and their fundamental uncompetitiveness is not being addressed by any of these measures. The obligations of continued eurozone membership are strangling the prospects of economic growth for a generation.

In the medium term they need substantial economic reform; in the short term, frankly, they need devaluation. The proponents of this treaty are, in my view, deluding themselves and attempting to delude the rest of us.

  Søren Bo Søndergaard, for GUE/NGL-Gruppen. – Hr. formand! Efter planen skal Det Europæiske Råd den 29. januar vedtage denne internationale traktat, som vi diskuterer i dag. Og det skal nok lykkes! Det skal nok lykkes at få den vedtaget. Til gengæld vil det ikke lykkes at nå formålet med traktaten, nemlig at sikre stabilitet omkring euroen. Og det vil slet ikke lykkes at nå en overvindelse af den krise, som EU befinder sig i. Denne traktat skader Europa. Det er en forkert medicin, og det er en forkert metode. Det er en forkert medicin, fordi man naturligvis ikke skaber vækst og fremgang gennem nedskæringer og besparelser. Det fører kun til mere krise og mere arbejdsløshed. Tror man ikke på det, når vi siger det, så kan man f.eks. spørge Standard & Poors. Men det er også den forkerte metode, fordi det endnu en gang forstærker integrationen i EU, uden at befolkningerne bliver spurgt. Selv Europa-Parlamentet har ikke fået reel indflydelse - heller ikke selv om vi har fået lov til at udpege en tre-fire mennesker til at deltage i diskussionerne. Og det var jo ellers os, der på papiret skulle repræsentere EU's borgere.

Hvad er så det stensikre resultat af denne her metode? Det er, at afstanden til befolkningen vokser. Hvis man ønsker at ændre EU's arkitektur, så er der kun én demokratisk måde at gøre det på, og det er ved at indkalde til et konvent, hvor forskellige holdninger har mulighed for at brydes. Det er med beklagelse, at vi konstaterer, at statslederne i EU har valgt en anden vej. Lad mig derfor på vegne af min gruppe slå fast, at vedtagelsen af denne traktat bliver uden vores støtte.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, there is a very bad case of denial in this Chamber this morning, a total refusal to accept that the euro project is failing. Greece is on the verge of a default. The bail-out fund is creaking. The credibility of the European Central Bank itself is now being called into question. It is all on the verge of going belly-up, and yet when the credit rating agencies tell the truth you try and pretend it is not happening. In fact Mr Brok and others were suggesting that it is all some dastardly plot by the Americans, the British and the Anglo Saxon markets to bring down the euro. The agencies are nothing more than the canary in the mine. They are telling you the truth, so please listen to Standard and Poor’s when they say that austerity alone will not work. You are driving these countries into depression just to save your euro project.

But I must acknowledge that you have lost absolutely nothing when it comes to your powers of deception. No, that is still very much on course. It was Nick Clegg who gave us the clue – a man who, I suspect, is rather more popular here than he is back home these days. Clegg was asked whether there should be a referendum on the forthcoming treaty. He said there was no need for that because it was all going to be ‘folded into’ the existing treaties. I thought, ‘What the dickens is he talking about?’ Well, now I have learnt. Mr Cohn-Bendit made it clear: it is to be the ‘Community method’. It is to be legislation where you know you have a majority in this Parliament and you know, under qualified majority in the Council, you can get everything through.

Why are you doing it this way? It is simple, is it not? – it is to avoid referendums. Because you know that if a treaty was put to Ireland and many other countries, the answer would be ‘no’. The peoples of Europe do not want this sado-monetarist package. The peoples of Europe, particularly in the case of the South, need to get out of the euro, to have devaluation and a chance to re-establish themselves again. You are denying them that chance and, by pushing the ‘Community method’, you are destroying democracy in Europe. I hope you are all very proud of yourselves.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). - Herr Präsident! Beim jüngsten Gipfel zur Krise der Währungsunion waren sich die Regierungschefs offenbar sehr einig, dass die Krise eine Chance sei, aus der europäischen Währungsunion das zu machen, was die Euroinitiatoren bei der Einführung der Gemeinschaftswährung angeblich vor Augen hatten, nämlich eine Fiskal- und Wirtschaftsunion.

Allein aber schon der Vorbote, nämlich die Brüsseler Überwachung der nationalen Haushaltspläne in Form des europäischen Semesters, dürfte in kürzester Zeit zur reinen Planungsdemokratie mit inhaltslosen Lippenbekenntnissen verkommen. Zwar mag es ja angesichts der derzeitigen Krise notwendig sein, eine starke europäische Führung zu installieren. Diese darf jedoch nicht in ein deutsch-französisches Direktorium münden.

Die EU-Verträge sind also einzuhalten. Das bedeutet insbesondere, dass auch die Rechte der kleineren Mitgliedstaaten gewahrt werden müssen. Die kleinen Mitgliedstaaten dürfen weder von der Brüsseler Zentralismuswalze überrollt werden, noch dürfen sie von den Großen in der EU an die Wand gedrängt werden.

Statt ständig weitere Kompetenzen nach Brüssel zu verlagern und die EU-Zentralisierung, die ja auch das Ihre zum Entstehen der Schuldenkrise beigetragen hat, stetig voranzutreiben, müssen aus der Schuldenkrise endlich die richtigen Konsequenzen gezogen werden.

Statt mehr Zentralisierung und mehr Zentralismus müssen wir zurück zu einem Staatenverbund gleichberechtigter Staaten, die eine eigene Wirtschafts- und Budgetpolitik betreiben können. Es gilt dabei neue Wege zu beschreiten, weshalb eine Teilung der Eurozone und die Gründung eines kerneuropäischen Hartwährungsverbundes möglicherweise auf die Tagesordnung kommen müssen. Anderenfalls besteht zweifellos die Gefahr, dass auch die gesunden Volkswirtschaften des Euroraums von dieser Schuldenkrise erfasst werden.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, today we are discussing this international agreement as part – and only as a specific part – of a wide-ranging and comprehensive approach for stronger discipline, increased convergence and reinforced coordination and governance, particularly in the euro area. If we want to ensure the viability of our common currency, and if we want to prevent in future the kind of crisis Europe is experiencing today, this is fundamental.

We must also keep in mind that this agreement is an essential element of a larger package of action to respond to the sovereign debt crisis, including a strengthened and anticipated European Stability Mechanism, which is urgently needed for the stability and coherence of the euro area.

The Commission has always considered that these new norms should be enshrined in the current treaties, in the Lisbon Treaty. For the reasons you all know, because unanimity between all Member States was not possible, that could not happen. The Heads of State and Government therefore took the decision to proceed with this international agreement or, as some prefer to say, international treaty.

The Commission left no ambiguity about the priority being an agreement that respects a certain number of principles, namely: the primacy of European Union law, the necessity of democratic accountability, the importance of the European institutions and the need to integrate the agreement into the current European treaties. These principles are, I believe, shared by the European Parliament. The Parliament and Commission delegations to the negotiations are standing firmly together in defence of those principles. Working in close cooperation, our delegations to the negotiations are achieving important progress.

First: together, we are firmly opposing attempts to develop new institutional set-ups. Instead, we have enshrined the principle that the European institutions will act on the basis of the EU Treaties, not as simple representatives of Member States.

Second: together, we are rejecting drafting that could have established parallel intergovernmental coordination of economic policy outside the European Union framework.

Third: together, we are insisting on language acknowledging the need for the European Union secondary legislation to implement key elements of the package agreed at the last European Council.

Fourth: together, we are proposing to include a strong integration clause in the draft which requires that, within five years at the most, the necessary steps are taken to integrate the substance of the agreement into the legal framework of the Union.

However, only last week the Commission was concerned by some choices made in the latest draft which could only lead to irritation and to division. As a result, at the meeting of the Working Group last Thursday, the Commission tabled amendments to ensure that the text is institutionally acceptable. They largely coincide with key points made by the delegates of this House.

We are insisting, first, on a correct clause safeguarding primacy of EU law and its full application, in particular that of EU procedures whenever the adoption of secondary law is required.

Second, that the Member States express their readiness to support a Commission proposal that will strengthen the ‘six-pack’ by introducing, for euro area Member States, a new range of medium-term objectives in line with the limits of the agreement.

Third, that the text reflects an adequate openness of euro summits to all Member States and recognises the position of the President of this Parliament.

Last but not least, that cooperation between national parliaments and the European Parliament must operate within the European Union Treaties in accordance with Protocol No 1, avoiding any impression that a number of competing assemblies at European level will emerge over time, thus weakening the European Parliament.

The Commission delegation will continue to participate constructively but vigilantly in this process. We remain confident that reasonable solutions can be found. The principles we are defending are the principles of democracy and accountability. They are the principles on which the European Union is founded and they reflect the right and proper role of the institutions. They are the principles that insist on the integrity of the entire European Union and all its Member States.

The euro area must be strengthened, yes, but not at the expense of the wider Union. The introduction of parallel structures would embed divisions that could jeopardise the Union and also jeopardise the single market and therefore the future viability of the euro itself. As we believe in the euro, and as we believe that the euro should be the currency of the whole European Union, we must not introduce new governance and structures that would lead to a split with Member States that intend to join it in the future. All Member States who agree with these principles should be associated with our position and I am very grateful to this House, and in particular to the European Parliament delegation, for its support in working for this common goal.

This agreement, if these rules are respected, can be an important tool in building a solid stability and growth agenda based on the Europe 2020 strategy, and also on the road map presented by the Commission. Noting that, from a legal point of view, this is an intergovernmental agreement, I hope that all Member States understand that politically, for its successful ratification and implementation, it needs the support of the European institutions, namely the European Commission, the European Central Bank and of course this European Parliament.

– Vor der Abstimmung über Ziffer 4

  Elmar Brok (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Wir möchten gerne in Ziffer 4 einen weiteren Spiegelstrich einfügen. Ich lese ihn vor, weil ich meine, dass uns das bei der Formulierung entgangen ist, aber in der Debatte deutlich wurde, dass darin Übereinstimmung besteht. Der Wortlaut:

(Der mündliche Änderungsantrag wird übernommen.)

  Der Präsident. − Damit ist die Abstimmungsstunde geschlossen.