Posėdžio stenograma

Trečiadienis, 2012 m. vasario 1 d. - Briuselis

1. Sesijos atnaujinimas

VORSITZ: MARTIN SCHULZ
Präsident

(Die Sitzung wird um 15.00 eröffnet.)

  Der Präsident. − Ich erkläre die am Donnerstag, dem 19. Januar 2012, unterbrochene Sitzungsperiode für wiederaufgenommen.

2. Ankstesnio posėdžio protokolo tvirtinimas (žr. protokola)

3. Parlamento sudėtis (žr. protokola)

4. Igaliojimų tikrinimas (žr. protokola)

5. Klaidų ištaisymas (Darbo tvarkos taisyklių 216 straipsnis) (žr. protokola)

6. Pateikti dokumentai (žr.protokolą)

7. Klausimai, į kuriuos atsakoma žodžiu, ir rašytiniai pareiškimai (gauti dokumentai) (žr. protokola)

8. Anuliuoti rašytiniai pareiškimai (žr. protokola)

9. Tarybos perduoti susitarimų tekstai (žr. protokolą)

10. Veiksmai įgyvendinant Parlamento pozicijas ir rezoliucijas: žr. protokolą

11. Darbų programa (žr. protokola)

12. Europos Vadovų Tarybos 2012 m. sausio 30 d. susitikimo išvados (diskusijos)

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt folgen die Erklärungen des Europäischen Rates und der Kommission zu Schlussfolgerungen der informellen Tagung des Europäischen Rates vom 30. Januar 2012.

  Herman Van Rompuy, President of the European Council. − Mr President, over the last two years, European leaders have had to take difficult and sometimes painful measures to stabilise the eurozone. Although this was necessary – and we are now starting to see that it was worth the effort – we recognise that financial stability is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for economic recovery. We must do more. We must do more in particular on economic growth and employment and that is why we put in place the Europe 2020 Strategy, the Euro-Plus Pact and the European semester. Growth and employment were never out of our minds. The March European Council will focus on structural growth and, by the way, the economies in most of our countries were growing positively in 2010 and 2011.

The focus of Monday’s informal European Council was indeed on growth and jobs. The bulk of our discussions were on this, though we approved at the same time the final text of the ESM Treaty and put the final touches to the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union.

You will have seen from the statement approved by the members of the European Council that we have called this ‘growth-friendly’ fiscal consolidation and ‘job-friendly economic growth’.

What do we mean by this? Slashing deficits, but not by cutting our investments for the future: investments in education, training, research and development, and green infrastructure.

Increasing the competitiveness of our companies, while making it more attractive for them to hire people.

A strategy for growth covers many aspects: the short term and the longer term; economic policy and competitiveness, but also specific employment policies; national competencies and those of the Union.

We focused on three priorities. Firstly, creating jobs, especially for young people. Last week, I received a letter from the European Youth Forum in which they wrote: ‘Young people, in times of crisis and economic austerity, do not need nice words but strong investments’. And indeed, that is why we have agreed to use available European funds to set up apprenticeship schemes and help young business starters. Stimulating employment is mostly a responsibility for the individual countries, but most of the work we can do together, as a Union, and we will do it. Each Member State must have a ‘Job Plan’ as a part of its national reform programme.

Second priority: helping small and medium enterprises to get access to credit, for instance by freeing up available EU funds to support employers and reduce red tape. The recent initiatives of the ECB are also helpful in avoiding a credit crunch and a further deepening of the recession.

Third priority: the single market. We are determined to get more out of it, for instance by finalising the digital market and the energy market. Priority must go to the measures which do most to stimulate growth and jobs. We decided upon a series of deadlines for opening markets.

A return of confidence – and now I am speaking in the short term – in the eurozone can restore the confidence of consumers and companies quickly, as was the case in 2009 after the financial crisis. The recent lowering of exchange rates for the euro can boost exports. All this is helpful, as I said, in the short term. The aim is to provide prospects, to offer hope through the decisions of this Council and those of March and June. Results take time but there is no doubt of our resolve and that of the Danish Presidency.

Now over to the treaty, as I know this is of particular interest to you, and it closes a chapter that has been the cause of much debate for almost two years. As I have said many times already in this hemicycle, we have badly missed a governance structure since the launching of the euro. This treaty must be seen as just one element of the reforms to economic governance that we have achieved over the last two years, reforms which involve both responsibility and solidarity, and which include the six-pack, which remains the backbone of our new governance architecture.

This treaty is about more responsibility and better surveillance. Every country that signs it commits itself to bringing a ‘debt brake’ into its legislation, preferably at constitutional level. An automatic correction mechanism will re-enforce compliance.

Enshrining the debt brake in the treaty will enhance its credibility. This is important as a confidence-building measure. It represents a major step forward towards closer and irrevocable fiscal and economic integration and stronger governance in the euro area. It will significantly bolster the outlook for fiscal sustainability and euro-area sovereign debt and therefore enhance economic growth. Placing this commitment to self-control in the treaty shows our long-term and irreversible commitment to avoiding excessive deficits and debt.

The treaty also changes the majority required to initiate the excessive deficit procedure – something that could not be done through the six-pack legislation. This is particularly important for the credibility of that procedure.

This is not a commitment to austerity, but a commitment to financing public expenditure through revenue rather than through debt. There is nothing virtuous about excessive debt – it means that more and more of your public expenditure is spent on servicing your debt instead of public services and public investment. Excessive public debt is a threat to our social model.

Like most members of the European Council, and like Parliament, I would have preferred these issues to be addressed by changing the existing treaties rather than through a separate treaty. As you know, the necessary unanimity for this was not forthcoming. There was no choice but to go down this route. But in so doing, I was personally determined to keep the new provisions as close as possible to the EU Treaties. We were not setting up a separate organisation but the means of reinforcing our Union. I had endeavoured in the same way when setting up the Euro-Plus Pact. I hope that our successors will succeed in integrating this treaty into the EU Treaties.

Let me also emphasise that I was personally committed to keeping the Union together as much as possible, while recognising the specificities of the eurozone. All the countries ratifying this treaty will participate in Euro summits when the architecture and fundamental rules of the eurozone are at stake or the implementation of the treaty and the competitiveness of the contracting parties. I was happy to see that almost all countries will sign the treaty. It will enter into force as soon as 12 euro countries have ratified it.

We were helped in this by the efforts of Parliament’s three representatives, Elmar Brok, Roberto Gualtieri and Guy Verhofstadt, whom I want to thank for their efforts. Parliament’s insistence, along with others, on coherence with the existing treaties was particularly helpful and contributed to securing a number of key features of the new treaty.

Besides this Fiscal Compact Treaty, we also endorsed the agreement among the 17 on the Treaty for the European Stability Mechanism. It will be signed this week so that it can take effect from July 2012. The early entry into force of this permanent firewall will help prevent contagion in the euro area and further restore confidence. Its operation will also be subject to the scrutiny of your Parliament, as I have indicated already in my letter of 22 March last year to your rapporteurs.

As agreed in December, we will reassess the adequacy of resources under the EFSF and ESM rescue funds at the next European Council meeting – less than four weeks from now.

A final point. Although this was not formally on the agenda, we also briefly touched upon three urgent foreign policy issues, mainly along the lines of the good and strong conclusions adopted by the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 January. We endorsed the restrictive measures against Iran, including an oil embargo, as decided by the Foreign Ministers last week, and we expressed our outrage at the atrocities and repression committed by the Syrian regime, and urged the members of the UN Security Council to take long overdue steps to bring an end to the repression. These are good examples, after our joint actions in Libya, of a common foreign policy.

This concludes my report. Step by step we are making progress in the construction of an economic and monetary union, slower than hoped and expected, but reaching each time broad agreements among our Member States. This was the case also in the European Council of last Monday: a positive step on the road for more hope.

(Applause)

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, President of the European Council, distinguished Members of the European Parliament, I would like to draw your attention to two main aspects of the informal European Council on Monday afternoon. Firstly, the European Council was a first but a significant step by Heads of State or Government in recognising that it is not enough to focus on financial stability and economic discipline alone.

By bringing to the table concrete proposals to tackle youth unemployment and to finance SMEs, the Commission broadened the perspective towards the issues that are of greatest concern to all our citizens – jobs and growth, sustainable growth. This is an approach that we have often discussed with this Parliament and I know you support the Commission’s outlook, rooted in the Europe 2020 Strategy. Together we are moving. More steps are, of course, needed. We will continue in this direction.

The second issue that I wish to highlight is linked to the Commission’s determination to maintain the role of the European Union institutions and of the Community method in the new Treaty. We are now entering into a new phase of economic governance, based on the European semester, where governments recognise that even matters under their national competence, such as employment, should be dealt with at European as well as national level.

Due to the high levels of interdependence between our economies, we can no longer deal with economic and social matters solely at national level. When it comes to issues such as job creation, there is clearly a European dimension. National action, and indeed regional action too, should be supported and complemented by European action.

Europe’s economic problems are obviously not over. It will be a long road to recovery. I stressed the need for us to continue with the comprehensive approach to resolving the crisis that the Commission set out in its road map to stability and growth in October last year.

From this point of view, it was important that the Heads of State or Government agreed with our proposal to ensure that the European Stability Mechanism enters into force in July 2012. As agreed in December, we will reassess in March the adequacy of resources under the EFSF and the ESM.

One main message coming out of our discussion on growth and employment on Monday was the need to do much more to unleash the potential of the single market, Europe’s ‘crown jewel’. The Heads of State or Government agreed with the Commission’s proposal to fast-track the Single Market Act and complete the digital single market by 2015. I trust that we can rely on Parliament to make good progress on this growth package in the coming months, with the help of course of the Danish Presidency, and we all know how determined the Danish Presidency is regarding these objectives.

The Single Market Act can improve the framework for our companies, but there is also more we can do to create the conditions that will help these companies, namely the SMEs, to thrive. SMEs have created 80 % of all new jobs in the European Union in the last five years and are the backbone of Europe’s economy. We need to help them to take up the great opportunities being opened up by our trade agreements with growing economies outside Europe.

Last December, the Commission proposed using Structural Funds as guarantees for SMEs, to give them easier access to finance. We have also put forward a proposal to facilitate access to venture capital, which I would like to ask you to adopt this year.

On Monday I asked the Heads of State or Government to be even more ambitious in cutting red tape for small and micro enterprises. On youth unemployment, I called for an urgent response and made concrete proposals to halt this unacceptable trend. Each Member State will prepare a national jobs plan, centred on a youth guarantee, to ensure that all young people are either in a job, in training or in education within four months of leaving school.

The Commission will set up action teams with the eight countries that are most affected by youth unemployment. I have already written to the prime ministers of these countries proposing a concrete way forward. We will seek to redeploy EUR 22 billion of European Social Fund money to improve job opportunities in Europe. We will seek to maximise the European Union programmes we already have, namely Erasmus for studying, Leonardo for training and EURES for job vacancies. The national job plans will be brought into the European semester exercise so that, by the spring European Council in five weeks from now, we will be able to give concrete guidance to all Member States.

We will also continue the dialogue with the social partners, respecting their role to obtain the best possible solutions and to implement them smoothly. I personally met with the representatives of the social partners at European level and I know how committed they are to fighting the terrible scourge that is youth unemployment.

Another positive step in this informal European Council was the endorsement by the Heads of State or Government of the Treaty establishing the European Stability Mechanism. This is a very important part of the global strategy to strengthen the Economic and Monetary Union. We are making progress, probably not as fast as most of us wanted, but we are making progress towards a fiscal union in our European Union.

Twenty-five Member States also reached agreement on the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union, which is an essential element in our efforts to regain stability and confidence. As you know, this Treaty was not the Commission’s choice, but rather the consequence of the lack of a unanimous agreement to amend the Lisbon Treaty. But the fact that 25 of our 27 Member States have agreed to sign this Treaty, is a testament to the solidarity and determination within the Union to resolve this crisis together and to avoid a division between euro and non-euro area Member States.

From the outset of the negotiations on this Treaty, the Commission, together with this Parliament, defended a series of principles: namely the primacy of European Union law, the need to keep the proper role of the Union institutions, a spirit of inclusiveness with all Member States, and the need to integrate the agreement into the Lisbon Treaty within five years.

In the final text, there are no new institutions that could weaken the role of the Commission and of this Parliament. The contracting Member States agreed to respect the Commission’s central role in delivering the Agreement’s objectives in line with the Lisbon Treaty and the Community method. And they agreed to keep the Treaty open to all and compatible with the Community method, respecting this European Parliament.

In upholding the Community method, the Commission has acted in close cooperation with Parliament and I would like to highlight the important contribution made by Parliament’s representatives to the negotiations. You will recall that we acted in the same spirit of partnership during negotiations on the modification of Article 136 of the Treaty. Today I want to reaffirm, on behalf of the Commission, the content of the letter sent then by Olli Rehn to Elmar Brok and Roberto Gualtieri, ensuring the involvement of this House.

I would like to note that this was the first European Council at which Martin Schulz participated as President of the European Parliament. At the beginning of the Council he made an important political contribution on these points and I am grateful for his clear commitment in upholding the principles dear to both our institutions.

It is relevant that Member States welcomed the legislative proposals made by the Commission on 23 November last year – the so-called two-pack – within the framework of the Treaties, namely under Article 136, and also that they committed themselves to supporting further secondary legislation which the Commission will propose to strengthen further the Stability and Growth Pact, within the framework of the Lisbon Treaty.

This is a clear guarantee that the role of the European Parliament in economic governance will be ensured until this new treaty can be integrated into the European Union Treaties. Indeed, we cannot respond properly to our current challenges without democratic legitimacy. Cooperation between national democracies and European democracy – and European democracy is embodied in this Parliament – gives us the legitimacy we need to take the decisions necessary for the prosperity of the European Union.

(Applause)

  Joseph Daul, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, vingt-cinq États membres ont lundi pris leurs responsabilités, en acceptant de signer le traité budgétaire.

Ils ont décidé de s'attaquer au laxisme budgétaire qui nous prive des marges de manœuvre nécessaires pour renouer avec la croissance et l'emploi. Ils ont montré leur capacité à trouver des solutions européennes aux problèmes européens, même si deux États membres ont préféré jouer solo, ce qu'ils finiront par regretter eux-mêmes.

J'ai, à ce stade, trois souhaits. Le premier est que le traité soit ratifié au plus vite, le second est qu'il soit appliqué au plus vite et le troisième est que cet accord soit entièrement intégré au droit de l'Union, comme ce Parlement l'a demandé.

Mesdames et Messieurs, la crise économique nous oblige à reconsidérer nos mauvaises habitudes. Elle nous oblige à respecter les règles évidentes, mais si difficiles à appliquer, de l'équilibre budgétaire.

Nous avons l'obligation de réduire les déficits nationaux, qui cachent aussi souvent des déficits régionaux et locaux. Mais autant la décision sur le traité est précise et positive, autant celle sur la croissance me laisse sur ma faim. Car lutter contre les déficits et retrouver la croissance, ce sont les deux faces d'une même pièce. L'un sans l'autre ne sortira pas les Européens des difficultés dans lesquelles ils sont plongés, notamment les chômeurs.

Il y a deux façons de retrouver la croissance, l'une artificielle et sans lendemain, l'autre structurelle et donc durable. La première est de faire de la relance par la dépense. C'est ce qu'on a fait pendant des années et l'on voit où cela nous a menés. Sans compter qu'aujourd'hui, les dépenses sont de facto limitées, car l'heure est à rembourser nos dettes, et non à emprunter.

La deuxième méthode, celle qui est préconisée par le PPE, c'est de rendre notre économie plus compétitive. Cela peut déjà se faire, cher José Manuel Barroso, en achevant enfin le marché intérieur. Toutes les lois, tous les textes ont été votés depuis longtemps. Le problème, encore une fois, est qu'ils ne sont pas appliqués. Je demande donc à la Commission de faire savoir au plus vite qui n'applique pas ces règles et de remplir son rôle de gardienne des traités, en contraignant ceux qui ne le font pas à les appliquer – peut-être la France aussi, mon cher ami, je ne fais pas d'exception. Chaque Européen doit savoir quel État joue le jeu du marché intérieur, et qui le freine ou qui le bloque.

Accroître notre compétitivité, cela peut se faire aussi en réduisant les charges qui pèsent sur les entrepreneurs et en réduisant les écarts considérables de charges entre nos pays, qui plombent la compétitivité. Cela peut se faire également en optimisant le rendement des Fonds européens non utilisés jusqu'à présent et rendus aux États. Le temps est venu de mieux utiliser ce reliquat – important – en l'investissant dans des projets communs porteurs de croissance et d'emploi.

Enfin, la croissance et la création d'emplois peuvent être encouragées grâce au redéploiement vers la recherche et l'innovation, ou vers la formation, de fonds publics qui ne sont pas porteurs d'investissements. Avec un quart des jeunes à la recherche d'un emploi, nous avons l'obligation d'offrir à ces derniers la possibilité d'acquérir des compétences solides et de les réorienter dans l'ensemble de la Communauté.

  Hannes Swoboda, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Den Medien kann man heute entnehmen, dass in der Euro-Zone die Arbeitslosenquote auf den höchsten Stand seit dreizehn Jahren klettert. Und was bietet uns der Rat? Einen Vertrag außerhalb der regulären Gemeinschaftsmethode, falsch in seiner Zielrichtung und unsicher, ob er überhaupt jemals in Kraft tritt. Die Gespaltenheit und die Kakofonie in der Europäischen Union gehen weiter.

Besonders wenn ich daran denke, dass es die abstruse Idee gab, einen EU- oder Staatskommissar für Griechenland zu benennen, der die demokratischen Institutionen in Griechenland aushebelt. Meine Fraktion ist vehement dagegen, Demokratie und die Bürgerinnen und Bürger in Griechenland durch einen Staatskommissar zu bevormunden. Das sollte klar sein.

(Beifall)

Die Situation ist allerdings auch die Konsequenz der Art und Weise, wie Frau Bundeskanzlerin Merkel die Führungsrolle Deutschlands missversteht. Ich bekenne mich zur Führungsrolle Deutschlands als ein großes, starkes, politisches und wirtschaftliches Land. Aber die Führungsrolle sollte heißen, die EU zusammenzuschweißen und nicht weiter zu spalten. Wie das Handelsblatt – wahrlich kein linkes Medium – schreibt: „Der deutsche Weg führt derzeit nicht nach Europa, er sollte aber nach Europa führen!“

(Beifall)

Wenn ich Frau Merkel einen Rat geben darf: Sie sollte sich nach einem neuen Partner umschauen, denn der zukünftige Präsident Frankreichs heißt François Hollande. Wir unterstützen den zukünftigen Präsidenten und vor allem auch seine Absicht, diesen Vertrag neu zu verhandeln. Wahlkampfauftritte für Herrn Sarkozy helfen ihm ohnedies nicht mehr und schaden nur Frau Merkel. Eine Neuorientierung wäre hier also angesagt.

Aber es sind auch die Inhalte, die nicht stimmen. Wenn ich daran denke, wie sich gerade die letzte Entwicklung in Portugal abgezeichnet hat. Diese Ratsbeschlüsse helfen nicht den Ländern, und sie helfen auch nicht den Märkten, zu mehr Stabilität zu kommen. Wir müssen Geld aus den Finanzmärkten in die Realwirtschaft bringen, vor allem durch eine Finanztransaktionssteuer. Wir müssen der Europäischen Investitionsbank mehr Möglichkeiten zur Kreditvergabe geben. Wir müssen auch den unteren Einkommensschichten Geld geben. Die brauchen das Geld und würden es auch ausgeben. Das ist die Zielrichtung!

Herr Ratspräsident, ich will nicht leugnen, dass es auch einige positive Elemente gegeben hat. Sie beschäftigen sich endlich auch mit der Arbeitslosigkeit, vor allem der Jugendarbeitslosigkeit. Aber können Sie mir erklären, warum man gegenüber Defizitsündern verbindliche Verträge und Sanktionen hat? Wenn es um Jugendarbeitslosigkeit geht, gibt es lahme Erklärungen und Empfehlungen. Das ist ein Ungleichgewicht, das wir nicht akzeptieren können!

(Beifall)

Zum Abschluss möchte ich Präsident Buzek herzlich danken, dass er darauf gedrängt hat, dass ein Team des Parlaments mitverhandeln kann. Ich möchte den Verhandlern herzlich danken. Sie haben einige große Fehler vermeiden können. Ich möchte aber vor allem unserem Präsidenten Martin Schulz danken: Sie haben die richtigen Worte und den passenden Ton gefunden, damit wir in der Europäischen Union auch gehört werden, wie es der Präsident der Kommission auch gesagt hat. So können wir gemeinsam verhindern, dass der Irrweg dieses Vertrags zur Regel wird. Wenn er überhaupt jemals angenommen und in Kraft treten wird, muss er die Ausnahme bleiben. In diesem Sinne, lieber Martin Schulz, bedauert man ja, wen man gewählt hat. In diesem Sinne müssen jene, die Martin Schulz nicht gewählt haben, bedauern, dass sie es nicht getan haben. Mit einer starken Stimme wird dieses Parlament in Zukunft auch noch stärker gehört werden!

(Beifall)

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

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Präsident, lieber Herr Swoboda! Würden Sie zur Kenntnis nehmen, dass dieselben Staaten, die im Moment in der Schuldenkrise in besonderen Schwierigkeiten stecken, auch die Staaten mit der höchsten Jugendarbeitslosigkeit sind! Würden Sie auch zur Kenntnis nehmen, dass Arbeitsmarktpolitik eine Sache der Mitgliedstaaten ist und Sanktionen dort, wo die Unternehmen Leute einstellen müssen, sicher nicht sinnvoll wären, sondern die Lage eher noch verschlimmern würden!

Würden Sie auch zur Kenntnis nehmen, dass die französischen Bürgerinnen und Bürger ihren Präsidenten selber wählen.

  Hannes Swoboda (S&D), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Präsident! Auf eine Frage ist die Antwort schon gekommen. Die Bürgerinnen und Bürger werden wählen, aber es zeichnet sich ja ganz deutlich ab, wie sie wählen werden. Und wenn Herr Sarkozy jetzt schon davon spricht, was er nach der Wahl in seinem Privatjob machen wird, dann hat er eigentlich selbst schon anerkannt, wie die Wahl ausgehen wird.

Zur anderen Frage möchte ich Ihnen ganz klar sagen: Für mich und meine Fraktion ist Jugendarbeitslosigkeit ein europäisches Thema. Wir können das nicht dulden. Und die Jugendarbeitslosigkeit ist auch so hoch, weil man den Marktkräften zu sehr vertraut und nicht daran gedacht hat, dass man manchmal auch aktive Maßnahmen setzen muss. Schauen Sie sich die Länder mit einer niedrigen Arbeitslosigkeit an. Kommen Sie nach Österreich, ich lade Sie ein. Wir haben eine der niedrigsten Arbeitslosenquoten, weil die Arbeitslosigkeit für uns – im Übrigen auch für die Kollegen der ÖVP – eine Schande ist. Wenn junge Leute ihren Job mit Arbeitslosigkeit beginnen müssen, ist das eine Schande, das können wir nicht dulden.

(Beifall)

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the summit on Monday was about jobs and growth, but I must say that, in my opinion – and my assessment is the same as that of my colleague Joseph Daul – it has mainly produced words. Seven pages of words and seven pages of good intentions. I think what we need now in the middle of this crisis is not seven pages of words, but acts – acts of the European Union and acts of the European institutions.

Let me give you just three examples. The first is the European patent. It is a major instrument for growth in Europe, but, for more than a year now, its introduction – which is so needed – has been blocked. Why is it blocked? Because, for the moment, the big countries cannot agree on the seat: that is the reality in Europe for the moment. On the seat! This is completely ridiculous and I should say even tragic, because, in the mean time, our small and medium enterprises are paying eight times more for the protection of their innovations than their American counterparts do. So I ask the President of the Council and the President of the Commission: if Germany, Britain and France really cannot agree, why can the EU leadership not put the seat temporarily in Brussels? Why are they not doing that – as we did, Mr Cohn-Bendit, with the European Food Agency in 2001? I think it is a shame to have a Council summit about growth but not to be capable of definitely launching the European patent in Europe.

Let me give a second example of this, namely the project bonds. How many times have we already discussed the project bonds in this Parliament? We have been discussing them for years. My question is: why do we not start tomorrow with project bonds in the European Union? Why is it necessary to wait for two years of discussion inside the Council and inside other institutions?

Let me give a third example of this, namely the enormous amount of unused money in the structural and other European funds. We could change the regulation immediately. You know what the problem is – if you put in one euro from the structural funds, you also need one euro from the country in question, and these countries, for example Greece and Portugal, cannot do this at the moment. So why is it not possible immediately to change the regulation and immediately to use this unused, unspent money for countries in recession, such as Portugal and Greece? That is what we need today – acts and not words, not the seven pages we have seen up to now.

Finally, I think another problem we have today is the existential problem that we have in this euro crisis. We have now secured a new treaty. We now have fiscal discipline – let us be honest, a six-pack, a two-pack, a new treaty – but how will we now deal with the high interest rates we still have, even after the intervention of the European Central Bank, in countries such as Spain and Italy? Everybody here knows that an interest rate of around 6% is not sustainable for Italy. Whatever decision Mr Monti may take, it is not sustainable and Italy cannot recover with a 6% interest rate.

We have already put more than EUR 1 000 billion into the fight against this crisis – EUR 1 trillion of taxpayers’ money – and the end is not in sight. The reason for this is that we always take half measures. We need a structural solution to this crisis. In my opinion a structural solution means a mutualisation of a part of the debt in a disciplined way.

That is the proposal of the five wise German economists: to create a redemption fund. Let us be clear. My conclusion is a message to the German taxpayers. If the solution we opt for is a redemption fund, it will be the bond holders who receive lower interest rates: they are the solution to the crisis, and not the German taxpayers. So my message today to all of you is: let us take up that proposal of a redemption fund and let us in our legislative work bring it about as fast as possible.

  Rebecca Harms, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Ich habe nach dem Gipfel in den Zeitungen gelesen, dass einige diesen Gipfel und den Fiskalpakt als „Meisterstück“ bezeichnen. Wenn man sich aber anschaut, was wirklich passiert ist, dann würde ich zu einer ganz anderen Bewertung kommen.

Was ist passiert? Wir haben einen Vertrag noch weiter in Vorbereitung; wir werden sehen, wo er endet. Einen Vertrag, der darauf zielt, dass existierende Verträge der Europäischen Union eingehalten werden, und diesen Vertrag siedelt man außerhalb der Europäischen Verträge an. Man schafft es auch noch, Demokratie im Zusammenhang mit diesem neuen Vertrag außerhalb der Verträge völlig an den Rand zu drängen.

Wenn das ein Meisterstück ist, meine Damen und Herrn, dann weiß ich nicht, Herr Van Rompuy, Herr Barroso, ob ich Sie noch ernst nehmen kann. Ich halte Sie eigentlich politisch für sehr viel weiser als die Reden, die Sie heute über diesen letzten informellen Gipfel und seine Ergebnisse gehalten haben. Ich möchte Ihnen sagen, dass ich das Ganze für eine politische Scharade halte. Ich glaube nicht, dass die Bürger darüber sehr vergnügt sind. Ich glaube, dass die Bürger mehr und mehr begreifen, dass sie mit dieser Scharade während der Gipfel betrogen werden.

Was ist das größte Problem? Das größte Problem ist meiner Meinung nach, dass die Analyse hinter diesem ganzen Fiskalpakt heißt, die öffentlichen Schulden seien das größte und Hauptproblem in der Krise. Und so sehr ich mich auch bemühe, die Analyse der Krise zu verstehen – ich komme nicht zu der gleichen Analyse. Aber dass wir uns nur noch um die Sanierung öffentlicher Haushalte streiten, das verschärft jetzt seit Jahr und Tag diese Krise. Und deswegen wirklich zu dem, was eigentlich hätte debattiert werden müssen: Dieses Antirezessionsprogramm für die Länder in der Krise, wo ist das denn? Sie erzählen jetzt hier auch schon wieder Anekdoten über „jobs and growth“. Ich habe erlebt, dass dieses ganze Kapitel als Randnotiz auf diesem Gipfel behandelt wurde, und ich kann doch noch lesen und rechnen. Wo ist denn das Geld, mit dem Sie diese Ansagen und Versprechen, die Sie jetzt mal auf blauen Dunst machen, hinterlegen? Ich kann es nicht finden.

Meine Damen und Herren, ein Blick nach Griechenland – ein Blick nach Portugal. Die Ansteckungsgefahr muss doch jedem bewusst sein. Was braucht jetzt Griechenland? Einen Sparkommissar? Ein weiteres Horrorinstrument, erdacht von europäischen Technokraten, die schon die technische Regierung eingesetzt und einen Finanzfachmann an die Spitze der griechischen Regierung gebracht haben, einen Sparkommissar? Meiner Meinung nach brauchen die Griechen endlich eine ehrliche Analyse und ein ehrliches Bekenntnis zu einer besseren Zukunft. Da ist ein Antirezessionsprogramm dringend erforderlich. Wir wissen, im Infrastrukturbereich, im Energieinfrastrukturbereich wären die Programme eigentlich fertig, in die wir reingehen könnten. Da hätten wir europäische Unternehmen, die in Griechenland investieren würden. Wir reden über einen Sparkommissar, statt mit den Griechen über das Griechenland von morgen zu diskutieren, statt die Griechen zu ermutigen. Ich fand, das war ein Tiefpunkt, dass dann sozusagen „unter ferner liefen“ auch noch einmal über Griechenland gesprochen wurde. Herr Van Rompuy, ich habe mich geschämt für diesen Gipfel.

Eine Sache zum Schluss. Wie mit den Noch-Nicht-Euro-Ländern umgegangen wird, das müssen sie mir wirklich einmal unter vier Augen erklären! Wie wollen Sie das rechtfertigen? Ich bin bestimmt nicht die engste Freundin von Donald Tusk. Er hat einen ganz anderen politischen Hintergrund als ich. Aber wenn es um Europa geht und darum, das Ganze zu denken und nicht die kleinkarierten Interessen der noch reichen europäischen Länder zu diskutieren, wenn es um das Ganze geht, dann finde ich, kann man sich an Donald Tusk ein Vorbild nehmen. Dass mit ihm über eine Rolle am Katzentisch der Großen gestritten werden muss, das war ein Tiefpunkt der europäischen Politik. Unter „Meisterleistung“ verstehe ich etwas anderes.

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, there seems to be some agreement in the House today that even if this pact is adopted and ratified – which of course is very far from a forgone conclusion if Mr Swoboda is right about what happens in France and other countries – it will do nothing to solve this current crisis. As a fiscal conservative myself, I should be delighted that we are enshrining fiscal discipline and balanced budgets within national laws and constitutions. However, as a democrat, what greatly concerns me is that an electorate’s ability to vote for a high-spending Keynesian economic policy is effectively being removed from them. We are making socialism illegal. This pact is effectively rendering all elections null and void across much of Europe.

Let me say this. As a free market conservative myself who finds much to admire in the German model of fiscal and monetary discipline, we cannot impose our vision by force of law; we must also use force of argument. We need to show that austerity is not forever, that there is light at the end of a tunnel but, as long as we cut off the possibility of a Member State leaving the euro, then we block that tunnel. We condemn many countries to years of deflation, of poverty and of emigration, with no end in sight. Recovery will not come to many of the countries in southern Europe, in my view, until they are free to reissue their own currencies and to price their way back into the market.

Nor of course can we preach austerity to them unless we practise it ourselves. Imagine how a European summit – with its banquets, its motorcycle outriders, the armies of hangers on – must look to a public sector worker who is facing redundancy because of government cutbacks. Imagine how taxpayers in our home countries feel when every pound or euro saved in domestic spending is swallowed up by higher contributions to the EU budget.

My group makes no apologies for being single-minded about the single market. We will continue to pursue this agenda of creating the single market, of further extending services and reviewing procurement rules to encourage innovation. We will continue to push for better implementation of existing single market rules. And of course opening the single market would be pointless unless we continue to open our markets to the rest of the world; the parts of the world, that is, where there is still growth happening.

But many of these actions are in the medium and the long term. There is one action, however, that we could take right here right now to show businesses our commitment to growth. Surely one of the best ways for the EU to speed up growth is to scrap the Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs in the Commission and repatriate its responsibilities to national governments. Then we could scrap the Working Time Directive, the Agency Workers Directive, the Pregnant Workers Directive and all of the other barriers to actually employing people if we really want to create jobs in Europe. We cannot create those jobs by talking about them; by passing resolutions. In fact, we Eurocrats and MEPs cannot actually create any jobs at all. What we can do is get out of the way and allow entrepreneurs to invent things, to make things and to sell things. That is where employment growth comes from and it is also where social security comes from.

When I was a new MEP we had something called the Lisbon Agenda. It was supposed to make Europe the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010. As Sarah Palin might have put it, ‘how is that working out for you?’

  Lothar Bisky, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Liberalisierung der Finanzmärkte hat zu Entwicklungen an den Märkten geführt, die bis heute nicht unter Kontrolle genommen wurden. Nur radikale Maßnahmen zur Verhinderung von spekulativen Aktivitäten an den Märkten können die Krise entscheidend eindämmen.

Stattdessen erleben wir mit der Annahme des Fiskalpaktes eine weitere Verschärfung der einseitigen Orientierung auf Austeritätspolitik und sozialen Kahlschlag. Diese radikale Linie des Schuldenabbaus und die Reduzierung der öffentlichen Haushalte lehnt meine Fraktion entschieden ab. Sie wird selbst vom Internationalen Währungsfonds kritisch bewertet.

Finanzguru Soros spricht davon, dass diese Sparpolitik Europa in eine deflationäre Schuldenspirale gestürzt hat. Bereits im Vertrag von Maastricht wurde die Schuldenbremse festgeschrieben, die Übernahme in nationales Recht soll jetzt ihre Durchsetzung erzwingen. Wenn das nicht geschieht, sollen die Staaten mit Hilfe der Kommission und des Europäischen Gerichtshofs bestraft werden. Das ist absurd, und das ist undemokratisch, denn die Staaten verlieren ihr wichtigstes Recht: die Haushaltshoheit.

Es ist weiterhin völlig inakzeptabel, dass die solidarische Hilfe für Staaten in Not an die Bedingung einer Unterzeichnung des Fiskalpakts gebunden wird. Damit wird das wichtigste Grundprinzip der Europäischen Union auf dem Altar der Finanzmärkte geopfert.

Die Linke setzt sich für eine Umkehr dieser desaströsen Politik ein. Wir brauchen einen Pakt für nachhaltiges Wachstum und für Beschäftigung. Wir brauchen öffentliche Programme für Investitionen für Umwelt und Bildung, und vor allem brauchen wir eine parlamentarische Mitsprache des Europäischen Parlaments und der Bürgerinnen und Bürger. Der Vertrag muss in Volksabstimmungen oder in öffentlichen Konsultationen gebilligt werden.

(Beifall)

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, first of all I would like to say: congratulations everybody! David Cameron had you worried for a bit, you even thought he was a Eurosceptic, but it is OK. You have had a quiet word with him and the real David Cameron is back. Whatever happened to the veto? No more vetoes any more. Indeed, Mr Cameron is now actively supporting this quite despicable pact, this plan to destroy and humiliate nation states that do not live up to a Germanic view of how economies ought to be run.

I must say I thought the weekend’s proposals from the German finance ministry suggesting that a European Commissioner and his staff occupy a big building in Athens and take over the running of the country – a Gauleiter, some might say – must be joke. Even this EU, I thought, could not possibly sink to those depths – but of course it was just a negotiating position and what we now have for Greece is diplomacy at gunpoint. It is the kind of strategy that Palmerston used against Athens back in the 19th century. Nobody can deny today that Greece is no more than a colony.

And this is all a terrible, huge mistake. Greece is not a failing subsidiary company where head office needs to come in and take control. Greece is a nation with a soul, a nation with pride, with history – goodness me, they invented democracy in the first place. They are suffering. They have youth unemployment of 50% caused, Mr Van Rompuy, because they are in the euro. You are causing the misery in these countries and you blather on about creating jobs and growth. None of this is actually going to happen.

And remember, these people are being driven into humiliation and desperation. Desperate people do desperate things, and I am deeply fearful for what will happen in Greece if we continue with this mad course. And of course, as Mr Barroso knows, it is going to be Portugal next.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, Mr Cameron said that he will not prevent EU institutions from being used to enforce the intergovernmental agreement on fiscal policy. It would appear that he is promising to refrain from doing something that he cannot completely prevent and in some areas would not need to prevent.

Article 8 of the draft agreement states that it will use Article 273 of the TFEU to enforce the agreement. It is true that Article 273 does say that ‘the Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in any dispute between Member States which relates to the subject matter of the Treaties if the dispute is submitted to it under a special agreement’. However, whilst it can adjudicate on such agreements, it probably does not have the power to fine Member States for not complying with them. Furthermore, its jurisdiction does not extend to adjudicating on excessive budget deficits.

Article 8 of the draft agreement does say that the Commission can initiate any action, but I am afraid that the draft agreement is not a treaty and so cannot grant that power. Article 273 of the Treaty refers only to disputes between Member States and not to disputes with the Commission. It would appear therefore that the Commission does not have the power to initiate any action. In fact, it would appear that the Commission will have no role in this draft agreement at all. The Court of Justice will be able to say whether or not a country has broken the agreement but it will not be able to compel an erring country to obey.

If eurozone countries want an agreement that can be enforced, they will need a new treaty which will have to be agreed unanimously. In my view it would be disastrous for Britain to agree to such a mechanism because it might be used today to enslave eurozone countries but one day it will be used to enslave us.

  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte an Nigel Farage. – Herr Präsident, an den Hassprediger Farage möchte ich meine Frage richten. Er hat hier von Gauleiter gesprochen. Ich wehre mich als Deutscher dagegen, dass das demokratische Deutschland mit dem Nationalsozialismus gleichgesetzt wird. Deswegen möchte ich eine Entschuldigung von diesem Herrn. Niemand in Berlin setzt irgendwo in Europa Gauleiter ein. Das ist Hass, gepredigt im Europäischen Parlament, Hass zwischen europäischen Völkern. Das sollte er zurücknehmen, oder Sie sollten dafür sorgen, dass er so etwas nicht wiederholt.

(Beifall)

  Nigel Farage (EFD), blue-card answer to Reinhard Bütikofer. – Mr President, I did not use the word ‘Gauleiter’, I said ‘as some might say’, and indeed the biggest selling Sunday newspaper in Britain used that word. If you want to talk about hatred, just look at what this European project is doing. We have German newspapers slagging off the Italians for being cowards, slagging off the Greeks for being lazy and useless, and we have Italian and Greek newspapers depicting leading figures in Germany wearing Nazi uniforms. Surely the whole point is that this project that was designed to bring us all together in peace and harmony is actually ripping us apart and bringing back nationalisms. And if there was one country I really had a go at in my speech, it was actually the United Kingdom because I admitted the way we behaved towards Greece in the 19th century was not acceptable.

  Der Präsident. − Den Nationalismus in diesem Hause propagieren diejenigen, die ihre Flaggen auf ihre Sitze stellen, um ihren Nationalismus hier zu dokumentieren. Soweit ich weiß, gehören Sie auch dazu.

  Elmar Brok (PPE). - Herr Präsident, Herr Ratspräsident, Herr Kommissionspräsident! Zuerst möchte ich mich bedanken, dass Herr Barroso und Herr van Rompuy und seine Mitarbeiter dem Verhandlungsteam des Europäischen Parlaments in der Tat erfolgreiche Kooperation geboten haben.

Zweitens muss ich sagen, dass wir diesen Vertrag nicht wollten. Wir wollten einen Gemeinschaftsvertrag haben. Aber dies war wegen der Haltung des Vereinigten Königreichs nicht möglich, weil es die Bedingung gestellt hat, dass wir den Finanzmarkt nicht regulieren. Wir möchten den Finanzmarkt regulieren, damit dieses Casino uns nicht kaputtmacht, und deswegen mussten wir das, was das Vereinigte Königreich gefordert hat, ablehnen.

Aus bestimmten Zirkeln kommt jetzt die Sprache der Vergangenheit! Diese Europäische Union hat Frieden, Freiheit und Wohlfahrt für die Völker gebracht wie niemals zuvor in der Geschichte dieses Kontinentes, und das lasse ich mir durch den Hass von Herrn Farage und anderen, die hier geredet haben, nicht kaputtmachen.

(Beifall)

Dieser Vertrag macht die Schuldenbremse, die umgekehrte Mehrheit und den Europäischen Gerichtshof möglich. Das ist mit dem heutigen Gemeinschaftsvertrag nicht möglich. Aber wir sollten dafür Sorge tragen, dass alles andere im Rahmen der Gemeinschaftsgesetzgebung kommt, und dies haben wir auch mit viel Unterstützung hinbekommen. Es sollen Gemeinschaftsregeln gelten und es soll alles im Rahmen, der Gemeinschaftsgesetzgebung, unter Berücksichtigung der Mitentscheidungsrechte des Europäischen Parlaments, gemacht werden. Herr Präsident Barroso, wir bitten Sie, dass dafür jetzt auch schnell Vorschläge kommen, und zwar nicht nur Twopack, sondern auch in anderen Bereichen und bei der Umsetzung des Wachstumspakets, damit wir konkret etwas machen können.

Griechenland und andere Länder brauchen Licht am Ende des Tunnels. In der Tat, die Bürger müssen sehen, dass Bagger fahren und gearbeitet wird, für die Zukunft. Wir brauchen fiskale Disziplin. Wir brauchen Strukturveränderung in diesen Ländern. Damit Wettbewerbshemmnisse verschwinden, das ist meist nationale Gesetzgebung. Aber wir müssen auch europäische Möglichkeiten nutzen. Wenn ich sehe, dass 16 Milliarden Euro auf dem Konto liegen für Griechenland, aber die griechische Verwaltung nicht in der Lage ist, dafür Projekte vorzulegen, dann muss man ihnen helfen. Das ist es, Herr Swoboda, was jetzt kommt. Wir müssen ihnen helfen, dass sie ihre Verwaltung in den Griff bekommen, damit sie Wachstum erzeugen können. Nur darum geht es. Frau Merkel kämpft für Disziplin, für Strukturveränderungen und für Wachstum. Das ist der Dreiklang. Sie vergessen die Disziplin und zerstören die Zukunft kommender Generationen, wenn sie die Disziplin vergessen. Auch dieses muss in diesem Zusammenhang gesehen werden.

(Beifall)

Die Gemeinschaftsmethode, die Rechte des Europäischen Parlaments sind hier gewahrt. Aber ich bin der Auffassung, dass wir die doppelte Solidarität brauchen, die Frau Merkel möchte. Jeder versucht, seinen Laden in Ordnung zu bringen. Auf dieser Grundlage helfen wir. Das ist diese Strategie. Die Sozialisten sollten doch jetzt bitte für Herrn Sarkozy stimmen, denn er hat jetzt einen financial transactionact vorgeschlagen. Das sollten wir doch unterstützen. Mitterrand brauchte zwei Jahre, bis er dem Sozialismus abschwor, weil Frankreich pleite war. Wenn Hollande gewählt würde – was ich nicht hoffe –, wird er sich in vierzehn Tagen umstellen müssen, vom Wahltag bis zu seinem Amtsantritt, weil sonst Frankreich kaputtgehen würde.

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

  Der Präsident. − Herr Brok, ich habe Ihnen ausnahmsweise mehr als eine Minute zusätzlich gegeben, weil Sie einer der erfolgreichen Verhandler dieses Hauses waren. Das war sozusagen die Verhandlungsprämie.

  Barry Madlener (NI), "blauwe kaart"-vraag. – Mijnheer Farage heeft hier natuurlijk wel een heel belangrijk punt duidelijk gemaakt, want mijnheer Brok kan wel zeggen dat Europa voor vrede zorgt, maar zoals het nu gaat zal dat niet zo lang meer duren, ben ik bang. Waar het wel om gaat is: vindt mijnheer Brok zelf en ook namens zijn fractie, dat het normaal is om een land onder curatele te zetten, zonder de bewoners van dat land in een referendum te raadplegen?

En vindt u het normaal dat er misschien Eurobonds ingevoerd gaan worden zonder uw landgenoten, de Duitsers of de Nederlanders te laten stemmen of te laten kiezen of zij dat willen? De grens van wat democratisch kan, is natuurlijk wel overschreden.

Ik wil u dus vragen, mijnheer Brok: vindt u ook niet dat de Grieken aan het woord zijn en de Duitsers en de Nederlanders, om via een referendum te bepalen wat zij als toekomst van Europa zien?

  Elmar Brok (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Präsident! Herr Kollege, erstens müssen wir festhalten, jedes Land muss sich an seine Regeln halten, und dafür muss Sorge getragen werden. Wenn man Regeln akzeptiert, Verträge unterschreibt, Gesetzgebung macht, muss man darauf achten, dass das angewandt wird. Um nichts anderes geht es.

Zweitens können alle die Maßnahmen, die jetzt beschlossen werden, nur mit Beschlüssen der nationalen Parlamente gefasst werden, des griechischen, des deutschen, des niederländischen, nur nicht des britischen, weil das Vereinigte Königreich sich nicht an der Solidaritätsaktion für Griechenland beteiligt. Das muss in dem Zusammenhang – Herr Farage, auch wegen Ihrer Sorgen um die kleinen Leute – hier einmal gesagt werden.

Und ich meine, dass wir aus diesem Grund heraus nur einen solchen Sparkommissar haben könnten, wenn es eine gemeinsame Regel mit Rechtsgrundlage gibt, die für alle Länder gelten würde, die sich nicht an die Regeln halten. Deswegen lehne ich es entschieden ab – und das ist die Position der Bundesregierung –, dass es hier keine Speziallösung für Griechenland geben kann.

  Stephen Hughes (S&D). - Mr President, the statement on growth and jobs agreed on Monday finally calls for ‘smart fiscal consolidation preserving investment in future growth, sound macroeconomic policies and an active employment strategy preserving social cohesion’. That is exactly what my group has been calling for since the start of the crisis.

The problem is that you have already made the choice of a dumb, rather than a smart, approach to fiscal consolidation. That dumb approach is embodied in the so-called six-pack and it is made even worse by this new international treaty. That framework prevents us from ‘preserving investment in future growth’ as the conclusion said.

If you really want to be smart, you can do much more. The Council could join this Parliament in seeking to put in place a real system of Eurobonds that would lower our interest rates on public debt and create room for manoeuvre for new investment. What is more, the Council could agree a more ambitious financial transactions tax, as we proposed, to generate up to EUR 200 billion of annual revenue. That would be smart. All that we can hope is that the inverse relationship between the Council’s use of the language of ‘smartness’ and the state of our economies will lead to a breakthrough soon for a true smart response to the crisis.

Finally, a word on Mr Callanan’s speech: he claims to deplore the fact that this treaty would make socialism illegal, but then he goes on to say that he would scrap all of the fruits of socialism. I would like to thank him for putting so clearly on the record the Conservative position.

  Sharon Bowles (ALDE). - Mr President, jobs and growth have made it to the top of the agenda and action needs to follow. The other issue that has made the top of the agenda is the crisis for youth, but it is more than the fact that we just have devastatingly high numbers of young jobless. The ECB liquidity operations may have lifted the mood, but we should not be deceived. Potentially 2 trillion plus being sucked up by the banking system by next June should tell us that some kind of transfer already is going on. The question is: will this generation face up to it or foist it, along with joblessness, on to the younger generation? They face no jobs, no home ownership, and a financial system stuffed with the bonds of this generation’s failure.

And for those who try to lay the blame on the EBA for its bank stress tests, I would like to remind Member States that the deal was a combination of stress tests and firewall, and it is the constant delay in the firewalls that has made matters worse – among, of course, a few other delays.

  Derk Jan Eppink (ECR). - Mr President, I would firstly like to welcome the fiscal compact. In fact it comes 10 years too late. A monetary union needs budgetary underpinning, without which it will crumble.

But the long-term objective does not solve short-term problems. Greece will not recover in the eurozone, Portugal is a cliff-hanger, and Italy, Spain and France lost their competitiveness years ago, partly because of the euro. Transfers will not cure the loss of competitiveness. Nor will increased taxation, as Mr Sarkozy thinks. Every time he appears on television he proposes a new tax. I wonder why French socialists still need a presidential candidate because Mr Sarkozy is turning socialist by the day.

Now we also have a Brussels-based budget tsar. Mr Rehn is from a country that once lived under tsarist rule. He knows all about it, but in the end Moscow never succeeded in imposing policies on neighbouring states like the one of budget tsar Mr Rehn.

Mr Barroso, this is an important historic lesson to keep in mind – but Mr Barroso has gone.

  Søren Bo Søndergaard (GUE/NGL). - Hr. formand! Først vil jeg egentlig godt udtrykke min beundring for topmødets resultat. Det var virkeligt ufatteligt! Hvis der er lande, der har problemer med økonomien, så idømmer man dem en bøde – og vupti! – Det skal afhjælpe problemet! Men hvorfor kunne vi så ikke have fundet på det noget tidligere? Så enkelt, så effektivt! Hvorfor ikke bruge denne metode på andre problemer? F.eks. kan et land, der har alt for stor arbejdsløshed, bare få en bøde! Eller hvad med et land som har for mange fattige? Bekæmp fattigdommen ved hjælp af bøder! Men så langt ønskede statslederne ikke at gå. Millioner i EU er fattige og arbejdsløse. Det kan godt accepteres uden bøder, men hvis et land vælger at gennemføre massive offentlige investeringer f.eks. ved at tage lån for at skabe grønne job indenfor sol-, vind- og bølgeenergi og dermed skabe arbejdspladser, så falder EUs hammer! Undskyld mig, men er det ikke en meget enøjet økonomisk politik? Jeg forstår godt, at topmødet blev mødt af en generalstrejke for de belgiske arbejdere. Det vil vi se oftere og oftere, hvis den politik fortsætter.

  Νίκη Τζαβέλα (EFD). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, οι τελευταίες αποφάσεις του Συμβουλίου συμβάλλουν στην ολοκλήρωση της ενιαίας αγοράς και της οικονομικής διακυβέρνησης. Σας ερωτώ αν αυτό το οποίο παρακολουθήσαμε σήμερα εδώ μας δείχνει ότι ουσιαστικά οδεύουμε προς μια ενιαία Ευρώπη. Είναι ο στόχος μας να γίνουμε η Ευρώπη των ενωμένων κρατών κατά το πρότυπο των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών; Έχετε δει ποτέ αξιωματούχο από το Μίσιγκαν να επιτίθεται στην υπερχρεωμένη Καλιφόρνια, όπως κάνουν διάφοροι επιφανείς ευρωπαίοι πολιτικοί; Ουσιαστικά πιστεύω ότι όλοι μας κάνουμε ό,τι είναι δυνατόν για να αποδομήσουμε το ευρωπαϊκό οικοδόμημα με κριτική, με σχόλια, με ανόητες προτάσεις και με ακρισία η οποία επιβάλλει πολιτικές σε χώρες και άρα σε ανθρώπους, στους πολίτες τους. Παρακολουθούμε διαδικασίες καταστρατήγησης της δημοκρατίας και των δημοκρατικών διαδικασιών, παρακολουθούμε διαδικασίες καταστρατήγησης των νόμων του Διεθνούς Γραφείου Εργασίας.

Ως ελληνίδα αποδέχομαι κάθε εποικοδομητική κριτική για ό,τι έκανε και κάνει η χώρα μου αλλά πιστεύω όμως ότι όλη η Ευρώπη κρύβεται πίσω από τη μικρή Ελλάδα, σαν να έχει η Ελλάδα μόνη της όλα τα προβλήματα της κρίσης, σαν να οικοδομήσαμε το ευρώ σε μια πολύ σωστή βάση, σαν να μην έχει γίνει κανένα λάθος από κανέναν. Όσο υπάρχει πρόβλημα Ελλάδος, υπάρχει και πρόβλημα Ευρώπης. Κάνουμε έκκληση σε όλους εσάς να σταματήστε να ασχολείστε με την Ελλάδα διότι εμείς τη δουλειά μας θα την κάνουμε και κάνουμε έκκληση προς τους γερμανούς συναδέλφους γιατί ήδη δημιουργείται χάσμα που έχει όνομα και πρόσωπο· αυτό της Γερμανίας. Ήδη τα ΜΜΕ στη Νότια Ευρώπη αποκαλούν τη Γερμανία «έφηβο ηγεμόνα». Προβληματίζομαι και φοβάμαι πάρα πολύ για όλα όσα συμβαίνουν. Θα πρέπει όλοι να ενώσουμε τις δυνάμεις μας για να προχωρήσουμε.

  Barry Madlener (NI). - De eerste Eurotop van het nieuwe jaar zit er alweer op, wat de PVV betreft een totaal overbodige top, opnieuw. Er is weer niets besloten. Er werden vage plannen gesmeed om de jeugdwerkloosheid in de Eurozone in te dammen en Griekenland kwam niet eens aan de orde.

Voorzitter, wanneer verlaat Griekenland de muntunie? Ook een 70% haircut brengt hun staatsschuld in 2020 niet onder de 120%. U weet dat, ik weet dat en alle onafhankelijke economen weten dat. U speelt poker met belastinggeld van de burger, liar's poker.

En dan de begrotingsdiscipline: dat schijnt het toverwoord voor 2012 te zijn. Maar u weet toch ook, Voorzitter, dat een sterk krimpende economie geen adelaarsjongen baart. Hoe kunt u, mijnheer Barroso, verdedigen dat aan dat kleine Portugese pensioentje van 200 euro per maand getornd moet worden? En helpen doet het niet eens, getuige het feit dat de Portugese rente gisteren tot recordhoogte is gestegen.

De markten geloven er niet in. Het is hetzelfde als de vraag of water kan branden. Het is kansloos, mijnheer de Voorzitter. Er zijn op dit moment 23 miljoen Europeanen werkloos. In Zuid-Europa zit straks meer dan de helft van de jongeren tot 25 jaar zonder werk. Ik dacht dat de EU beloofd had om voor welvaart te zorgen, maar in plaats daarvan bezorgt de EU ons een nachtmerrie.

Tot slot, Voorzitter, dat verschrikkelijke ESM-Verdrag. Graag hadden wij inzage gekregen in de goedgekeurde nieuwe tekst, maar die wordt kennelijk pas wereldkundig gemaakt als het verdrag door de Europese Raad is ondertekend. Wij zouden graag weten waar wij aan toe zijn, Voorzitter, de tijd dringt.

  Der Präsident. − Das Wort hat jetzt Kollege Reul für die EVP-Fraktion, neu gewählter Vorsitzender der CDU/CSU-Delegation. Glückwunsch dazu.

  Herbert Reul (PPE). - Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Ich finde, das war eine gute Lösung, die erreicht worden ist. Ich hätte mir bessere vorstellen können. Aber manchmal gibt es in der Politik Zeiten und Situationen, da muss man versuchen, das Bestmögliche zu erreichen. Da muss man auch zufrieden sein und dann weiterarbeiten – Step by Step.

Übrigens, das, was jetzt erreicht worden ist, liegt auf der Linie dessen, was wir vor einem halben Jahr im Rahmen des Sixpack beschlossen haben. Ich verstehe die Aufregung hier überhaupt nicht. Wir haben doch gewollt, dass man sparsam mit dem Geld umgeht. Wir haben doch gesagt, passt auf eure Verschuldung auf. Wir haben doch gesagt, wir müssen uns um das Wachstum kümmern. Und jetzt wird es gemacht. Nicht in der Form und nicht in der Art wie wir es wollten, das ist richtig.

Unsere Kollegen waren beteiligt und haben versucht, an manchen Stellen das Beste in Richtung Gemeinschaftsrecht noch nachzubessern. Herr Brok hat gerade darauf hingewiesen. Und dann erleben wir hier so eine Show von Vorsitzenden großer Fraktionen, die eine Parteipolitik übelster Form machen. Ich muss schon sagen, in den Zeiten, in denen Europa solche Probleme hat, eine solche Show hier abzuziehen, ist unverantwortlich, unverantwortlich. Ich bin entsetzt. Ich bin wirklich entsetzt, wie man mit der Frage umgeht. Herr Präsident, wenn solche Fragen hier anstehen, so eine billige Parteipolitik zu machen!

Davon zu reden, dass wir Europa zusammenführen müssen und das anderen vorwerfen und dann selber hier Hass und Spaltung vorantreiben. Also, mein lieber Mann, wenn ich solche Worte hier wählen würde, wie das manche Kollegen hier gemacht haben, und zwar Vorsitzende von Fraktionen, dann muss ich mich jetzt bescheiden zurücksetzen und sagen, so kann man nicht miteinander umgehen, und so kriegt man keine Lösung für ein gemeinschaftliches Europa hin. So nicht.

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

  Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Wenn ich das richtig sehe, dann ist ja das Sixpack, das wir hier in diesem Haus mit einer Mehrheit beschlossen haben – nicht das gesamte Haus, sondern eine Mehrheit –, europäische Gesetzgebung, die bereits funktioniert. Ab wann wird denn der Fiskalpakt liefern, und in welchen Ländern wird dieser Fiskalpakt zusätzlich Stabilität produzieren? Ab wann, Herr Reul?

  Herbert Reul (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Ich kann Ihnen kein Datum nennen, aber es wird zügig gehen, dass wissen Sie doch. Sie wissen auch genau, dass alle Beschlüsse, die wir fassen, hier immer eine bestimmte Frist der Umsetzung brauchen. Das ist auf dem gleichen Weg, und sie haben es inhaltlich kritisiert. Sie haben doch nicht die Frist kritisiert. Sie haben es eben inhaltlich kritisiert, das Verfahren, das hier am Montag beschlossen worden ist, und das finde ich scheinheilig.

  Catherine Trautmann (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, je ne vais pas me livrer à un exercice de politique politicienne – je veux rassurer M. Reul – car je pense que ce traité nous met en situation d'échec et je le regrette profondément.

Je le regrette parce qu'il est inefficace pour répondre au marché face à la crise car il ne restitue pas la confiance. Nous observons pendant la même période, les problèmes de la Grèce et du Portugal. Nous voyons deux pays, qui sont les plus grands contributeurs à notre budget, la France et l'Allemagne, qui divisent par deux leur taux de croissance. Nous entendons que c'est la rédaction de ce traité qui, normalement, aurait dû arranger les choses et rassurer tout le monde, y compris la population. En réalité, c'est l'action de la BCE, qui a mis des liquidités, à hauteur de 500 milliards, à disposition des banques, qui a eu un effet positif.

Mais il nous faut, dans ce Parlement, nous rendre compte que nous devons être cohérents. Nous sommes mandatés par nos électeurs; et nos électeurs, ce sont les retraités surendettés, ce sont les salariés qui ont défilé dans les rues de Bruxelles, ce sont les chômeurs qui attendent du travail, ce sont les jeunes qui veulent avoir une perspective. Nous ne pouvons nous contenter de critiquer un traité qui est axé uniquement sur la discipline budgétaire, sur la sanction, et qui, pire, introduit un gouvernement des juges au détriment de la souveraineté des parlements nationaux. Nous devrions, nous députés au Parlement européen, nous insurger contre ces résultats et faire des propositions.

J'ai, quant à moi, des propositions à faire. Il ne s'agit pas seulement de condamner. Je crois, Monsieur le Président, que ce que nous pouvons proposer aujourd'hui pour l'Europe, c'est un cercle vertueux, un pacte européen de responsabilité, de gouvernance et de croissance. Il faut renégocier ce traité, sur des bases qui permettent une véritable coordination des politiques économiques, comprenant des projets industriels pour faire travailler nos usines et nos salariés, des projets dans le domaine de l'énergie et de l'environnement, la création des euro-obligations, qui ont été lamentablement oubliées ou biffées, et une régulation financière. Il faut de la justice, il faut de la solidarité. Voilà ce que nous devons défendre dans ce Parlement.

  Mario Mauro (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, desidero ringraziare il Presidente del Parlamento per come ha difeso in questa circostanza non solo le prerogative della nostra assemblea ma anche la democraticità del processo decisionale delle Istituzioni europee, dando così maggiore forza al lavoro encomiabile dei colleghi Brok, Verhofstadt e Gualtieri.

Signor Commissario, la strategia europea per la crescita è contenuta in quei riferimenti dei risultati del Consiglio che rimandano, com'è giusto, alle proposte che farà la Commissione europea. Noi vogliamo sostenere la Commissione in questo compito. Innovate dunque il processo decisionale, aprendo non solo a valle ma anche a monte di questo processo al contributo delle commissioni parlamentari. In questo modo, avremo non solo più trasparenza ma anche più efficacia.

Signor Presidente del Consiglio, lei ha ascoltato nell'Aula oggi l'eco sorda e cupa dei nazionalismi che dimenticano che sessantacinque anni di pace e sviluppo per l'Europa sono l'eccezione, non sono la regola della nostra storia. La prego, ci aiuti a farlo percepire a chi tra i capi di governo è tentato di rincorrere più il consenso di un'opinione pubblica incerta che non la sensatezza e la bellezza del progetto europeo.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, commentando le non memorabili conclusioni del vertice del 9 dicembre abbiamo detto che questo Parlamento avrebbe vigilato e avrebbe lavorato per limitare i danni di quella scelta non felicissima.

Così è stato. L'impegno unitario del Parlamento nel difficile negoziato che si è svolto ha sicuramente contribuito a evitare il peggio. Vi era il concreto rischio che il nuovo trattato minasse seriamente il diritto e le istituzioni comuni europee, istituendo norme, meccanismi e procedure esterni all'Unione e in contraddizione con le sue leggi.

Ora non è più così. Il Parlamento, la Commissione e il Presidente del Consiglio europeo hanno sventato questo pericolo. Ora l'implementazione del trattato dovrà avvenire attraverso la legislazione dell'Unione. I parametri di definizione del deficit e del debito sono stati sostanzialmente, anche se non completamente, ricondotti al quadro normativo vigente e l'ipotesi sciagurata di una nuova istituzione parlamentare è stata scongiurata.

Ma anche se abbiamo limitato significativamente il danno, il fiscal compact non è una risposta adeguata alla crisi. Permangono aspetti inaccettabili e poco saggi, come la limitazione delle modalità della presenza del Parlamento agli eurosummit. La possibilità della Corte di comminare sanzioni appare giuridicamente molto dubbia. Solo se le proposte che questo Parlamento avanza in modo unitario nella sua risoluzione – la tassa sulle transazioni finanziarie, i project bond, gli stability bond – verranno finalmente accolte, l'Europa potrà superare una crisi che il rigore fiscale a senso unico rischia invece di aggravare.

  Der Präsident. − Herr Gualtieri, auch Ihnen gilt der Dank für die hervorragende Verhandlungsarbeit. Ich muss mich noch bei Kollegen Verhofstadt entschuldigen. Ich habe mich bei allen bedankt, bei Herrn Brok, bei Herrn Gualtieri, bei Ihnen nicht. Das liegt daran, dass Sie Fraktionsvorsitzender sind, dass Sie in Doppelfunktion da waren. Ich glaube die Verhandler des Parlaments haben exzellente Arbeit geleistet. Deshalb an alle noch einmal einen herzlichen Dank.

  Constance Le Grip (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, je voulais apporter le soutien de la délégation française du groupe PPE au traité sur la stabilité, la coordination et la gouvernance économique européenne, ainsi qu'aux principales conclusions auxquelles est parvenu le Conseil. Ne nous y trompons pas. Ce traité représente un pas important en faveur de plus d'intégration économique et budgétaire, en faveur de plus de stabilité financière. Redisons-le ici. Il ne peut y avoir de relance durable de la croissance et de l'emploi sans assainissement de nos finances publiques. Bien sûr, la croissance ne se décrète pas; ce n'est pas un traité qui, à lui seul, peut ranimer la croissance. Mais un traité, c'est-à-dire un ensemble de règles et d'engagements mutuels, peut apporter la confiance et la responsabilisation.

Comme le président du groupe socialiste a cru bon d'introduire de la politique politicienne dans cet hémicycle, en faisant allusion à la campagne présidentielle française à venir et en évoquant le candidat socialiste à cette élection présidentielle française, je voulais riposter. Nous considérons, au PPE, totalement irresponsables les déclarations du candidat socialiste français qui a affirmé vouloir renégocier le traité conclu à 25. Renégocier quoi et avec qui? Ces paroles sont totalement irresponsables. Elles font peu de cas de la parole de l'État français, du respect des engagements de l'État français.

  Der Präsident. − Das Wort hat Kollege Bullmann, der heute zum Vorsitzenden der SPD-Delegation gewählt wurde. Die Deutschen haben Wahlfieber. Herzlichen Glückwunsch, Herr Bullmann.

  Udo Bullmann (S&D). - Herr Präsident, wehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ein schneller Blick in die harte ökonomische Wirklichkeit: Am Gipfeltag haben die Märkte die Staatsschuldpapiere in Portugal für zehnjährige Anleihen über 17 % Zinsen gewertet, für fünfjährige Anleihen über 20 %. Soviel zu der Frage, wie viel der Gipfel zur Beruhigung der ökonomischen Lage beigetragen hat, oder so viel zu der Frage, was denn der neue zwischenstaatliche Vertrag an Ruhe in das Marktgeschehen hineingebracht hat.

Wenn der eine oder andere sich fragt, woher die Unruhe kommt, dann vielleicht von den ökonomischen Daten und von dem Gefühl, dass es nicht reicht, was wir gemacht haben. Herr Präsident Schulz, ich will Ihnen ausdrücklich für die Courage und die Klarheit danken, mit der Sie bei diesem Gipfel für dieses Haus angetreten sind, um zu sagen: Ja – wir verteidigen die Gemeinschaftsmethode, Ja – wir wollen konsolidieren, aber wir müssen auch investieren, damit Europas Volkswirtschaften blühen können.

Auf dieser Linie glaube ich, wird sich dieses Haus einigen lassen, und wir werden eine gemeinsame Wirtschaftspolitik weiterentwickeln können.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE). - Mr President, let me mention one added value which we should exploit while looking at the implementation of the fiscal pact.

Our economic policies are facing credibility tests by financial markets and we have to act in a spirit of unity and solidarity with the Union and avoid unnecessary divisions. Those who are macro-financially healthier should provide credibility to those who are macro-financially weaker.

That leads me to two conclusions. First, we should share credibility via mutualisation of debt – being an added value added – in exchange for executable deficit and debt rigours. Second, given that 12 of the 17 eurozone Member States exceed the golden limit of a 60% debt/GDP ratio, while only one of the eight future members of the eurozone – non-eurozone today – exceeds that limit, one could say that those healthier non-eurozone countries provide credibility to the present members of the eurozone, and not the other way round. It would be another added value for the eurozone, and it would be in its interest, as a rule, to allow those countries to join eurozone summits.

  Elisa Ferreira (S&D). - Podia dizer que este tratado é inútil. Infelizmente ele é sobretudo perigoso. Primeiro porque vem reforçar com mais castigos e regras rígidas uma receita que não resulta. A espiral recessiva está lançada. Quem pode confiar num médico que não distingue emagrecimento de anorexia? Um médico que, quanto mais o doente enfraquece, mais insiste no remédio, enquanto discute abertamente a probabilidade da sua morte? Quantos mais países têm de entrar em recessão para que Comissão e Conselho percebam que o diagnóstico está errado? Mas é perigoso também! Porque nós aqui representamos os cidadãos da Europa. 23 milhões e 700 mil estão desempregados. Quase 6 milhões de jovens não têm esperanças de encontrar emprego. Não perceberá o Conselho, e a Comissão, que ignorar este facto, não dar uma resposta adequada, revela um autismo e uma insensibilidade que são politicamente explosivos?

Sejamos claros. A grande recessão não é uma fatalidade, é uma obsessão ideológica. Há uma agenda alternativa. Ela tem que ser, no entanto, não de palavras, mas de ação. Onde estão os project bonds para financiar o investimento europeu? Onde está o reforço do orçamento europeu com o imposto sobre os produtos financeiros especulativos? Onde está a barreira que devia proteger os países dos juros ruinosos que os mercados lhes impõem levando-os à ruína?

Os cidadãos exigem opções e não palavras, mas opções competentes.

  Μαριέττα Γιαννάκου (PPE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η σύνοδος Κορυφής θα μπορούσε να θεωρηθεί θετική για την ανάπτυξη και τη δημιουργία θέσεων εργασίας, αλλά παραμένει σε θεωρητικό επίπεδο. Τέσσερα χρόνια μετά την έναρξη της κρίσης, δεν υπάρχει ακόμη μια σταθερή απόφαση για έξοδο από αυτή όλης της Ευρώπης. Το Σύμφωνο Σταθερότητας, όπως γνωρίζουμε όλοι, δεν ήταν πραγματικά αναγκαίο σε νομικό επίπεδο αλλά προφανώς ήταν αναγκαίο ως μάθημα πειθαρχίας ή και απειλής για αυτούς που παρεκκλίνουν από τους κανόνες. Ας δεχθούμε λοιπόν ότι αυτή είναι η λύση αφού όλες οι υπόλοιπες δυνατές λύσεις θα είναι χειρότερες για τα ισχυρά κράτη μέλη της Ένωσης. Η ύφεση δεν πρόκειται από μόνη της να δώσει λύση στο πρόβλημα σε καμιά χώρα και ιδιαίτερα στη δική μου. Η δημοσιονομική πειθαρχία και το πρόγραμμα λιτότητας είναι απολύτως αναγκαία, αλλά χωρίς ανάπτυξη αποτελούν μια αδιέξοδη πολιτική που θα έχει ολέθρια αποτελέσματα όχι μόνο για τις χώρες στις οποίες εφαρμόζεται αλλά για το σύνολο της Ευρώπης.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). - Örülök, hogy az informális csúcs központi témája a gazdasági növekedés és a munkahelyteremtés lett. Ugyanakkor nem megkerülhető az a tény, hogy decembertől tart az a folyamat, amely egy nem kellően előkészített kormányközi paktumot a közösségi joggal összhangba hoz.

Legyünk őszinték: nem véletlen, hogy számos képviselő úgy véli, hogy ez az új kormányközi megállapodástervezet szükségtelen volt, és semmi újat nem tartalmaz a korábban elfogadott hatos csomaghoz képest. Ezt a nézetet nem osztom. Ugyanakkor rendkívül sajnálom, hogy ez a tartalom a hatos csomagba korábban nem kerülhetett be.

Ezzel egyidőben azonban hangsúlyozni szeretném, hogy minden, a közös gazdaságirányítást segítő és minden közös európai fellépést sürgető megállapodás fontos. Nemcsak a szavak szintjén, hanem tettekkel is alátámasztva. Mégsem vagyok teljesen elégedett, mert a közös fellépés nem valósulhat meg. Sajnos nem mindenki írta alá a paktumot, másrészt pedig a „summit” közül nem fogják meghívni a zónán kívüli tagállamokat mind a két eseményre.

Persze minden jó, ha a vége jó, örülök, hogy pont kerül az aláírással a paktumnak a végére, és remélem, hogy március végéig elegendő idő áll rendelkezésre, hogy a hiányosságokat még kiküszöböljék.

„Catch the eye“-Verfahren

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). - Datorită situaţiei alarmante în ceea ce priveşte rata şomajului în rândul tinerilor, includerea pe ordinea de zi a Consiliului a dezbaterii privind stimularea ocupării forţei de muncă pentru această categorie a populaţiei, a fost foarte benefică. Viitorul aparţine tinerilor şi aceştia sunt principalii beneficiari a tot ceea ce se construieşte, bine sau rău, în ziua de astăzi. Din acest motiv, este strict necesară adoptarea unor măsuri pentru îmbunătăţirea situaţiei lor, atât la nivel comunitar cât şi la nivelul fiecărui stat membru.

Consider ca un instrument de bază pentru atingerea obiectivelor propuse în acest sens, politica de coeziune. În momentul de faţă, la nivel naţional au început procesele de programare a fondurilor europene destinate perioadei 2014-2020. Recomand cu tărie Comisiei şi statelor membre să acorde o atenţie sporită tineretului şi să includă în structura programelor naţionale axe bine finanţate şi special destinate ocupării forţei de muncă în rândul tinerilor.

  Άννυ Ποδηματά (S&D). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Πρόεδρε του Ευρωπαϊκού Συμβουλίου, κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι, γνωρίζω ασφαλώς ότι δεν συμμερίζεστε ορισμένες από τις ακραίες και προσβλητικές αναφορές που έγιναν από ορισμένους, μονίμως φωνασκούντες, σε αυτή την αίθουσα σχετικά με την Ελλάδα. Θεωρώ ότι δεν έχει κανένα νόημα, ούτε να απευθυνθώ σε αυτούς, ούτε να σχολιάσω τα λεγόμενά τους. Θέλω όμως να απευθυνθώ στους υπόλοιπους συναδέλφους και να τους ζητήσω να αναλογιστούν μαζί μας πού οδηγούν τα στερεότυπα, οι ισοπεδωτικές αντιλήψεις και οι αναφορές εναντίον μιας χώρας και ενός ολόκληρου λαού που δοκιμάζεται σκληρά από την κρίση. Θέλω να επισημάνω, αν και έχει φύγει ο αγαπητός συνάδελφος κ. Brok, ότι δεν αμφισβητώ τις προθέσεις της συντριπτικής πλειονότητας των συναδέλφων εδώ, αλλά πιστεύω όμως ότι, αν είμαστε ειλικρινείς ότι θέλουμε να βοηθήσουμε μια χώρα να ολοκληρώσει την προσπάθειά της, τότε δεν θα πρέπει να την προσβάλουμε διότι, όπως είπε και ένας άλλος γερμανός, ο Sigmund Gabriel, όταν βάζεις ένα λαό να διαλέξει ανάμεσα στην εθνική αξιοπρέπεια και τη βοήθεια είναι σαν να αγνοείς βασικά διδάγματα της ιστορίας.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). - Mr President, I think to some extent we have been lurching from one regulation to another and while I accept that it would be very difficult, if we did not have the institutions we have, to keep a grasp on the matter, I think it is time to move on. Mr Draghi said two weeks ago in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs that you can have fiscal rectitude without growth but you cannot have growth without fiscal rectitude. I support that. I think that is a fair definition, but please, more emphasis, more leadership, on growth.

As part of this we surely need some new definition of what the market economy is meant to stand for. We are in a situation, it appears to me, where the private sector is regulating the public sector and there is very little accountability. Oligarchs seem to be in charge of certain parts of the markets, so please, let us have more attention to what the markets are doing to the public sector and to us as parliaments and governments, and let us do more to give leadership, to try and bring about growth and jobs.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D). - Mr President, like many of us in the House, I am somewhat torn. On the one hand, I can appreciate that the majority of European decision-makers recognise the need for immediate action in order to handle the crisis, which I agree is no longer solely economic.

On the other hand, I am convinced that our point of departure is not the proper one. Of course we cannot do without financial stability and strict rules but, in my opinion, the root of the problem is that there has not been enough attention paid to and emphasis on growth, employment and social inclusion. Understandably, the majority of the conservative leaders were too preoccupied with the austerity measures, which was a big mistake.

In addition, I am not convinced about the way in which the crisis is being handled. We should follow the Community method because we cannot let Europe diverge from what it represents – the foundation of European construction, a way of working together, irrespective of the differences between the Member States.

Apart from this, I underline an important point. The European Parliament is the only directly elected body among the institutions. Our President should fully participate in the Euro summits.

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). - Na última reunião do Conselho, o Presidente Barroso apresentou um power point - coisa didática, diga-se de passagem - e nesse power point um dos gráficos apresentava os resultados do inquérito que foi feito às PME europeias no que diz respeito às suas dificuldades.

Espante-se, e espanto-me eu também, porque o peso do custo dos trabalhadores era apenas a quinta das preocupações e dificuldades apresentadas pelas PME. Em primeiro lugar, a falta de clientes, isso é igual a recessão; em segundo lugar aparecia a falta de crédito, ou seja, mais uma medida, mais um problema resultante da crise. Portanto eu não percebo, confesso a minha completa incapacidade de perceber.

Se é assim, Senhor Van Rompuy, porque é que os governos só se preocupam com a austeridade? Porque é que os governos insistem na redução dos salários como solução? Sinceramente, o que é que está mal? O inquérito? O que é que está mal, as vossas propostas? As duas coisas? Nós estamos aqui para resolver o problema das pessoas, não é para fingir, não é um jogo de fingimento, não é para atirar areia aos olhos das pessoas. Respondam, por favor, a esta pergunta, para além das palavras, é só uma pergunta, Senhor Presidente, …

(O Presidente retira a palavra à oradora.)

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Ta dzisiejsza debata oraz cytowane głosy europejskiej prasy wyraźnie pokazują, że nie wszystkie oczekiwania, które były związane z poniedziałkowym szczytem, zostały zrealizowane. To fakt. Tym niemniej był to szczyt mądrych i dobrych kompromisów. Jak każdy kompromis – nie wszyscy są z niego zadowoleni, tym niemniej otrzymaliśmy instrument, dzięki któremu możemy, bardziej dyscyplinując finanse publiczne, uzdrawiać gospodarkę państw strefy euro, ale też, co najważniejsze, udało nam się uniknąć powstania instytucji i decyzji politycznych, które powodowałyby powstanie dwóch unii w Europie.

W szczególności za ten drugi wysiłek, za tę inicjatywę, która była wsparciem politycznej ofensywy dyplomatycznej polskiego rządu, chciałbym podziękować i naszym negocjatorom, i Panu, Panie Przewodniczący Schulz, za Pana wyraźny głos w obronie spójności Unii Europejskiej również w trakcie szczytu. Dziękuję bardzo!

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). - Señor Presidente, es lamentable que no sea la primera vez que en este Parlamento se escuchan voces de insatisfacción con respecto a las Conclusiones del Consejo, pero más lamentable es todavía que, seguramente, no será la última, porque vuelve a pecar, en primer lugar, de parcial. Porque es parcial enfocar solo el déficit y dedicar como estímulo solamente la reasignación de recursos absolutamente insuficientes para cumplir los objetivos de reestímulo del crecimiento y de la generación de empleo. Pero es insuficiente también que se llame unión fiscal a lo que es solamente una unión presupuestaria, una constricción presupuestaria que, además, se incentiva solo con la imposición de sanciones, en ningún caso con estímulos. Y es sesgada, porque esquiva a este Parlamento, porque pretende evitar, a través de un Tratado intergubernamental, la reforma que hace falta para hacer del Banco Central Europeo lo que necesita la economía europea. Por tanto, no va a sacar al enfermo de la situación comatosa en la que se encuentra; por el contrario, la salud del paciente seguirá empeorando.

  Der Präsident. − Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich muss Ihnen noch kurz etwas zu dem „Catch the eye“-Verfahren sagen. Das „Catch the eye“-Verfahren ist eingeführt worden – ich muss die Fraktionsvorsitzenden noch einmal bitten, darüber nachzudenken –, damit wir hier spontan am Ende der Debatte Kollegen zu Wort kommen lassen können.

Die Realität sieht so aus, dass das „Catch the eye“-Verfahren ein Versuch ist, eine Second-Hand-Rednerliste hier einzuführen, indem der Präsident mehr oder minder unter Druck gesetzt wird, bestimmten Leuten das Wort zu geben. Das mache ich nicht. Ich richte mich hier nach der Spontaneität der Kolleginnen und Kollegen und bitte auch zukünftig, dass wir am Ende einer Debatte tatsächlich spontan denjenigen das Wort geben, die hier sind und sich melden. Ansonsten ist das nämlich ungerecht.

(Ende des „Catch the eye”-Verfahrens)

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the House for a very lively, interesting debate which raised a lot of new ideas. I think it underlies the clear sentiment that this summit was very important and crucial because, after a certain period of time, the primary focus was on growth. It was very important for us to address the greatest concern of our citizens, which is growth and employment, in this way.

Of course a very important element of the summit was to continue our work on guaranteeing stronger economic and fiscal governance. I would like to use this opportunity to thank Parliament’s negotiators, Mr Verhofstadt, Mr Gualtieri and Mr Brok, for an excellent job and for the good cooperation with the European Commission.

Coming back to the outcome of the summit – and I believe Mr Van Rompuy would testify to this – I think there was a consensual approach to the discussion on growth and to the importance of growth and of streamlining our policy to achieve that goal. I cannot agree with those who believe that we can create new jobs by dismantling the European social model. We had such a situation here in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries; let us not go back, please.

As regards the focus on youth, I think that the measures adopted during the European Council to help our young generation – those 7.5 million young people who are not employed, not in education and not in training – are absolutely crucial. Action on this is immediate: letters have been sent to the eight Member States, the joint action teams will meet in February, funds are mobilised and these new job plans for the young generation should be debated by the European Spring Council. I believe we cannot act any faster; what we need is your support and good cooperation from the Member States.

Turning to the very important issue of economic and fiscal governance, I think it was quite clear from this debate, and I think this is echoed by the European Council, that we cannot have consolidation without growth. Last year we were very much breaking new ground when we were trying to save the euro; trying to save the European monetary union. Now we are moving beyond that. We see a certain stabilisation. We can focus on growth, which will bring hope to many families in the European Union.

There is one thing which it is important to underline. When I was listening to the debate some of the speakers were describing the outcome in much bleaker terms than it really deserved. I think that Parliament and the Commission acting together have been instrumental in upholding the Community method and guaranteeing that the European Parliament would be involved in economic governance, that the European institutions would be central in economic governance, that we will have no new European institutions and that this treaty will be incorporated in European law within five years. I think these are very important positive gains and we should look at them in this positive light.

Some very quick remarks on the specific questions. I absolutely agree with Mr Daul as regards the importance of the Services Directive. The full implementation of this directive would increase trade in commercial services by 45%. It would increase foreign direct investment by 20%. It can bring about an increase of 0.5 to 1.5% in GDP. Where else can we find such an easy potential for growth? It is lamentable that this directive is not yet in operation; we have started infringement procedures against the remaining two Member States which have yet to transpose it correctly.

Mr Verhofstadt mentioned patents. I can assure you that this was highlighted very forcefully by me in the General Affairs Council and also by the President of the Commission in the European Council. It is true that, having the chance to decrease costs by 80%, we should do it as soon as possible. We have been discussing the patent for decades, and I am pleased that we now have a deadline and that we should definitely solve this issue before the June European Council. I would plead with the three countries which cannot agree where the seat will be to find a solution, because our innovation community, our scientists, are really waiting for it.

As regards Mr Swoboda’s comment on the financial transactions tax and Mr Verhofstadt’s comments on the Eurobonds, the financial transaction tax is a very important proposal. I would like to assure you that the Commission is not going to give up. We had one difficult political debate on this issue and it was definitely not conclusive but, if we gave up after each difficult political debate at Council level, there would be no European law. We are going to continue and we will need your support. I believe that in the end, in all Member States, they will realise how useful this measure can be, the kind of fair burden-sharing it could bring from the financial sector, and the kind of healthy regulatory effect it could have on the financial industry. I believe in rational arguments and these arguments are very rational. I believe they will prevail.

As regards Eurobonds and stability bonds, you know that the Commission believes that this is an excellent stabilising and investment tool and a very good instrument. I think this was clearly shown in our options paper and now we see that the discussion is ongoing. It is very difficult, but I believe that these new efforts in fiscal consolidation will actually increase mutual confidence among the Member States in how responsible we are in managing our public finances. I personally believe that we will see the day when we will use the Eurobonds, the stability bonds, as a very important financial and investment tool in the European Union.

Coming to the last piece of information: co-financing. I agree with Mr Verhofstadt that this is a very important tool in helping countries in distress. As you probably know, we have already increased the co-financing rate from 75% to 85% – at first temporarily for Latvia, Greece, Portugal and Romania and we did something similar for Ireland. Now we have increased it even further: 95% in the case of Greece. Moreover we are helping the Greek authorities to better absorb these funds on the ground.

  Herman Van Rompuy, Conseil européen. − Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, comme je l'ai dit dans mon introduction, la politique de croissance et d'emploi est une politique à différents niveaux. Il y a le court terme, il y a le long terme, il y a l'aspect économique, il y a l'aspect relevant purement de la politique de l'emploi, il y a ce que l'on peut faire au niveau des États membres, il y a ce que l'on peut faire au niveau de l'Union.

En ce qui concerne le court terme, je serai assez bref, en tout cas, je l'espère. D'abord, nous ne pouvons pas oublier que nous connaissons, bien sûr, une période de stagnation, de récession, mais que nous sortons de deux années de croissance positive d'environ 2 % dans la zone euro et même à travers l'Union. Nous avons tendance à l'oublier et à croire que la période que nous avons derrière nous est une période de récession. Ce n'est pas le cas, malgré les efforts de consolidation qui ont été faits en moyenne.

Bien sûr, il y a les pays qui sont sous programmes et ceux qui sont soumis à la pression des marchés. Mais, de façon générale, quand je fais la moyenne, les années 2010 et 2011 ont été profitables à la croissance et à l'emploi. Dans un pays que je connais mieux que d'autres, la Belgique, on a même créé 100 000 emplois en 2010 et 2011. On en a perdu 7 000 au cours de l'année de crise 2009. Même cette année, en 2012, la croissance est positive. Je sais qu'il y a des problèmes dans pas mal de pays et dans pas mal de régions. Mais ce que je veux souligner aussi, c'est que nous avons connu également, ces deux dernières années, des évolutions positives.

Pour la croissance à court terme, la chose la plus importante que l'on puisse faire – tout le monde est d'accord là-dessus –, c'est favoriser un regain de confiance dans la zone euro. Si la confiance revient dans la zone euro, les consommateurs et les entreprises auront davantage confiance et cela nous mènera à plus de croissance économique. On l'a vu en 2009, une fois que la confiance est revenue, une fois la confiance restaurée dans les banques, il y a eu un regain de croissance économique et une augmentation de l'emploi. Nous devons donc travailler là-dessus.

Les derniers mois n'ont pas été aussi catastrophiques que certains essaient de le démontrer. Par exemple, les spreads par rapport à l'Allemagne ont diminué de façon substantielle pour l'Italie et pour l'Espagne: 1,6 pour l'Espagne et le Portugal par rapport au plus haut niveau de spread d'il y a quelques mois. Je ne dis pas qu'on est arrivé au but, je dis simplement qu'il y a un retournement positif. Je ne mentionne même pas l'Irlande où il y a une diminution par rapport au Bund – il y a environ 7 %. Est-ce que c'est suffisant? Non! Est-ce qu'il y a un turning point? Oui! J'espère donc que nous continuerons sur cette voie.

À court terme, ce n'est pas une solution de dépenser plus et d'augmenter les déficits. Ce n'est pas la solution, on l'a essayée, on a échoué. Même en dehors de l'Union européenne, ceux qui ont pratiqué cette politique de relance budgétaire doivent maintenant revenir à une politique plus orthodoxe. Et même dans la règle d'or, s'il existe un petit déficit que l'on peut tolérer, c'est un déficit structurel. Donc, il y a une marge de manœuvre: il s'agit du structurel, il ne s'agit pas du nominal ou d'un déficit de 0,5 % à tout moment. Il y a une appréciation et il y a cet effet de structure dont on doit tenir compte. À court terme, chaque désavantage a un avantage, la dépréciation récente de l'euro est une aide à nos exportations et il y a même des études qui prouvent que cela peut aller très vite.

Pour le long terme, il y a la stratégie Europe 2020. On s'en moque, on la compare à la stratégie de Lisbonne. Je crois que maintenant, on fait preuve de beaucoup de sérieux et on a intégré la stratégie Europe 2020 dans le semestre européen et dans le six pack. Il y a aussi de la part de ce Parlement un engagement beaucoup plus fort que par le passé pour y travailler. On a aussi des engagements pour l'emploi dans le pacte pour l'euro plus. Bien sûr, il faut exécuter tout cela. Mais je crois que nous avons pris toutes les dispositions nécessaires pour que cette stratégie à long terme soit un succès cette fois-ci.

Pour le brevet européen, je partage avec vous une certaine déception. Moi, je regarde cela – mais c'est mon caractère – dans une perspective qui comporte malgré tout des éléments positifs. J'ai commencé ma carrière politique avec un premier ministre, dans les années 70, qui disait "On n'a pas réussi, au Conseil européen, à trouver un accord sur le brevet européen." Je parle de l'année 1978. Nous sommes maintenant beaucoup plus tard et, sous la Présidence belge, et même avec un ministre des affaires économiques que certains connaissent mieux que d'autres, nous avons réussi à réaliser une percée grâce à la coopération renforcée. Maintenant, nous devons franchir la dernière étape; cela prendra quelques semaines mais je suis certain que la Présidence danoise – et on l'aide beaucoup –  trouvera une solution à ce problème.

En ce qui concerne le côté social, la politique spécifique de l'emploi, il faut bien se rendre compte qu'au niveau européen, on peut prendre beaucoup de mesures. On peut travailler sur le marché unique. On peut mobiliser les fonds européens, ce que l'on fait d'ailleurs: on a diminué d'ailleurs le taux de cofinancement et là, le vice-président de la Commission a bien fait de le rappeler. Donc, on peut faire tout cela, il y a les project bonds, mais il faut avouer que le plus grand travail doit être fait au niveau national.

On peut inciter les gouvernements et les parlements nationaux. On peut les encourager. On peut demander des engagements. On peut, d'une certaine manière, les sanctionner même. Tout cela est prévu dans le semestre européen. Mais l'essentiel du travail doit être fait par les gouvernements et les parlements nationaux, sinon on ne peut pas expliquer la différence entre l'Allemagne, l'Autriche, les Pays-Bas et certaines autres régions d'Europe en matière de taux de chômage. Par exemple, pour les jeunes, ce taux peut être assez bas, environ 8 %, alors que dans d'autres cas, il approche des 50 %. Il y a des divergences énormes qui sont dues à la politique qui a été menée dans le passé.

Ce que l'on va faire maintenant, c'est encourager les gouvernements nationaux et les États membres à suivre les bons exemples, dont l'exemple autrichien, par des incitants financiers et par d'autres moyens. Les recommandations de la Commission seront très importantes et nos conclusions du Conseil européen vont dans cette direction. Je ne les minimiserai pas autant que certains l'ont fait. Il y a donc ce côté économique et ce côté social et bien sûr, comme je viens de le rappeler, ce que l'on peut faire au niveau de l'Union et ce que l'on peut faire au niveau des États membres.

En ce qui concerne le traité, chers collègues, quand je compare tout ce que l'on en a dit avant sa conclusion avec ce qui se dit maintenant, je crois qu'on a bien travaillé. On a bien travaillé avec l'aide de beaucoup – y compris et même surtout au sein de ce Parlement. On a beaucoup travaillé pour intégrer ce traité intergouvernemental dans la philosophie des traités de l'Union européenne. On doit faire un effort – ce sera la tâche de nos successeurs, en tout cas des miens – pour intégrer ce traité dans le traité lui-même en tant que tel, d'ici quelques années. On a aussi veillé à ce qu'il y ait plus de cohérence dans l'Union européenne. À un moment donné, certains avaient l'impression que l'on allait vers une Europe à deux vitesses. On a trouvé un accord à vingt-cinq. Malheureusement pas vingt-sept, mais vingt-cinq: cela veut dire qu'il y a huit pays en dehors de l'Eurozone qui se sont montrés solidaires de ceux qui ont une monnaie commune. Et on a trouvé un accord pour que ceux qui n'appartiennent pas à la zone euro, mais qui ratifient le traité, puissent participer à des moments clés dans les délibérations des sommets de la zone euro et soient bien sûr associés à tous les sujets qui font l'objet d'un accord dans le traité.

On a ainsi sauvegardé le plus possible la cohérence de l'Union. Encore une fois, quand je compare ce qui a été dit avant les négociations et que j'écoute bien ce qu'on dit maintenant du traité, nous avons parcouru un chemin important et intéressant, et je m'en réjouis.

  Der Präsident. − Es wurden gemäß Artikel 110 Absatz 2 der Geschäftsordnung zwei Entschließungsanträge eingereicht⁽¹⁾.

Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 2. Februar 2012, statt.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 149)

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. – Šiuo metu kaip niekad yra labai svarbu, kokią žinią Europos Parlamentas pasiųs pusei milijardo Europos Sąjungos (ES) gyventojų. Europos Parlamento rezoliucijoje dėl šios savaitės Europos Vadovų Tarybos susitikimo išvadų turime parodyti vieningą poziciją. Manau, kad mes turime pasisakyti už protingą taupymą, efektyvų ES lėšų panaudojimą, tačiau labai svarbu akcentuoti, jog vien tik taupymas įveikti ES krizės nepadės. Reikia įvertinti ir tai, jog kai kuriose valstybėse narėse per pastaruosius metus dėl itin didelio „diržų suveržimo” dar labiau išaugo skurdas ir socialinė atkirtis. Kai kuriose valstybėse narėse atsakas į tai buvo emigracija, ypatingai jaunų žmonių tarpe. Europos Parlamente turime pabrėžti, kad krizę galima įveikti tik ekonomikos augimo skatinimu, užimtumo didinimu, smulkių ir vidutinių įmonių rėmimu ir kitomis konkrečiomis priemonėmis. Deja, per šios savaitės Europos Vadovų susitikimą deklaracija dėl augimo ir naujų darbo vietų kūrimo buvo nustumta į antrą planą, nes pagrindinis dėmesys buvo sutelktas į institucinius dalykus ir į nesutarimus tarp kai kurių valstybių narių dėl tarpvalstybinio susitarimo dėl Sutarties. Mes turime pasisakyti už tai, kad ES nebūtų dalijama į euro zonos ir ne euro zonos šalis, nes taip mes skaldome Bendriją, žmonių pasitikėjimą Europos Sąjunga kaip vieninga, atsakinga ir solidaria bendrija.

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. – Like many of my countrymen, like much of my S&D Group, like many commentators and citizens across the EU, I am wary of the need for this ‘Fiscal Compact’ treaty. That the smaller and indebted states need to show the larger and more stable economies that we are serious about reform is fully accepted in Ireland and elsewhere. Whether or not this should extend to a treaty which simply reiterates much of which was included in the recent six pack, and indeed the Maastricht Treaty many years before that, is more debateable. If this treaty truly helps Europe to get back on its feet, and produces a more fair and balanced union, then I commend its authors on a visionary text. If, however, it fails to achieve these objectives, it will be seen as a folly, and at this juncture it would be generous to suggest that it could equally go either way.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – Sente-se nesta União Europeia o ambiente funesto, a irracionalidade e a desorientação que sempre antecedem o desmoronar de impérios. É cada vez mais claro que os trabalhadores e os povos da Europa nada podem esperar destas reuniões. Nada que se pareça com soluções verdadeiras para uma crise cada vez mais grave. Deste Conselho Europeu nem uma só palavra sai sobre as intoleráveis e crescentes desigualdades sociais, sobre as assimetrias de desenvolvimento entre países, sobre paraísos fiscais, sobre a livre e desregulada circulação de capitais que viabiliza a especulação, a agiotagem e a predação de recursos nacionais.

O que sai desta reunião é um autêntico golpe constitucional. Querem impor e generalizar as políticas contidas nos programas do FMI e da UE - cujos resultados catastróficos estão à vista na Grécia, em Portugal ou na Irlanda. Querem torná-las eternas (assim pensam, sem saberem como se enganam...). Em pleno século XXI, querem impedir o direito dos povos decidirem livremente o seu caminho, transformando países soberanos em autênticos protetorados. Este é um caminho sem outra saída que não o desastre. As lutas sociais, que se multiplicam pela Europa, são o caminho mais seguro para o evitarmos. E para abrirmos um horizonte de esperança e confiança num futuro melhor.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. – Stretnutie lídrov bolo vo svojej podstate zbytočné. Fiškálna dohoda určite EÚ z krízy nevyvedie. Škrtaním sa možno akurát tak prepadnúť do recesie. A nakoniec bude kvôli hospodárskemu poklesu ešte ťažšie splácať dlhy a ich bremeno bude narastať. Navyše aj pravdepodobný budúci francúzsky prezident už naznačil, že chce dohodu pred ratifikáciou ešte modifikovať.

Potreba reštartu rastu zamestnanosti však ostala stále podcenená. Zatiaľ čo úsporné opatrenia dostávajú pomaly podobu zákona, iniciatíva pre rast a zamestnanosť ostala vo forme obyčajnej výzvy. A ešte aj tú si Švédsko dovolilo nepodpísať. Takéto maniere sú z európskeho hľadiska mimoriadne nešťastné. Prorastová iniciatíva je slabá. Fiškálna dohoda sa prijíma mimo rámca európskych zmlúv a s výnimkou UK a CR.

Úloha EP pri rokovaniach o týchto záležitostiach sa minimalizuje. Treba to robiť úplne inak. Európa musí ostať jednotná a držať sa demokratických princípov a existujúcich právnych rámcov. Európa musí prestať uvažovať v zjednodušujúcich formulkách typu „sú problémy s dlhmi, treba škrtať“. Nie. Treba hľadať zdroje, ktoré by sa rozumne investovali do hospodárskej obnovy. Nevyužité zdroje zo štrukturálnych fondov EÚ, daň z finančných transakcií, posilnená EIB, európske dlhopisy. To sú témy, ktorým by sa mali samity venovať. Pokiaľ sa tak nestane, budú zbytočné a Únii už veľa času neostane.

  Kinga Göncz (S&D), írásban. – 23,7 millió nő és férfi. 2011 végén ennyien voltak munka nélkül Európában. A múlt heti csúcson tető alá hozott fiskális paktumon alig száradt meg a tinta, amikor megjelent a lesújtó statisztika: a közös valuta bevezetése óta nem volt olyan magas a munkanélküliek aránya az eurózóna országaiban, mint tavaly év végén. Különösen aggasztó a fiatalkori munkanélküliség Spanyolországban és Görögországban, ahol a 25 év alattiaknak csaknem a fele nem talál állást.

Örülök, hogy a Tanács végre felismerte, amit az Európai Parlament szocialista képviselői régóta hangoztatnak: a helyzet tarthatatlan, csupán költségvetési megszorításokkal nem orvosolhatók Európa egyre súlyosabb problémái. Hiába születnek egymás után a fiskális szabályokat szigorító újabb és újabb jogszabályok, szerződések, a recesszió elkerülhetetlennek látszik. Gazdasági növekedés nélkül nem tartható a deficitcsökkentés, nem teremthetők új munkahelyek, nem csökken, hanem nő az állástalanok száma, erősödik a kilátástalanság, nyomában tért hódítanak a szélsőséges eszmék és vélemények.

A Tanács megtette a rég várt első lépést, amikor a napirendjére tűzte a foglalkoztatás, különösen a fiatalok foglalkoztatásának az ügyét. Az elhatározott intézkedések azonban nem elégségesek és kevéssé becsvágyók. Azonnali döntések és cselekvés kell, valamint a felajánlott uniós források nagyobb mértékű, célzott felhasználása, hogy a mai fiatalok ne érezzék úgy: „ők Európa felesleges nemzedéke”.

  Edit Herczog (S&D), írásban. – Azt mindenképpen üdvözlendőnek tartom, hogy valamennyi tagállam képviselője szorgalmazza a versenyképesség megerősítését, a tagállami költségvetések konszolidálását és a további új munkahelyek létrehozására törekvő javaslatokat.

Önök három területet kívánnak kiemelten kezelni: a fiatalok foglalkoztatásának ösztönzését, az egységes európai piac kiteljesítését és a kkv szektor részére nyújtott támogatások növelését, terheik csökkentését. Álláspontom szerint e három irány jó ugyan, de intézkedéseik megkésettek és hiányosak. A tranzakciós adó bevezetésének lehetőségét még mindig elvetik, pedig közgazdasági közhelynek számít, hogy az abból befolyó 200 milliárd eurós összeg új lendületet adhatna az európai vállalkozói szektornak, így generálva az Unió belső fogyasztását.

A sok millió fiatal munkanélkülinek kétségtelen segítségére lesz az új felzárkóztatási, oktatási, ösztöndíj programok támogatása, azonban míg nem „szankcionáljuk” a munkáltatókat, ösztönözve őket új, fiatal munkaerő felvételére, addig áttörő megoldás nem várható e területen. A Tanács ülésén elhangzottak nem nyugtatták meg a piacokat: a portugál állampapírok 17-20%-os kamatai például semmit nem csökkentek az elmúlt két napban.

Én, mint az S&D frakciójának képviselője azt az álláspontot képviselem, hogy a gazdasági stabilitásról, konszolidációról szóló szerződések végleges keretbe foglalása nem ad adekvát választ az Unió jelenlegi gazdasági, társadalmi kérdéseire, továbbá nem szolgálja az egységes Európát. Jó munkához idő kell – mondják. Jelen helyzetben az időnk fogytán van…

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), na piśmie. – Szanowni Państwo! W poniedziałek, po długich i trudnych negocjacjach, udało się osiągnąć porozumienie w odniesieniu do paktu budżetowego, który oficjalnie został nazwany „Traktatem o stabilności, koordynacji i zarządzaniu w Unii Gospodarczej i Monetarnej”. I choć, jak to często przy trudnych negocjacjach bywa, umowa nie jest idealna i nie w pełni zadowala wszystkie strony, to jednak uzyskała poparcie 25 członków Unii Europejskiej. Jest to niewątpliwie wyraz przekonania o tym, że Europie nie są potrzebne spory, a wręcz przeciwnie – potrzebne są szybkie i zdecydowane działania.

Jednym z kluczowych elementów negocjacji była kwestia uczestnictwa państw spoza strefy euro w szczytach Eurogrupy. I choć wynegocjowany zapis wprowadza pewne ograniczenia w dostępie do tych posiedzeń, to udało się, dzięki ogromnej determinacji krajów spoza euro, obronić ustrój instytucjonalny UE i nie doprowadzić do złamania zasady wspólnotowości. Także przedstawiciele instytucji unijnych, tj. José Manuel Barroso, Martin Schulz i Herman van Rompuy, stanęli na wysokości zadania i zgodnie bronili jedności Wspólnoty.

Osiągnięcie porozumienia nie kończy jednak dyskusji o kształcie Unii oraz o miejscu krajów spoza strefy euro w nowym porządku. Teraz przed nami bardzo ważne zadanie, jakim jest odpowiednie zastosowanie zapisów paktu w praktyce. Szczególnie ważne będzie dla nas to, jak wdrożony zostanie artykuł 12 umowy, a więc, czy faktycznie głos krajów sygnatariuszy spoza strefy euro będzie słyszany podczas szczytów Eurogrupy.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – More Europe is the answer! Finally the Member States have taken their responsibility by signing the Fiscal Treaty. Strict rules and fiscal discipline and joint efforts as the whole EU are crucial. Signs of protectionism and egoism have no place if the European project wants to succeed. Completion of the single market – loosing barriers to cross-border trade and services, completing the single digital market – is the key for future success. Doing business, using services, getting a job should be equally easy and accessible in the whole EU. The strong language on this must be transmitted to the official Spring Council conclusions! SMEs as drivers and backbone of the European economy suffer the most under unnecessary burdens and rules. Simplified procedures and exemptions are needed to enable the SMEs to pursue and focus on their main business instead of filling in administrative forms. Easy access to financing both from public and private sources will ensure sustainable and competitive SMEs. Youth unemployment has reached more than 30% in eight Member States. We have to enforce measures to enable easy access to labour market and quality jobs, significantly increasing the offer for apprenticeships and internships for young people, working together with the social partners.

  Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – Le Conseil a entériné, sans aucune consultation du Parlement européen ni des Parlement nationaux, la mise en place d'un nouveau traité faisant de l'austérité budgétaire le fondement de la politique économique européenne. C'est un déni de démocratie d'autant plus inacceptable que les seuils budgétaires qui seraient imposés sont totalement nouveaux et n'ont jamais été mentionnés dans aucun des traités européens précédemment.

Ce traité constitue d'autre part une immixtion sans précédent dans les constitutions nationales, avec l'obligation qui leur est faite d'y inscrire un instrument de frein à la dépense publique. Ce nouveau traité inclut également le pacte euro plus qui constitue un démantèlement des droits sociaux. Nous réclamons avant toute décision une consultation des peuples européens, par référendum.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), în scris. – 25 de state membre au ajuns la un Acord privind stabilitatea, coordonarea și guvernanța în UEM, un element esențial în eforturile noastre de a menține stabilitatea și un exemplu al solidarității și determinării cu care Uniunea este pregătită să rezolve situațiile de criză. Liderii europeni au fost nevoiți să adopte măsuri dificile pentru a stabiliza zona euro.

Stabilitatea financiară este un element important, dar nu singular, în efortul de a asigura refacerea economică. Avem nevoie de disciplină, schimbări structurale, ocuparea forței de muncă și creștere sustenabilă. Trebuie optimizată utilizarea fondurilor europene. Este nevoie de propuneri concrete pentru a aborda problema șomajului în rândul tinerilor și pentru finanțarea IMM-urilor. Intrăm într-o fază de guvernare economică bazată pe Semestrul european, în care guvernele naționale recunosc că domenii din competența națională trebuie să fie abordate și la nivel european. Economia europeană trebuie să devină mult mai competitivă, iar acest lucru devine posibil numai prin definitivarea pieței interne. De aceea, Comisia trebuie să se asigure că toate legile privind piața internă sunt aplicate în statele membre și să supervizeze aplicarea lor. Acest Acord reprezintă un mare pas înainte înspre integrarea fiscală și economică și înspre o mai bună guvernanță a zonei euro.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), par écrit. – Le traité sur la stabilité, la coordination et la gouvernance dans l'Union économique et monétaire est une avancée nécessaire. Dans la crise actuelle que nous traversons, la stabilité budgétaire est un impératif dont nous ne pouvons nous départir. Il était nécessaire d'inscrire des règles claires et précises dans un traité pour garantir leur respect. Certes, il est regrettable que le traité n'ait pas obtenu le soutien de l'ensemble des Etats membres. Cependant, on ne peut que se féliciter de la version finale adoptée. Des avancées significatives sont prévues, telles que la reconnaissance formelle de la règle d'or, de la majorité qualifiée inversée ou de l'intervention de la Cour de Justice de l'Union européenne. De plus, la cohérence du texte final avec le droit européen, et notamment le six-pack entré en vigueur en décembre dernier, a été renforcée. Enfin, il ne faut pas oublier la difficulté des négociations européennes : réussir à s'accorder sur un tel texte en si peu de temps est un réel succès. Avant tout, ce nouveau traité marque une claire volonté politique : il promeut une gouvernance économique responsable.

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), na piśmie. – Z punktu widzenia usprawniania zarządzania gospodarczego w UE pozytywnie należy ocenić fakt, że pakt fiskalny wprowadza nowe jakościowo instrumenty, które przyczynią się do prowadzenia bardziej odpowiedzialnej polityki fiskalnej w przyszłości. Najważniejsze z nich to zasada zbilansowania budżetu, zobowiązanie państw-sygnatariuszy do implementacji tej zasady do krajowych systemów prawnych oraz zwiększenie jurysdykcji TSUE. Skuteczność paktu fiskalnego zostanie jednak zweryfikowana dopiero w praktyce, gdy jego zapisy staną się dla państw wiążące. Istnieje, bowiem ryzyko, że wprowadzenie ustawowych, automatycznych mechanizmów korygujących może wymusić prowadzenie nadmiernie procyklicznej polityki gospodarczej, która pogłębi kryzys zadłużenia. Źródłem wątpliwości pozostaje także kwestia tego, z jaką częstotliwością państwa spoza strefy euro będą uczestniczyć w spotkaniach eurogrupy. Umowa międzyrządowa stanowi, że państwa ze strefy euro będą mogły organizować spotkania tylko w swoim gronie, gdy przedmiotem dyskusji będą zobowiązania dotyczące wspólnej waluty, zarządzanie strefą euro oraz konwergencja w ramach strefy.W związku z tym, że zakres tematyczny dla zamkniętych spotkań państw eurogrupy można interpretować rozszerzająco, bardzo ważne z punktu widzenia zabezpieczenia priorytetu metody wspólnotowej będzie stosowanie w tym wypadku wykładni literalnej.

  Evelyn Regner (S&D), in writing. – The fiscal stability pact fails to provide effective measures to tackle a major problem Europeans face as one of many consequences of the economic and social crisis. A main focus must be in the fight against unemployment, especially youth unemployment, which continues to increase. As this forms one of the rights of the EU and is enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty, it is both unacceptable and irresponsible that this burning issue is so neglected. The focus in this time of uncertainty should be on solidarity and growth, to protect and support the Europeans most affected by the crisis. In Greece, for example, the ranks of those in poverty swell whilst the supply of social services is slashed – forsaking those in most need of help is not the way to induce recovery and growth. Moreover, it is not fair. We need to focus on the social consequences of the crisis; this involves giving hope and support to especially the younger generations. There are some positive signals, but they are negligible as methods to stimulate growth. Additionally, the pact is to be condemned as it represents an infringement of the Community method.

  Kārlis Šadurskis (PPE), rakstiski. – Pozitīvi vērtēju to, ka neformālās Eiropadomes laikā 25 valstu vadītāji vienojās par fiskālo paktu - līgumu par stabilitāti, konverģenci un pārvaldību ekonomiskajā un monetārajā savienībā. Tas ir priekšnoteikums labākai nacionālo budžetu disciplīnai turpmāk un ciešākai tautsaimniecību sasaistīšanai spēcīgākas sistēmas ietvaros. Ļoti nozīmīgi ir arī tas, ka ir atrisināts jautājums par ārpus eiro zonas valstu piedalīšanos šī līguma realizēšanā. Ārpus eiro zonas valstis varēs jau drīzumā noteikt, kurus līguma punktus tās ievēros jau pirms iestāšanās eiro zonā, tādējādi veicinot fiskālo un ekonomisko integrāciju. Šis Eiropadomes lēmums ir ļoti svarīgs solis un pietiekami elastīgs mehānisms, ņemot vērā drīzumā paredzēto eiro ieviešanu Latvijā. Eiropas tautām ir jāsadarbojas mērķtiecīgi, ātri un efektīvi, lai izietu no krīzes Eiropā un to vairs neatkārtotu.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE) , na piśmie. – W dn. 30 stycznia szefowie państw i rządów przyjęli tekst tzw. Traktatu o stabilności, koordynacji zarządzaniu w Unii Gospodarczo-Walutowej, zwanego też paktem fiskalnym. Pozytywne w stosunku do wersji pierwotnej zmiany w tekście to m.in.: zobowiązanie do implementacji paktu w struktury traktowe UE w ciągu maksimum 5 lat, spójność z prawem unijnym czy też zapobieżenie drastycznemu podziałowi w gronie państw członkowskich. Musimy pamiętać, że przyjęty traktat jest zaledwie jednym z elementów w walce o odbudowę zaufania. Nadal jest to instrument służący przede wszystkim zwiększaniu dyscypliny budżetowej, podczas, gdy przyczyn obecnego kryzysu w strefie euro jest więcej. Potrzebne są reformy strukturalne, które przywrócą zaufanie instytucji finansowych i poprawią oceny agencji ratingowych. Równie pilne jak uporządkowanie finansów państw członkowskich są zmiany na europejskim rynku pracy, który musi zostać uelastyczniony w celu skuteczniejszej walki z bezrobociem, zwłaszcza wśród młodzieży. Należy dokończyć prace nad systemem nadzoru finansowego. Sektor małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw powinien otrzymać dodatkowe wsparcie, ponieważ to właśnie on stworzył 80% miejsc pracy w Europie w ciągu ostatnich pięciu lat. Mimo, że Parlament Europejski sprzeciwiał się każdej formie umowy międzyrządowej, preferując unijne prawodawstwo wtórne, nie możemy pozwolić sobie na ostrą krytykę paktu fiskalnego. Popierając ten dokument damy wyraźny sygnał na, zewnątrz, że UE jest zdeterminowana usunąć przyczyny obecnego kryzysu.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. - La Consiliul European din 30 ianuarie, 25 de state membre au semnat Tratatul privind stabilitatea, coordonarea și guvernanța în cadrul Uniunii economice și monetare. Noul tratat obligă statele membre să aibă bugete naționale echilibrate sau în surplus, în caz contrar fiind declanșat un mecanism automat de corecție. Tratatul va fi semnat în martie și va intra în vigoare după ce va fi ratificat de cel puțin 12 state membre ale zonei euro. În maximum cinci ani de la intrarea în vigoare, tratatul trebuie încorporat în dreptul UE.

Tratatul reprezintă angajamentul ferm al statelor semnatare pentru consolidarea disciplinei fiscale. Măsurile de austeritate nu asigură însa și garanția creșterii economice. Măsurile de austeritate au creat, în unele state membre, prin deteriorarea calității vieții multor cetățeni europeni și prin creșterea ponderii populației expuse riscului sărăciei, adevărate crize sociale și deteriorarea modelului social european.

Regretăm că la Consiliul European din 30 ianuarie statele membre nu s-au angajat la fel de ferm și pentru stimularea ocupării forței de muncă, mai ales în rândul tinerilor, pentru finalizarea pieței unice, pentru creșterea competitivității UE și pentru stimularea finanțării economiei, în special a IMM-urilor. Acestea sunt esențiale pentru menținerea modelului social european și pentru implementarea strategiei „Europa 2020”.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), na piśmie. – Zacznijmy od tego, że od początku mało komu podobała się sama idea paktu fiskalnego. Więcej, pakt nie jest tak naprawdę Unii Europejskiej do niczego potrzebny. Poza zobowiązaniem państw członkowskich do wpisania progów oszczędnościowych do swoich konstytucji nie ma w tej umowie nic nowego. Warto jednak zaznaczyć, że w negocjacjach tych chodziło o coś znacznie ważniejszego niż budżetowe zobowiązania państw członkowskich - o przyszłość Unii Europejskiej. W ich toku odpowiadaliśmy sobie na pytanie, czy uratowana zostanie wyjątkowa metoda wspólnotowa, czy też decyzje dotyczące polityki gospodarczej UE zapadać będą wyłącznie w drodze egoistycznych negocjacji między państwami, na zasadach znanych nam z dziewiętnastowiecznych kongresów. Odpowiadaliśmy sobie także na pytanie, czy tworzone będą nowe instytucje międzyrządowe, bezpośrednio konkurujące z instytucjami unijnymi. W końcu stawała przed nami realna możliwość, że w Unii usankcjonowany zostanie podział na równych i równiejszych. Na razie udało nam się zażegnać ten czarny scenariusz.

  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D), schriftelijk. – Dit intergouvernementele verdrag is niet alleen onnodig, het is bovendien onwenselijk. En wel om twee belangrijke redenen.

Ten eerste is het ondemocratisch. De Europese Raad creëert een juridisch kluwen doordat het onderlinge afspraken tussen de lidstaten boven Europese regelgeving stelt. In het eerste geval wordt de rol van de parlementen beperkt tot een simpel 'ja' of 'nee'. In de Europese wetgevingsprocedure daarentegen moet er rekening gehouden worden met het standpunt van het Europees Parlement, als volwaardige medewetgever.

Ten tweede verankeren de Europese leiders met dit verdrag een remedie tegen de verkeerde kwaal. Dat conservatieven en liberalen nu al 3 jaar prediken dat alleen blinde besparingen Europa uit de crisis kunnen halen is ondertussen geen nieuws meer. Maar dat men deze ideologische agenda nu ook grondwettelijk wil laten vastleggen tart toch wel alle verbeelding.

De kloof met de bekommernissen van de burger wordt alleen nog maar frappanter als men de vergelijking maakt met de groeistrategie die dezelfde leiders amper 2 jaar geleden voorop hebben gesteld, Europa 2020-strategie. Deze blijft voorlopig bij loze woorden en enige vorm van afdwingbaarheid van de doelstelling om armoede terug te dringen of meer mensen aan het werk te krijgen is ver te zoeken.

  Bernadette Vergnaud (S&D), par écrit. – A l'instar de l'ensemble des députés socialistes français, je me suis abstenue lors du vote sur l'accord du Conseil sur le projet de traité intergouvernemental adopté par les chefs d'État le 30 janvier. En effet, cet accord est non seulement juridiquement contestable, car il bafoue le rôle du Parlement, mais aussi nuisible, car le corset budgétaire imposé ne résoudra pas la crise, mais bien au contraire ne peut qu'aggraver la récession! La renégociation que nous demandons est la conséquence logique de ce constat. Nous devons créer de la croissance pour sortir de cette crise: c'est une nécessité économique, et la vision dogmatique imposée par le couple Sarkozy-Merkel n'est nullement adaptée. Il faut relancer une spirale vertueuse en coordonnant nos politiques économiques avec de grands projets industriels communs notamment dans le domaine de l’énergie, de l'environnement et la relance de grandes infrastructures. Cela ne peut se faire qu'avec la création d'euro-obligations, totalement absentes de ce texte, et une vraie régulation des marchés financiers, que nous demandons de longue date. L'obsession de Sarkozy et Merkel en faveur d'une stricte ligne d'austérité devient dangereuse pour l'Europe entière.

  Iuliu Winkler (PPE), în scris. – Evoluţiile politice înregistrate de la Consiliul European din decembrie 2011 au venit să reconfirme priorităţile în procesul de consolidare al UE, respectiv reluarea creşterii economice sustenabile şi crearea de locuri de muncă. Manifestarea solidarităţii este cea mai importantă dintre aceste priorităţi. Trebuie să continuăm pe calea Pactului Euro Plus şi să consolidăm solidaritatea dintre zona euro şi statele membre din afara acesteia. Procesul de punere în comun a suveranităţii statelor membre trebuie să continue pentru asigurarea solidarităţii. Noi, politicienii, deputaţii europeni, trebuie să le explicăm alegătorilor noştri de ce punerea în comun a suveranităţii nu înseamnă o cedare, şi să le reclădim încrederea în viitorul comunitar. Astfel, ei vor fi mai încrezători în evoluţiile din viitorul apropiat şi în demersul nostru de edificare a noii Europe mai unite şi coordonate sub primatul democratic asigurat de PE, singura instituţie europeană ai cărei membri sunt aleşi în mod direct de către cetăţeni. Mă raliez ideii că PE trebuie să capete un rol mai important în luarea deciziilor, iar preşedintele PE trebuie să participe la toate reuniunile liderilor statelor membre. Şi mai cred că încorporarea noului Pact de Stabilitate în Tratatul European trebuie să rămână un obiectiv major.

(1) Siehe Protokoll

13. Klausimų valanda dalyvaujant Komisijos pirmininko pavaduotojai ir Sąjungos vyriausiajai įgaliotinei užsienio reikalams ir saugumo politikai

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt folgt die Fragestunde mit der Vizepräsidentin der Kommission und Hohen Vertreterin der Europäischen Union für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik.

Wir haben es hier mit einer ersten Fragestunde dieser Art zu tun. Frau Ashton hat sich bereit erklärt, zum ersten Mal für eine Fragestunde, wie wir sie sonst mit dem Präsidenten der Kommission abhalten, zur Verfügung zu stehen. Ich will Sie noch einmal an die Regeln erinnern: Die Fragestunde ist in zwei Teile unterteilt, zunächst können die Fraktionsvorsitzenden oder die von ihnen beauftragten Kolleginnen und Kollegen eine Frage von einer Minute stellen, die Frau Ashton jeweils in einer Minute beantworten wird. Ich gebe dann die Möglichkeit – im Falle, dass das gewünscht wird – zu einer Zusatzfrage, die auf eine halbe Minute begrenzt ist, ebenso die Antwort.

Fragen der Fraktionen

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor Presidente, señora Vicepresidenta de la Comisión/Alta Representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad, quisiera referirme al caso del periódico El Universo de Ecuador.

Los hechos son conocidos: el Presidente de la República ha presentado una querella criminal por un delito de opinión contra el autor, el periódico y los propietarios. Esta querella se ha traducido en una condena, en doble instancia, a tres años y en una multa de 40 millones de dólares, lo que amenaza seriamente la propia viabilidad del periódico.

A este hecho se han referido diversos organismos, como Human Rights Watch, Periodistas sin Fronteras y otros medios e instancias internacionales relacionados con los derechos humanos.

La pregunta, señora Ashton, es muy sencilla: ¿conoce usted estos hechos? y ¿qué opinión le merecen?

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − I would like to thank Mr Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra for giving me notice of this question. I am very grateful to him.

Indeed the EU delegation is following extremely closely. We know that the USD 40 million fine that has been imposed on the newspaper would put it out of business. As you have rightly pointed out, the facts that lie behind this case are of concern to us. Freedom of the press, freedom of the media is something that I know that people in this House feel very strongly about. It is something that is absolutely at the heart of our European values and therefore we are watching closely.

For the moment, as you know, it has gone to the highest court. We are waiting to see what that judicial process will reveal. We have made it clear that we expect the highest judicial standards to be followed and we are now watching to see what the outcome of the court case will be. Then of course we will decide what further action we should take.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Usted sabe, señora Ashton, que el Ecuador se encuentra vinculado a la Unión Europea a través de un Acuerdo de diálogo político y cooperación cuyos elementos esenciales son la cláusula democrática y el respeto de los derechos fundamentales, entre los que se encuentra el derecho a la libertad de expresión.

Ha dicho usted que, efectivamente, el próximo día 10 la Corte Suprema va a resolver en casación este caso, en el que el Presidente Correa ha dicho que, si se le pide perdón, estaría dispuesto a retirar la demanda.

Más allá de la preocupación que usted ha expresado por la libertad de expresión en el Ecuador, ¿qué estaría usted dispuesta a hacer para encontrar una solución equilibrada, justa y respetuosa con el principio de libertad de expresión?

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − First of all we have to see what the Court is actually going to do. If the Supreme Court overturns what has been done, then the solution has been found through a judicial process. In my view it would be right and proper to watch the Court and see what happens.

If they do not do that, then I think you are completely right. We have obligations in our agreement and we would want to look at what kind of démarches to take and what response we would like to give. I think the Government of Ecuador knows we are watching the situation extremely closely, but for the moment I feel we should let the judicial process take its course and then react afterwards. We should certainly keep in touch on this.

  Véronique De Keyser, au nom du groupe S&D. – Madame la Haute représentante, le 23 septembre dernier, le jour même où Mahmoud Abbas déposait sa demande à l'ONU, le Quartette rédigeait un communiqué de presse établissant une feuille de route qui avait une échéance importante, le 26 janvier. Le 26 janvier, les deux parties devaient définir leurs positions sur la sécurité et sur le tracé des frontières censées fournir la base de ces négociations. Tout le monde a salué cette initiative du Quartette. Le 26 janvier, il ne s'est rien passé. Une partie – les Palestiniens – avait présenté sa position mais les Israéliens ne l'avaient pas fait.

Madame la Haute représentante, la question que je vais vous poser ressemble à celle du film de Labaki, "Et maintenant, on va où?"

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − I was with President Abbas on 26 January and before that I was with Prime Minister Netanyahu. I feel very passionately that the work that the King of Jordan has initiated to bring the two chief negotiators together should be supported as long as – and this is your point – there is real progress.

The Quartet statement talked about three months from 26 October but – as I have made clear to both parties and have been very open about – if they wish to carry on talking longer, that is fine. The question is that, within the overall timeframe that was set out, we expect serious resolution to be reached. Currently there is work going on. The Jordanian Foreign Minister is very engaged. I spoke with him yesterday. There is a lot of work going on to try to find ways in which President Abbas can feel comfortable for these conversations to be ongoing, but we watch and wait now in these next few crucial days to see if we can see the progress that you quite rightly point to.

  Véronique De Keyser, au nom du groupe S&D. – L'horloge tourne, et très bientôt il y aura probablement des élections en Palestine. En même temps, le Hamas fait actuellement une tournée au Moyen-Orient, puisque Khaled Mechaal est allé en Jordanie aussi.

S'il n'y a pas d'avancée dans le cadre des négociations, c'est effectivement un cadeau que nous ferons au Hamas pour les futures élections en Palestine. Donc, l'enjeu est de taille.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − As always you are right. There is a lot at stake. I met with Hanan Ashrawi and also with Prime Minister Fayyad while I was in the region to talk to them. They are both passionate advocates of seeing the elections happen. They believe it is important to be out campaigning and trying to get a strong resolution. But we are, as always in this region with this issue, at a critical moment. I hope the Government of Israel will show and demonstrate its commitment in some way.

Can I just say that it is very nice to see you because I know you have had an accident. It is lovely to have you here.

  Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, au nom du groupe ALDE. – Madame la Haute représentante, chers collègues, je voudrais vous emmener sur un autre continent, nommément en Afrique subsaharienne et je voudrais vous interroger concernant les plus récents développements en République démocratique du Congo, où les élections présidentielles, dont les résultats ont été – et demeurent d'ailleurs – contestés, ont eu lieu dans une atmosphère extrêmement controversée, très troublée, et où les résultats des législatives ne sont publiés qu'au compte-gouttes et sont à leur tour contestés.

Je voudrais savoir quel est votre point de vue et quel est le sentiment au sein des institutions de l'Union européenne, à l'heure actuelle, à cet égard?

Deuxièmement, je voudrais pointer du doigt une évolution particulièrement préoccupante au Sénégal, où un candidat fort important a été refusé par la Haute cour et où le président sortant – à mon grand regret, parce que c'est un ami personnel – va quand même participer aux élections pour la troisième fois, et cela en dépit de sa propre Constitution.

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. ROBERTA ANGELILLI
Vicepresidente

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − First of all, in the Democratic Republic of Congo President Kabila has a real responsibility to learn from what has happened in these elections as we move forward to the local elections that are due to take place. You will know that I have put out a statement saying that we needed not just calm, but real reflection on what has happened. I am very worried about the potential for a setback in the DRC. It is extremely worrying.

It is a country for which we have provided a great deal of support – I think it is just over EUR 1 billion over the five-year period – and that is extremely important. We have two missions there which are being reviewed, but I hope reviewed with a purpose, to see what more we can do. It is very worrying to see that.

In terms of what is happening for the Senegalese people, we have been very clear on their rights to be able to demonstrate peacefully, to see that there is no violence of any kind, and that we have everyone adhering to the legal procedures that need to take place. So we will want to follow that electoral process very closely.

As the Honourable Member has such clear contacts, I think this is a good example where the work of parliamentarians is going to be vital. I know that many Members of this House have been engaged with the DRC and with Senegal. We need to keep that up.

  Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – We will certainly do that, Madam High Representative. Let me express my conviction that, even if someone is a great artist or a personal friend of some MEPs, this does not mean they can flout the constitutional roles that are applicable in their country.

  Franziska Katharina Brantner, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Baroness Ashton, the US is moving away from Europe. What does this mean for us? Of course we have to look at the future of pooling and sharing within the common security and defence policy. It is advancing very slowly. Maybe my daughter might see some results one day. It is not your fault – it is the Member States.

However, with that as a background, there are three things that have become even more important and they actually come under your responsibility: first, conflict prevention; second, better crisis management; and third, peace building. These come under your responsibility and we need the best of our tools – former Commission and former Council – coordinated and embedded in one structure in order to develop common concepts and approaches, for example in the rule of law, security sector reform and border management.

Developing common approaches is different from managing day-to-day crises. We need to be ready for crises. I thank you for establishing the crisis platform, but where is the appropriate structure you were promising during the negotiations of the External Action Service? Where is it happening? My question is, when will we see that structure and how will it be reflected in the budget for 2013 that the External Action Service is currently drafting?

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − I agree with you about the need to move more swiftly on pooling and sharing. I was at the European Defence Agency yesterday, where the theme of what I was saying – which has been widely reported – was the need to see that in this economic climate pooling and sharing becomes even more important.

You are right to refer to what is happening in the United States because the Defense Secretary there, Mr Panetta, has been very clear too. He has high expectations of us. That also means that it needs to be reflected in our structures, and I agree with you. We have just finished what we call the screening exercise to try to pull together exactly how the structure should work. The crisis platform is meant to be the practical manifestation of how everybody works together: testing our systems for the kind of disaster or crisis that we might face – as well as being ready to develop its work – and exporting our ideas on this across the world.

As you know, we have been engaged with the Arab League in supporting the setting-up of a situation room for them. We have just had a team down in Indonesia helping to support their approach to dealing with crisis. We will make sure that we develop this even further. Conflict prevention and crisis management are critical parts of how we move forward.

  Franziska Katharina Brantner, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Please would you allow me to have a very precise follow-up question. In the External Action Service we are currently building up the Conflict Prevention and Mediation Unit, which has a great Head. It currently has financing due to a pilot project which was initiated by this House. This runs out at the end of 2012. I do not want to see the work of that Unit coming to an end, so my question is, will you integrate this into the regular budget, starting in 2013? This is now happening in the next two weeks.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − I really want it to be integrated into the full budget for two reasons. One is, because of the nature of the way pilot projects run, I cannot use the money in quite the way that we might want to. I want to build up our capacity to deal with these issues and to look at mediation and support in-house as well as externally. I think we really could build on some of the work that we are doing – and I agree with you about the quality of the people we have got – so I am very pleased at the support you offer me on that.

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – At a time of austerity in Europe, the ECR is concerned about your demands for a further EUR 25 million to cover an expected overspend in this financial year in the External Action Service. It seems to us to betray a desire to grow the service beyond its existing remit, before the EEAS has been able to fully prove that it brings real added value in terms of the improved efficiencies which were promised at the outset, such as cuts in EU Member State bilateral embassies as a result of the new EU multilateral diplomatic input.

It has also become your baby, Baroness Ashton. I must give you initial credit for the setting-up, at a time of general EU crisis, of this controversial service which understandably you believe deserves more taxpayers’ money. But the ECR has consistently argued for budget neutrality and for rationalisation of the EEAS’s resources.

The EU missions and their relative sizes are often still distributed according to historical legacies and, some cynics might even argue, pleasant postings, with large delegations in some parts – e.g. Fiji – and none at all in other growing regional economic hubs, such as Panama, which do not always reflect the EU’s current geopolitical priorities. So please, how can you justify this structural expenditure rise, on top of the existing EUR 400 million a year for their running costs? Why do we need this extra money, Baroness Ashton?

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Let us begin with the reality of the story, which is that we have been allocated a number of staff and a number of delegations across the world, where most of the staff – I should add, and particularly in Fiji – are actually working on development across the region. There are certain places in the world where we have a hub and they go out from that hub to work in different parts of the region. There are several places that I could point to where that is the case.

The second issue is that, in inheriting the staff which I was given, I also inherited the terms and conditions which are part of the regulations and which require me to do certain things. That requires me to have additional expenditure, and I have been very clear and very open about that. The staff regulations demand that I pay these salaries and that I make these salary increases and I make these increments at these times.

The third issue is that Member States and Members of this House have been very keen to see the European Union active in places where we have not been active before. I will give you the example of Libya, where Members here were very pleased when I opened an office in Benghazi and have now opened a delegation in Tripoli, but to do so requires resources that are not in the budget that I inherited.

Equally, I have to make places secure across the world. In Iraq our European Union delegation is housed with the British, who are leaving Iraq. I have to find a secure home for them in this time of great difficulty.

So everything that I am asking for is in that context, but I would also say that I have done a ten-percent cost efficiency on missions, I have done a five-percent cost efficiency on representation and I continue to look, for exactly the reasons that you point out, to save money and not to have excessive expenditure. But there is a challenge for me with a new service, with the expectations of this House and the Council and the requirements that are legally on me, and I am trying to meet those in the most cost-efficient way I can.

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – I would just like to put a supplementary question. Given the fact that your EEAS is so well funded, what measures are you now planning to undertake to unblock the Russian and Chinese vetoes in the Security Council on augmenting global sanctions against the Syrian regime’s systematic, brutal attempts to repress – including by shooting innocent children and women – the uprising whose demands are simply more freedom and democracy in that country? The EEAS is very well funded. What are you doing right now in New York to unblock the Russian and Chinese vetoes?

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − I wondered if Mr Tannock was suggesting we should be on the Security Council?

(Laughter)

The first thing to say is that we work very closely with our Member States who are on the Security Council. In the discussions I have had with Sergey Lavrov and with the Chinese state councillor, whom I meet with regularly, we always talk about these important issues, of which Syria is number one.

It is absolutely alarming what is going on in Syria and you are absolutely right to point to it, but our delegation in New York – coordinating with all Member States, but working very closely with those Security Council members from the European Union – are pushing every day, every hour with Russia and with China. Last night I spoke with the Russian Ambassador about this very subject – my political director is currently on a plane back from Moscow, where she has spent two days on this – and I spoke with President Medvedev at our summit. It is really important that we try to find something through the Security Council that can really support what Nabil Elaraby and the Arab League have been moving to do. The discussion I had with the GCC was exactly on this so you make an incredibly important point. I accept that.

  Willy Meyer, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señora Presidenta, señora Ashton, tenemos un problema de credibilidad a la hora de intentar impedir que algunos Estados se hagan con la tecnología suficiente para tener armamento nuclear.

Son los Estados que tienen capacidad nuclear los que no quieren que otros Estados se hagan con esa tecnología; por lo tanto, yo creo que ha llegado el momento, señora Ashton, de que la Unión Europea impulse un tratado internacional para prohibir y destruir ecológicamente todo el arsenal nuclear mundial.

Yo creo que esa sería la mejor propuesta política creíble, a nivel internacional, para acabar efectivamente con esta hipocresía, por la cual los Estados armados nuclearmente no quieren que otros Estados puedan tener esa capacidad. Me corrijo: no todos; algunos, sí, como es el caso del Estado de Israel, que no ha recibido nunca ninguna sanción, y todos sabemos que tiene armamento nuclear.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − The first thing to say is that you specifically raised the Middle East and, as you know, we play a very active role in looking for a Middle East that is free of weapons of mass destruction. I think that what the international community is engaged in is trying to find the right way to move states which are thinking about nuclear capacity, nuclear weapons capability, and which could potentially pose great danger, and of course to continue the work that has been going on for some time – and which we saw with President Obama in his dialogue over the last few years – to reduce the arsenals of nuclear weapons and to try and move forward in that direction.

It is very important that we take our responsibilities seriously. That of course will bring me to mention Iran where, as you know, I played the role of chief negotiator, on behalf of the E3+3, and where we are consistently trying to deal with this through dialogue while recognising our obligations to put pressure on and to make sure that Iran understands its obligations.

  Willy Meyer, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señora Ashton, el problema es que en la misma zona no se ha utilizado la misma vara de medir con otro Estado, que es Israel. No se le ha impuesto nunca ningún embargo, ni ha recibido nunca ninguna advertencia, ningún aviso, y el Estado de Israel tiene armamento nuclear. Por lo tanto, yo creo que ese discurso es el que hay que volver a enderezar.

Y mi última pregunta sobre esta cuestión es que espero que ninguna hoja de ruta de embargos ni sanciones en relación con ningún Estado de la zona pueda terminar en una intervención militar, y que no se esté pensando en una solución así. Yo espero y deseo que no se esté planificando ninguna intervención militar.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − I can assure the honourable Member that the Member States of the European Union, in discussing the issues of Iran, were very clear that the twin-track approach that we are describing is the way that we wish to proceed. That approach involves applying pressure, through our economic ability and political ability, to show Iran what it should do, while showing, through our approachability, our desire to hold discussions, dialogue and talks. I think that was very clear.

In terms of the region as a whole, as I have already indicated, we are very engaged in looking to find ways to have a region free of weapons of mass destruction, which of course includes nuclear weapons.

  Fiorello Provera, a nome del gruppo EFD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Alto rappresentante baronessa Ashton, la Primavera araba ha prodotto non solo mutamenti politici ma anche nuove sfide e minacce alla stabilità. Una di queste è il fenomeno crescente del contrabbando di armi.

Dalla caduta di Gheddafi in Libia, le autorità egiziane denunciano un forte aumento dell'attività di contrabbando di armi nella penisola del Sinai. Missili terra-aria, razzi e cannoni antiaerei sono stati trafugati dalle caserme abbandonate dall'esercito libico e alimentano un mercato nero di armi destinate in particolare alla Striscia di Gaza e ad Hamas. Si tratta di un fenomeno molto preoccupante perché queste armi hanno la capacità di abbattere aerei civili in fase di decollo e di atterraggio e possono finire nelle mani di gruppi terroristici come Al-Qaeda, per esempio nel Maghreb.

Com'è possibile, le domando, contribuire a mitigare questa crescente minaccia e con quali possibili alleati?

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − It is a very important issue and you are absolutely right, Mr Provera, to raise this. It is an issue that we have been discussing with the Egyptians and with Israel, because of the issues of the Sinai desert, and of course with the Libyan authorities which have engaged with us on looking at how we deal with border management and how we might support them in trying to tackle the huge number of weapons that are in Libya and leaving Libya.

We have also, as you know, developed our Sahel strategy. I met with the foreign ministers of the four countries – Niger, Mauritania, Mali and Algeria – to talk about how we could support them as well, as they try and develop their security strategies for the region: firstly, by a combination of collaboration with those governments to try and find ways in which we can offer our expertise, knowledge and support; and secondly, to try and help them deal with their borders, which is a big issue.

Turning to Gaza, I was there last week. We have a constant theme of trying to keep the crossings open and the tunnels closed, so there can be proper trade. I visited places in Israel which have been on the receiving end of the rockets and missiles that have come from Gaza. All of these things are very high on the agenda of the work we are trying to do in supporting this region in transition.

  Fiorello Provera, a nome del gruppo EFD. – Signora Presidente, solo pochi secondi per chiedere all'Alto rappresentante se le autorità libiche sono concretamente in grado di controllare la situazione sul terreno.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − With help, I think, with help. They need international support to do it. They have got people but they need the help from Europeans, from the Americans and others who have got the expertise in how to actually track where weapons are and to destroy weapon stockpiles when they are found.

  Béla Kovács (NI). - Tisztelt Főképviselő asszony! Az ITRE Bizottság tagjaként szeretnék kérdezni Öntől: konkrétan az Európai Unió által Irán ellen hozott energiaembargóval kapcsolatban, amely véleményem szerint egyértelműen politikai döntés.

Amikor ez a döntés megszületett, jól átgondolták-e Önök, hogy ennek milyen súlyos következményei lehetnek az európai biztonságos energiaellátásban keletkező zavarokkal kapcsolatban? Hogyan fogjuk majd választóinknak itt Európában elmagyarázni azt, hogy miért kerül egy liter üzemanyag több mint 2 euróba, illetve hogy fogjuk majd megoldani azt a problémát, hogy majd kígyózó sorok fognak kialakulni a benzinkutakon?

Kérdezem én ezt annak a tükrében, hogy tudomásom szerint az iráni állam beengedi területére a Nemzetközi Atomenergia-ügynökség vizsgálóbizottságát, és jelenleg nem találtak, illetve nincs semmiféle bizonyíték arra, hogy Irán valójában háborús célokra fejlesztene ki atomenergiát.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − I have to say that this is an interesting interpretation of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s report because I would not necessarily – if you will forgive me – agree with you on what they say they have found.

I think you should be reassured that, long before any decisions were taken, there were many discussions, between Member States but also through experts, on looking at the implications, domestically as well as internationally. The purpose of sanctions is to create a strong economic action in order, as I have indicated, to succeed in bringing Iran to the negotiation table.

But, in any sanctions that we introduce, we are very mindful of the domestic impact because the effect is not designed to hurt us. Therefore you will see within the sanctions built-in review periods and periods to check the impact. Just to reassure you further, we also talked with a number of oil-producing countries. I personally did that – I was in the region to do that – as did others, so we could try to guarantee and be certain of that. But all sanctions are kept under review and one of the reasons is to ensure that we understand and we minimise any impact.

Procedura “catch the eye”

  Philippe Boulland (PPE). - Madame la Haute représentante, Madagascar est l'un des pays les plus pauvres au monde et vit une crise politique dont l'issue passera par l'application de la feuille de route conduisant aux élections présidentielles et législatives. La croissance de ce pays est négative. En temps normal, notre contribution avoisine les 50 % du budget de ce pays. L'Union européenne a suspendu, à juste titre, son appui budgétaire aux programmes indicatifs nationaux (PIN) des 9e et 10e FED mais pas aux OMD. Pendant ce temps-là, la population souffre et les entreprises implantées à Madagascar sont parfois mises à contribution malgré elles.

Tout en appuyant votre prise de position, nous souhaitons que vous pesiez de tout votre poids, avec la SADC, pour que l'imbroglio juridico-judiciaire concernant le retour de l'ancien président soit réglé au plus tôt, ce sujet étant l'un des éléments les plus sensibles de l'application de cette feuille de route.

Je souhaiterais votre avis sur le sujet et vous indique aussi que le groupe d'amitié Union européenne-Madagascar, que nous venons de créer au Parlement européen, est disponible pour œuvrer avec vous et la Commission dans l'intérêt du peuple malgache et pour la défense des valeurs de notre Union.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − (microphone off at start of speech) ... an offer of help and I would be extremely pleased for us to have the opportunity to talk more about Madagascar. We are very clear that this is a country where Article 96 applies, where you have this unconstitutional change of government. As I understood it from the SADC road map, this was an important African leadership move where, in a sense, we were able to give our conditional backing to the transition process, but I appreciate that this is now a country with immense challenges. Our new ambassador has just arrived and presented credentials and I am hoping that we will get further information on how best we can engage with it, apart from the obvious support that we are offering. It is difficult and we are in touch with SADC to see what more we can do to support them. You are right to point to their road map as being an important element of this, but we should talk further with the group.

  Alejo Vidal-Quadras (PPE). - Señora Presidenta, señora Ashton, el método que está siguiendo la Unión Europea en sus relaciones con el régimen iraní es una combinación de diplomacia y sanciones. Pero no nos engañemos: estamos hablando de un régimen brutal, dictatorial e inhumano, y todos sabemos que es imposible razonar con aquellos que son irrazonables. Basta recordar el ataque a la Embajada británica en Teherán para advertir qué concepto tiene el régimen iraní de las relaciones diplomáticas.

En este contexto, mi pregunta concreta es la siguiente: dado que el régimen iraní está claramente violando el Tratado de No Proliferación, ¿no sería indicado establecer una fecha límite, fija e improrrogable, para que cumpla sus obligaciones y, si no lo hace en ese plazo, imponer sanciones adicionales realmente efectivas?

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − I think that the approach that we have taken is one I would describe as ratcheting up the sanctions. It is important when we impose them to make sure that they are effective and, as you know, to be careful that we look for ways that they are being evaded by countries.

We began with sanctions from the EU. We have ratcheted these up and continue to look at them. For the timeframe, I think we have to go back to the Security Council. The work that I do in discussion and negotiation with Iran is determined by the Security Council who have given us this task.

The message that I have sent to Iran through every interlocutor that I have met – and I travel a great deal and I talk about Iran a great deal – is to say: you tell me you agree with the way I have tried to carry out these negotiations, but there is a limit to how long that approach will work before the Security Council will want to discuss it again. I mean nothing more than that. I am not hinting at anything. I am not suggesting anything. I merely say that the Security Council will want to reflect on whether Iran has responded to all the sanctions that have been put on it.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - (sem microfone) imediata condenação pública pela sua parte, da receção dada em Trípoli ao Presidente Omar al-Bashir, que está sob mandato de captura do Tribunal Penal Internacional por crimes de guerra, genocídio e contra a humanidade no Darfur. Foi-nos, entretanto, explicado, na Comissão dos Negócios Estrangeiros deste Parlamento, que haviam sido, de facto, feitas diligências em Trípoli para vincar as obrigações internacionais a que a Líbia está vinculada, mas que elas não haviam sido publicitadas porque alguns dos nossos Estados-Membros se opunham.

Pode indicar-nos quais são os Estados-Membros que se opõem, que razões invocam e por que razões a Alta Representante se há de submeter a essas razões? E face às graves violações dos direitos humanos que as agências noticiosas e as organizações não-governamentais têm reportado das cadeias líbias, com torturas, desaparecimentos, assassinatos de prisioneiros, o comunicado entretanto emitido em seu nome é pouco incisivo. Quer isto dizer que não aprendemos nada com o silêncio cúmplice em relação às barbaridades cometidas por Kadafi e continuamos a silenciar e a nada exigir às autoridades líbias atuais?

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Indeed, Ms Gomes, there is going to be a démarche by the delegations and the Hungarian Ambassador will probably do it on our behalf in Libya. There was a meeting on Sunday of Heads of Mission in Tripoli. It was decided that there would be a démarche. We have made clear to the Libyan authorities our view of this visit for all the reasons that you know well, and I expect the démarche to happen very soon.

  Richard Howitt (S&D). - There has been no shortage of opportunity for Baroness Ashton to speak in this Chamber, but this is the first time we have had question time and I very much welcome it.

So many of the debates that we have had in this past year, one year after the Arab Spring, have been about the humanitarian crisis where repression has continued. Instead can I ask her to comment today about where progress has been made – in a country like Jordan, and she has already referred to the King of Jordan in relation to the Middle East peace process. Are there lessons to be learned about transition without the need for violence? And in a country like Tunisia – where of course we have had what were widely accepted constituent elections and where the Arab Spring began – what lessons are there for the depth of the deep democracy for which she strives? Could she comment on the lessons that she has learned?

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − I am delighted that the Prime Minister of Tunisia has chosen, on his first visit outside the country, to come to Brussels and that he will be here tomorrow.

It is not an accident. It is because of the work that we have done, particularly through our delegation, to whom I pay tribute, but also because of the taskforce we set up, which enabled us to bring together economics and politics. With business leaders, the European Investment Bank, the EBRD, the African Development Bank, the World Bank, with Members of this House, with others from different institutions such as the Commission and so on, we were able to pull together a package of support for Tunisia that was about democracy – deep democracy, not elections just once, but continuing – and economic support and growth. I am very pleased that he will be here tomorrow.

In Jordan we are about to do the same. We have a taskforce in February where we will pull this together in order to support the changes. I will be very pleased that representatives of this House will be with me to do that.

  Marita Ulvskog (S&D). - Fru talman! Tack, fru Ashton, för att ni är här. Två svenska journalister sitter sedan åtskilliga månader tillbaka fängslade i Etiopien. De beskylls för att ha ägnat sig åt terrorbrott. De anklagas för det, trots att de bara har bedrivit journalistisk verksamhet och gjort sitt jobb.

Nyligen höll Afrikanska unionen ett toppmöte i Addis Abeba. Jag vill veta om det fördes några diskussioner om de svenska journalisternas situation vid det mötet. Jag vill gärna veta om kommissionen var representerad vid mötet. Jag vill framför allt veta vilka insatser EU kan göra för att dessa två journalister, Johan Persson och Martin Schibbye, ska få komma hem. När får de komma hem? Det är bråttom!

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − We are watching this case very closely and we are talking with our colleagues in Sweden about it. You know that the legal process is now finished and that the two Swedish gentlemen are now looking to find a way that this can be settled within the framework of Ethiopian law.

You will understand that there is a lot of work going on, but I am not at liberty to elaborate on the talks that are being conducted at the present time. I am sure that we can perhaps talk to you privately a little more about that; this is only for their benefit, not for any other reason.

The African Union summit took place and Mr Piebalgs was due to be there. I know he was ill; I do not know if he made it for part of the summit. For me, our managing director, Mr Westcott, was there to ensure that we were fully represented at the meeting. I do not know whether there were specific talks on this topic. As you know, it was a summit which featured some quite difficult discussions on a number of subjects, but we will certainly find you the answer to that question.

  Andrew Duff (ALDE). - Baroness Ashton, with regard to Turkey what are you planning to do if Turkey carries out its threat to boycott the Cypriot Presidency of the Council? Surely this will be destructive of the positive agenda and contribute only to further increasing the instability in the Eastern Mediterranean? Would you not agree that the Cypriot Presidency is in fact a perfect pretext for Turkey to join the European and international mainstream and recognise the Republic of Cyprus?

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − A number of remarks have been made, but there is no public position from Turkey. I can reassure the House that my relations with Ahmet Davutoğlu, the Foreign Minister of Turkey, on issues of foreign policy and concern are very strong and will continue throughout the course of this year, and in a sense throughout all the Presidencies in my time in office.

I think what is important is that we continue to support all the efforts that are being made to try to resolve the issue for Cyprus, and that we work closely with our Cypriot colleagues and Members of this House – and in the European Council and Foreign Affairs Council and elsewhere – to try to seek such a solution, of course with the UN in the lead, which is so vital. So we will continue on that course throughout the Presidency.

  Nicole Kiil-Nielsen (Verts/ALE). - Madame la Haute représentante, je voudrais vous parler du Kazakhstan. Savez-vous que la grève massive des travailleurs du pétrole lancée en mai dernier dans la province de Manguistaou a donné lieu à une brutale répression et à l'arrestation des syndicalistes ainsi que de leur avocate? Le 16 décembre dernier, une manifestation pacifique à Zhanaozen s'est achevée dans le sang. On parle de nombreux blessés, au moins quinze morts, des arrestations, des mauvais traitements, de la torture, des viols.

Les élections législatives du 15 janvier dernier ont été qualifiées par les observateurs de non libres et de non démocratiques. Enfin, des défenseurs des droits humains et des militants des partis d'opposition, invités récemment à s'exprimer devant des membres de notre Parlement, ont été arrêtés à leur retour et risquent de longues peines d'emprisonnement.

Face à cette dérive autoritaire et répressive, le silence de l'Union européenne n'est pas acceptable. Comment comptez-vous réagir, Madame la Haute représentante, à ce que je viens de vous énoncer?

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − As indeed you said, the elections on 15 January 2012 – as the OSC said – were not in accordance with the principles of democratic elections and we have commented on that. The ensuing violence that we have seen between striking oil workers and the police is extremely worrying and again we have sought that the Kazakh authorities should investigate and find a solution to this. I am quite worried about the situation.

Tomorrow the Foreign Minister, Minister Kazykhanov, will be here and I will be meeting with him. I will not only express my own concerns; I will of course, on behalf of honourable Members, make our concerns known to him. It is very important that, especially in their current role in the OIC, they really do take these issues seriously and deal with them properly.

  Struan Stevenson (ECR). - You will not be surprised that I want to raise the question of Camp Ashraf.

As you know, last December Martin Kobler, the UNAMI (United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq) Special Representative in Iraq, signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Iraqi Government without first having got the approval of the residents of Camp Ashraf which he had pledged to get in advance. Nor was he acting in accordance with the wishes of the UN Secretary-General, who said that the Ashraf people must approve the MoU. Yesterday he issued a press release saying that Camp Liberty is ready for the displacement of the 3 300 people from Ashraf, when in fact there is no freedom of movement – they will not be allowed to take their personal possessions, they will be surrounded by thousands of military and police.

This is not a refugee camp, this is fundamentally a prison. Please, can you insist that the Iraqi Government uphold its obligations and not allow them to get away with this kind of unorthodox treatment.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − As you know, I have raised these issues with the Iraqis from the beginning. You and I have been in many dialogues about this and rightly so. It is a very worrying situation.

I do know that Martin Kobler has been in touch with the residents of Camp Ashraf throughout this process. There is a lot of information so that it is quite hard to unpick exactly what is happening. There are different kinds of interests at work in this whole process. He will be here tomorrow and I know he is meeting with you. He knows not only how important this is to you, but how important it is to Members of this House. He will also be in Paris to have discussions. The ambition is to now find the solution that will take these people to a better future, enabling them to live the lives that we all want them to lead. I hope that the transition through Camp Liberty is a way of ensuring that they move forward in the future and that their needs are properly addressed. We will be meeting with him tomorrow to make sure that those messages get through.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). - Madam High Representative, Belarus remains the only country in Europe which imposes the death penalty and carries out executions.

I would like to draw your attention to the case of two young Belarusians – Dmitry Konovalov and Vladislav Kovalyov, aged 25 and 26 – who have both been condemned to death and could be executed at any moment without warning. They were accused of committing terrorist attacks in Vitebsk in 2005, in Minsk in 2008 and in the Minsk metro in April 2011. The guilt of these two young men has not been proven and even relatives of the victims expressed their doubts that Konovalov and Kovalyov are guilty of committing these crimes.

My question to you is: are you aware of this case? What actions have been undertaken by you, or do you foresee undertaking, in order to save the lives of these two young men?

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − I could not agree with you more: it is terrible that the death penalty should still exist in our neighbourhood. I passionately believe that there should be a universal moratorium on the death penalty – especially in a case like this in Belarus, where the situation is frankly deteriorating and where I am extremely worried about what is happening to ordinary people, to civil society, as that country frankly fails to understand the opportunity of the relationship with the European Union, and fails to live up to its obligations.

I do know about the two young men – I think Mr Konovalov’s mother was here recently. We are watching this very closely. We have made it very clear that we do not believe that the death penalty should be used in any circumstances, but it is especially worrying in the current climate and situation in Belarus.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). - I would like to return to my colleague Mr Stevenson’s question because I think the UN mediation negotiated by Mr Kobler has not provided sufficient guarantees for the safety and freedom of choice for more than 3 000 people there. This is contrary to the position taken by Parliament several years ago, because the Iraqi authorities have clearly violated the relocation programme, launching missile attacks against the camp. I think the role of your representatives has lately been rather marginalised because they have even been denied a visa for Iraq.

I put it to you that, if you say that the relocation to Camp Liberty is the way for the future, I think it is a very ominous way. I urgently call upon you to use your authority, to speak more vocally and more decisively to solve this humanitarian crisis, which is still pending, because these are people who have consistently advocated a truly democratic, secular and nuclear-free Iran, which is what we need.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − I do not believe that we have been marginalised at all. I think that we have been extraordinarily active in the most appropriate way we possibly can.

This is the country of Iraq. We have to respect that. We have to work with the UN and Martin Kobler, who I feel has been the subject of some terrible things in terms of what has been said to him and who is doing his real best to find a way through this.

It is going to keep these people safe. We have heard lots of different reports about missile attacks over the period. The question for me is how to get them to safety and how to get them to their future. It is clear that they have to move – that seems to be accepted by everybody – and to do so in a way that is as safe as possible. I have made many offers to the UN and to Iraq to be as engaged as we possibly can in that and I will continue to do so. But I really do think we now have to work through what is inevitably a bit of a compromise, frankly, to try to get these people to safety. That is what we will continue to do.

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). - Pani Przewodnicząca! Pani Wiceprzewodnicząca/Wysoka Przedstawiciel! Koleżanka Andrikienė mówiła już o sytuacji na Białorusi. Ona się rzeczywiście pogarsza nie tylko w związku z wyrokami śmierci, ale również z procesami wobec działaczy praw człowieka czy podejrzeniami o tortury stosowane wobec byłych kandydatów na prezydenta. Wiem, że Pani oraz ministrowie spraw zagranicznych mają tego świadomość, bowiem 23 stycznia podjęliście decyzję o rozszerzeniu podstaw prawnych dla nowych sankcji dla Białorusi. Jednak w tym samym czasie, mimo że zostały nałożone sankcje wizowe na ministra spraw wewnętrznych Białorusi, mógł on podróżować do Francji, wziąć udział w konferencji Interpolu w Lyonie i bezpiecznie wrócić do Mińska. Z drugiej strony, mimo sankcji ekonomicznych, cały ten mijający rok 2011 był rokiem wzrastających obrotów handlowych między państwami Unii Europejskiej i Białorusią. Jak Pani ocenia efektywność obecnych sankcji i czy widzi Pani możliwość wprowadzenia skutecznych sankcji, które powstrzymają białoruski reżim od dalszych represji?

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − I am very happy to look at where people have been and this is part of trying to review the designations for sanctions, for the reasons you rightly say – to keep the pressure on and to make sure that they are targeted. But one of the big challenges for us is to make sure that ordinary people are not unduly affected, and that means having the discussions which we are now engaged in in Minsk with opposition groups, with civil society, to try and make sure that we are reaching out to ordinary people. Somehow we have to develop this in a way that helps them.

That is why, for me, it is so important that the discussions in the February Foreign Affairs Council reflect what we know and what we learn from our discussions on the ground with civil society, opposition groups, and so on, so that we target it appropriately. I do not want to hurt the relationship between European countries and people in Belarus. I want to find ways we can strengthen this while, at the same time, continuing to ratchet up our sanctions and concern with the government. That is really the challenge we have to face and that means we have to think about the economic issues alongside the political ones.

  Γεώργιος Παπανικολάου (PPE). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κυρία Αντιπρόεδρε, έχει περάσει περίπου ένας χρόνος από τότε που η Επίτροπος Malmström ανακοίνωσε στο Κοινοβούλιό μας ότι ολοκληρώθηκαν οι διαπραγματεύσεις με την Τουρκία για την συμφωνία Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης-Τουρκίας σχετικά με την επανεισδοχή υπηκόων τρίτων χωρών που παρανόμως εισέρχονται σε ευρωπαϊκό έδαφος προερχόμενοι από την Τουρκία. Διευκρινίζω στο σημείο αυτό ότι, σήμερα που ομιλούμε και έχουμε την ευκαιρία να σας απευθύνουμε ερωτήματα, όπως εξάλλου συμβαίνει καθημερινά, περισσότεροι από 320 υπήκοοι τρίτων χωρών έρχονται από τη Τουρκία σε ευρωπαϊκό έδαφος διασχίζοντας τα σύνορα στη Βόρεια Ελλάδα και συγκεκριμένα στην περιοχή του Έβρου. Παρά την ολοκλήρωση της συμφωνίας και παρά την έγκριση από το Συμβούλιο πριν από ένα χρόνο περίπου, η Τουρκία δεν έχει ακόμη προχωρήσει στην έγκριση της συμφωνίας και βεβαίως ούτε στην εφαρμογή της διότι ζητά ως αντάλλαγμα, σύμφωνα τουλάχιστον με τις δηλώσεις Τούρκων αξιωματούχων που διαβάζουμε, την απελευθέρωση των θεωρήσεων για τους υπηκόους της που ταξιδεύουν προς την Ευρώπη. Σας ερωτώ, κυρία Αντιπρόεδρε, πέραν των όσων κάνει η Επίτροπος Malmström, εάν σκοπεύετε να λάβετε εσείς πρωτοβουλία για το συγκεκριμένο θέμα και εάν σκοπεύετε να κάνετε κάτι περισσότερο.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − The first thing to say is that Cecilia Malmström will be following this up herself. She has not raised this directly with me, but now that you have asked me I will make sure that I talk to her about it.

It is a general problem. We have to find ways in which these agreements can be properly implemented. Certainly she is tireless in her work to try to make sure not only that she gets agreements but that they are properly dealt with. So, if I may, I will ask her perhaps to send you a fuller answer from her perspective as the Commissioner responsible.

  Piotr Borys (PPE). - Szanowna Pani Przewodnicząca! Nawiążę do sytuacji w Kazachstanie. Miałem okazję organizować z panią Kiil-Nielsen wysłuchanie (hearing) z udziałem kazachskiej opozycji. Jeden z jej liderów, pan Władimir Kozłow, został aresztowany, nie ma możliwości uczciwego procesu, ani nie ma adwokata.

Na to nakłada się tragedia zamordowanych ludzi. Wczoraj rozmawiałem z ambasadorem Kazachstanu i z prokuratorem generalnym, a także ze świadkami tej tragedii i apelowałbym o trzy rzeczy: po pierwsze o to, aby wesprzeć możliwość międzynarodowego procesu w sprawie tej tragedii w Żanaozen, gdzie zginęli ludzie. Wiem, że prokurator generalny Kazachstanu też będzie o to prosił. Po drugie chciałbym, aby poprzez działania dyplomatyczne zapewnić możliwość pomocy rodzinom ofiar. Wiele osób potrzebuje wsparcia. I po trzecie, aby starać się dyplomatycznie wpłynąć na to, by opozycja, jeżeli jest aresztowana, miała prawo do obrońców, aby te podstawowe prawa były zachowane. Dziękuję bardzo!

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − As you know, the Kazakh authorities have said that these arrests are to do with their investigation into events in December but you are quite right, they are extremely worrying. As I have said already, I have the Foreign Minister of Kazakhstan coming to Brussels tomorrow. We will have a meeting. At that meeting I have a number of issues to discuss with him, but it will not surprise you that these issues will be top of the agenda.

We need to find out exactly what is happening. If there is a case to answer, we need to see the transparency of that system; we need to see that things are done properly and so on. Until we see that, I agree with you that it continues to be worrying. We shall continue to look at this and see what more we should do.

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΣΤΑΜΚΟΣ
Αντιπρόεδρος

  Tarja Cronberg (Verts/ALE). - Two years ago, in the context of the NATO strategic concept, there was a lot of discussion about the removal of tactical nuclear weapons from European soil. There were also discussions about removing Russian tactical nuclear weapons on the other side of the border. Are the European Union and your office taking any initiatives or are you involved in any initiatives about the reduction of tactical nuclear weapons either in Europe or in Russia?

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − We keep ourselves involved with these issues. You are right to raise the importance of the European Union being engaged in what are important matters for the security and safety of our citizens but also, as you rightly point out, the reciprocal work being done with Russia. Within the External Action Service we have the capacity to look at these issues from a disarmament perspective. As you know, I attend meetings at NATO of foreign ministers and defence ministers, and I will be at NATO tomorrow.

So we are engaged in this. Our concern is that the work we do, as I was describing earlier – for example on a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction – is geared to our commitment to try and support all these initiatives that will reduce the numbers.

  Sajjad Karim (ECR). - Madam Vice-President/High Representative, may I firstly welcome you back after your successful visit to India. It was very well received and I have no doubt that it will help us enormously in making headway in the negotiations that are due to take place.

Your office has already confirmed to me that we are due to meet in order to discuss some of the human rights issues that I have previously raised, so I shall not touch upon them here today. However, could you please give me some indication of what measures you were able to negotiate or discuss in relation to our motor manufacturers, who really do believe they are going to feel the pinch right across the European Union as and when this agreement is finalised? If you could give some indication of that today I would be obliged.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Thank you for all the support that you have been giving in the work that we are doing in India and in Pakistan. As you know, I will be in Pakistan in a few weeks’ time.

The free trade agreement has a whole range of key sectors within it. I hesitate to speak too much on this because this is Karel De Gucht’s territory and I stray onto it at my peril – quite rightly too. What we try to do is to make sure that in each of the discussions there is a real dialogue with the industries who are going to be directly affected. A free trade agreement in principle is designed to support and enhance the opportunities of all countries and of all sectors of industry, but one has to be very mindful of the implications that there can be for individual sectors.

So, if I may, I will find out more about where those particular discussions might be. For my part, my role was to try to ensure that we were moving forward in the bilateral relationships with India on security issues, on issues of human rights and on economic matters, in order that we have the strongest possible relationship with a country that we will be debating later in the context of what we now call the BRICS.

  Πρόεδρος. - Η ώρα των ερωτήσεων έληξε.

14. Iranas ir jo branduolinė programa (diskusijos)

  Πρόεδρος. - Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη αφορά την Δήλωση της Αντιπροέδρου της Επιτροπής/Υπάτης Εκπροσώπου της Ένωσης για την Εξωτερική Πολιτική και Πολιτική Ασφαλείας σχετικά με το Ιράν και το πυρηνικό του πρόγραμμα

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, as we already touched upon in Question Hour, the issue of the Iranian nuclear programme is of great concern for all of the European Union and for the international community as a whole.

Colleagues have already mentioned that, at the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 January, we discussed the issue in the context of agreeing new sanctions. As I indicate on all occasions, we are committed to maintaining this pressure on the Iranian authorities to comply with their international obligations, and it is a key element of the twin-track approach along with the E3+3 process which, as you are aware, I lead.

We have several UN Security Council resolutions but in spite of them Iran continues to violate its obligations. It does not cooperate fully with the IAEA and it accelerates the expansion of its nuclear programme. In early January it started operations to enrich uranium to a level of near 20% at the underground facility at Qom, a site controlled by the military.

Honourable Members know that for a number of years serious concerns have been expressed concerning the lack of cooperation from Iran in resolving these outstanding issues, including those that point to the military dimension of its nuclear programme.

The IAEA report of November 2011 presented findings on its activities relating to developments of military nuclear technology. On that basis, the Board of Governors adopted by overwhelming majority a resolution that expressed increasing concern on the Iranian nuclear programme. I hope that the work that we do demonstrates our commitment to efforts aimed at achieving a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear issue, the second part of the twin track.

I have written to Dr Jalili, my counterpart, setting out proposals which would allow Iran to gain benefits in the nuclear, political and economic field but, despite reminders, I have so far received no response to proposals to enter into a confidence-building process based on reciprocity and a step-by-step approach. We have always expressed our readiness to address, in the framework of confidence-building, other issues of concern which may be of interest for Iran, for example cooperation in the area of counter-narcotics.

I take every opportunity to reiterate this message to the Iranian side, most recently in my discussions with Foreign Minister Salehi and in parallel by using my contacts with third countries, particularly Turkey, to pass the message to Iran that the door remains open for negotiations through this confidence-building process which could be launched as soon as Iran demonstrates its readiness to do so.

So it is against the background of that approach that the Council adopted further measures. It was an important step. It showed EU unity and EU leadership. These measures are designed to specifically and significantly affect Iran’s financial capacity to pursue that nuclear programme by curtailing its revenue from crude oil exports. The sanctions on oil are of particular significance because of their effect on the revenue of the Iranian Government. Oil exports count for about 80% percent of Iran’s exports and 70% of government revenues. The EU imports amount to 20% of Iran’s oil exports. So by specifically targeting this important source of revenue we are strongly increasing the pressure on the Iranian Government, whilst avoiding as far as we possibly can negative effects on the Iranian population.

We do not stand alone in this. UN sanctions continue to be in force. On 31 December 2011 the United States decided to strengthen further its sanctions against Iran, targeting in particular the Iranian financial system and revenues from different sources including from oil exports. We now need to convince as many like-minded countries as we can, in particular those who import Iranian oil, to take similar steps and consider reducing their import of that oil. This will maximise the effect of the sanctions.

The prohibition is taking place in a phased manner, allowing us to adjust to the new situation, and a review has been built in to take stock of the effect of the measure in the course of the coming months and address any problems that may arise. By doing so we have ensured that the EU and Member States will be able to have the time and means to adjust and ensure the continuity of their energy supplies.

Finally, I just want to mention that we also continue to have grave concerns about the human rights situation in Iran. This relates in particular to ongoing oppression of the political opposition, but also to the increasing use and excessive application of the death penalty. In reaction to the repression and the dramatic increase in executions there has been since April 2011 an EU sanctions regime against Iran addressing the human rights situation. It targets specifically those people complicit in or responsible for these grave human rights violations and, since it was strengthened in October, it now includes 61 people. A prohibition on the supply of equipment that could be used for oppression is also part of our sanctions.

So I believe that our approach is the right one – continuing our pressure on Iran, continuing to push for negotiations – and I look forward very much to hearing from honourable Members on this issue.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor Presidente, señora Vicepresidenta de la Comisión/Alta Representante de la Unión, Señorías, el Consejo del día 23 ha tomado una decisión difícil, pero coherente —la felicito por ello, señora Ashton—, y este Parlamento va a apoyar las conclusiones del Consejo en la resolución que votaremos mañana.

Ha sido difícil, como usted acaba de explicar, porque ha supuesto sacrificios para varios Estados miembros, y coherente, porque está en consonancia con las posiciones que hemos venido defendiendo. Tanto el Presidente de la República Francesa como los Primeros Ministros de Francia y del Reino Unido han dicho que no van a consentir que Irán se dote del arma nuclear.

Pero, aparte de coherentes, estas medidas tienen que ser eficaces para privilegiar la vía del diálogo, para conseguir que Irán vuelva a la mesa de negociaciones, para que coopere plenamente con los inspectores del Organismo Internacional de Energía Atómica y también, señora Ashton, para apagar los tambores de guerra que se encuentran sonando: Israel ha dicho que todas las opciones están abiertas y algún precandidato republicano en los Estados Unidos ha dicho que hay que actuar rápidamente.

Por otro lado, algunos ministros iraníes han dicho que estas sanciones van a ser ineficaces, porque la Unión Europea necesita más del crudo iraní que este país de los recursos de la Unión Europea, y la amenaza de cerrar el estrecho de Ormuz y de una escalada de la tensión en la zona puede repercutir seriamente en los precios del petróleo y complicar más aún la difícil situación económica que estamos viviendo.

Por ello, señora Ashton, quisiera decirle que, más allá de la dimensión interna y de la coherencia que hemos mostrado con las decisiones del Consejo del día 23, es importante también actuar en estos momentos en la proyección e influencia externa con nuestros aliados. Usted nos acaba de decir que ha visitado la India; la posición de la India, Japón y otros países es fundamental para que las medidas que se han adoptado puedan surtir los efectos que muchos de nosotros deseamos.

  María Muñiz De Urquiza, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor Presidente, señora Ashton, efectivamente, Irán va a seguir siendo un asunto crítico en el año 2012 que acaba de comenzar. Va a seguir desempeñando su papel de desestabilizador global y de desestabilizador regional desde su posición de falta de transparencia en relación con su programa nuclear y desde su condición de tercer exportador mundial de crudo.

Pero esta situación de tercer exportador mundial de crudo supone que la industria petrolera es para Irán -como usted ha dicho- el 80 % de sus ingresos, y esto puede dar visos de efectividad a nuestras sanciones.

Señora Ashton, aunque Israel, aunque los republicanos en los Estados Unidos estén en un nivel de escalada inaceptable para nosotros, mi Grupo excluye totalmente, taxativamente, la opción militar. Apoyamos el enfoque europeo de la doble vía que usted ha mencionado, apoyamos unas sanciones proporcionadas y dirigidas a empresas, a dirigentes políticos y a agentes económicos, minimizando su efecto sobre el conjunto de la población. Pero, señora Ashton, la Unión Europea tiene que reactivar la segunda vía de esta doble vía, es decir, la diplomacia. Y en lo que debemos insistir es en las inspecciones rigurosas del Organismo Internacional de Energía Atómica, en la aceptación por Irán de todas las medidas de salvaguardia que impone este Organismo a cambio de la producción de uranio enriquecido para uso civil, tal como permite el Tratado de No Proliferación de las Armas Nucleares.

No se trata -como ha hecho usted en la carta que dirigió en octubre al negociador iraní- de limitarse a exigir a Irán que renuncie a su capacidad de enriquecer uranio como precondición para el diálogo. La producción de uranio por parte de Irán debe ser controlada por todas las medidas del Organismo Internacional de Energía Atómica y, por nuestra parte, debemos crear las condiciones y las medidas de confianza, con una agenda más amplia y más ambiciosa en nuestras relaciones con Irán.

  Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, Iran replied to the most recent EU sanctions with surprise, a surprise not only mentioned by officials but also reflected in the further decline in the value of the currency, as the EU remained united in its sanctions package of 23 January. The EU is strong when it stands united and leads, as the Vice-President/High Representative has said. Let us see more of it.

However, isolating Iran is not a success or goal as such. The ALDE Group would urge the Vice-President/High Representative to work with Turkey and other partners, to do everything possible, to use all diplomatic means available to encourage Iranian officials to engage in meaningful negotiations over the nuclear issue. This also means looking into different ways in which Iran might be persuaded, and not just at sanctions.

The EU should also look at having a permanent representation in Iran and eventually open an EU representation on the ground, to relay more directly our joint concerns over human rights violations, besides our vital role in the E3+3 negotiations. May I remind some Members on the conservative side of this House especially, that sanctions are an ultimate means and not a goal in and of themselves. I am proud and glad that the EU has always clearly distinguished between seeking to impact individuals with responsibilities for either the nuclear programme or human rights violations, but not the Iranian population. They, after all, feel largely unrepresented by their political, military or religious leaders.

It is therefore even more important that the EU acts independently of the United States, especially in an election year. The US has consistently chosen different sanctions packages to the EU, but the US sanctions also impact EU businesses by imposing not only direct but also indirect sanctions. I believe food and medicine should always be able to reach the Iranian people.

One last point that is of particular importance for the people in Iran, especially the young generation, and that is the role that technologies can play in either enhancing or threatening human rights. I believe the EU should take its responsibility in ensuring, at least, that no repressive technologies are exported to such repressive regimes, and this we can do now without controversy.

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

  Charles Tannock (ECR), blue-card question. – Mr President, Ms Schaake made a specific reference to the ‘conservative side of the House’ believing in sanctions for their own sake. First of all could she actually explain whom she means by the conservatives – does she mean my Group, the ECR Group? And whatever makes her think that we would be in favour of sanctions just for their own sake? Sanctions have to be imposed with a political objective in mind. I will speak about that in my speech in a few minutes’ time, but I just wondered whether she could elucidate what she meant by that?

  Marietje Schaake (ALDE), blue-card answer. – Mr President, in reply to Mr Tannock, I meant to point out that there are specific Members who are keen on imposing sanctions. The European People’s Party has asked for a split vote in a text that is also before this House tomorrow, a text which seeks to have a consistent EU approach to repressive regimes and in which we clearly state that the EU does not impose sanctions in order to target entire populations, but rather to address individuals. I think the text is appropriate and I regret the fact that there are apparently some people on the conservative side of this House relative to where my group stands, who seek to talk about sanctions as a whole, instead of making that important distinction which I am glad Mr Tannock will make as well.

  Tarja Cronberg, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, the Green Group expresses its great concerns at the tense situation in the Gulf region and supports the new EU sanctions against Iran. Many of us, however, are also very concerned at the possible negative effects on the Iranian population. Parliament’s opinion has always been that there cannot be a military solution to a nuclear conflict with Iran. We should not leave any ambiguity about this question and the Greens have proposed an amendment to this effect.

The EU has a dual-track approach to sanctions and negotiations. Sanctions have been enforced. Now it is time for negotiations. The question is: how can we open up for negotiations? The Iranians have said they are willing, and I think one of the things the EU has to accept is that the Iranians will not suspend all uranium enrichment as a precondition for sanctions. We strongly urge all parties to negotiate seriously and without preconditions.

Iran and the West have taken turns in rejecting each other’s offers for compromise, and several opportunities have been missed because the phases of goodwill between E3+3 and Iran were not synchronised. I hope this will not be the case in the future. We would also like to see Turkey and Brazil involved in the negotiations. They were proposing compromises in this respect and would be good partners to have included. If we manage to continue negotiations, this could then open a new historical window to the nuclear-weapon-free Middle East. The EU should support actively this UN conference and be helpful in setting a road map for this process.

The Greens think that the EU should also set a good example and give up nuclear energy, as Germany has decided. The example of Iran clearly shows there is no way to clearly separate nuclear activities for civilian uses and the use of the same technologies for military aims.

As a goodwill gesture showing the EU’s readiness for dialogue, we should finally open an EU representation in Tehran and Iran should receive security guarantees, as it is very difficult to bring a country to the negotiating table under a permanent threat of war.

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, Iran’s nuclear military ambitions and its government’s constant refusal to engage with the IAEA and UN Security Council demands constitute a major threat to global security. They also pose a potential risk to peace in the Middle East, with an existential threat to the State of Israel in particular. They are also likely to lead to a regional arms race, with neighbouring Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia also wishing to acquire such nuclear weapons if Iran is allowed to possess one in breach of its NPT international legal obligations.

We must now all hope that measures agreed by the European Union, even with political support from countries like Greece, Spain and Italy, which are large importers of Iranian oil, will put economic pressure on the regime and make it much harder for the leadership to move money around the world and will force Tehran to come back to the negotiating table. It shows that when there is a clear and urgent need for action the EU does not always dither and dodge the issue. This is Europe speaking as one voice for once on the most serious global threat and I would encourage Iran to start listening.

Traditionally Iran should also showcase the legacy of its glorious Persian culture. Instead it is sadly one of the most brutal, theocratic dictatorships in the world, having suppressed all opposition to the last flawed presidential elections, and a country which carries out shocking public executions of homosexuals, those guilty of so-called sexual misdemeanours, including minors, as well as exporting terrorism via its proxies, such as Hezbollah, to neighbouring countries. It also regularly interferes in neighbouring countries, from Bahrain to militarily propping up the Syrian Ba’athist dictatorship. All the more reason, therefore, why it must never become a nuclear power. Contrary to what some have said, no future or further options to prevent this should be excluded from the negotiations.

  Cornelia Ernst, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Die jüngsten Sanktionen der EU sind keine vertrauensbildenden Maßnahmen, sondern Säbelrasseln. Das ist doch Fakt. Durch mehr Druck die Kompromissbereitschaft Irans erreichen zu wollen, ist politisch naiv und zugleich fahrlässig.

Wir wollen als GUE/NGL keine Nuklearprogramme, völlig klar, auch nicht im Iran. Wir verurteilen das iranische Regime massiv wegen der katastrophalen Menschenrechtsverletzungen, der Unterdrückung religiöser Minderheiten und der Verfolgung von Menschenrechtsaktivisten, aber ein Stopp für iranisches Öl durch das De-facto-Handelsverbot mit der iranischen Zentralbank trifft letztlich die Bevölkerung. Das ist doch Fakt. Das ist außerdem Wahlkampfhilfe für das iranische Regime im Zusammenhang mit den Wahlen im März dieses Jahres und erhöht die Kriegsgefahr in der gesamten Region. Das ist die Dimension, Frau Ashton, über die wir hier sprechen.

Es gibt bis heute keinen echten Beweis für ein gegenwärtiges Atomwaffenprogramm des Iran. Es gibt Hinweise bis 2003, für danach hat die Atomenergiebehörde in ihrem Bericht keine Belege. Sie hat Vermutungen, Behauptungen von Geheimdiensten.

Statt Eskalation brauchen wir den Menschenrechtsdialog und ernsthafte Verhandlungen für einen atomwaffenfreien Nahen Osten und ein friedliches Nebeneinander in der ganzen Region, und das ist der Auftrag der EU und nicht die Verschärfung der gegenwärtigen Situation.

  Bastiaan Belder, namens de EFD-Fractie. – Extern en intern staat het leiderschap van de Islamitische Republiek onder zware druk. Zelfs de autoriteit van Khamenei, de opperste leider, staat openlijk ter discussie. Nu, op dit ogenblik, doet zich daarmee voor de internationale gemeenschap dè gelegenheid voor Iran van zijn nucleaire dwaalweg af te brengen, wellicht zelfs de laatste gelegenheid.

Mevrouw, de Hoge Vertegenwoordiger, u weet persoonlijk hoe uiterst moeilijk het is om tot werkelijk serieuze onderhandelingen te komen met Teheran. Naar ik van harte hoop vindt u een gesloten transatlantisch, - collega Schaake, hoort u het? - transatlantisch front achter u in 2012. Dat transatlantische front weet op het ogenblik van geen wijken in de Perzische Golf. Denk aan de assistentie van Engeland en Frankrijk aan de Amerikaanse vloot, alle oorlogsretoriek en provocaties van Iraanse zijde ten spijt. Deze transatlantische stellingname ondersteunt ook het inspectieregime van de internationale atoomgemeenschap. Dit is de huidige test case voor Teheran, en niet andersom zoals parlementsvoorzitter Larijani gisteren beweerde.

Mevrouw de Hoge Vertegenwoordiger, de contouren van het Islamitische schisma tussen Soennieten en Sjiieten tekent zich weer volop af in het Nabije Oosten. Een kernwapenwedloop dreigt door de Iraanse nucleaire ambities. Uw opgave, Europa's opgave, is om dat onheilscenario mede te verhinderen.

  Martin Ehrenhauser (NI). - Herr Präsident! Das derzeitige iranische Regime ist ein Unrechtsregime, das steht für mich außer Frage. Und als Österreicher kann ich ohne Doppelmoral einen atomwaffenfreien Iran fordern. Fakt ist jedoch auch, dass es derzeit keine Beweise für das Atomwaffenprogramm des Irans gibt. Der aktuelle IAEO-Bericht spricht immer nur von einer möglichen militärischen Dimension. Und auch eine aktuelle US-Studie spricht von begrenzten Möglichkeiten zur Urananreicherung für militärische Zwecke.

Richtig ist auch, dass wir in jedem Fall eine militärische Lösung auf der Basis von falschen Argumenten vereiteln und verhindern sollen. Daher meine Frage an Frau Ashton: Was ist eigentlich Ihr Plan B? Also für den Fall, dass die Sanktionen nicht greifen. Für den Fall, dass die Sanktionen nicht die gewünschten Maßnahmen bringen. Was ist dann Ihr Vorhaben?

Zweitens hätte ich noch eine Frage zum Camp Ashraf. Die Deadline ist ja verschoben worden. Das Camp Ashraf soll verlegt werden. Es gibt den Vorschlag, dass die europäischen Staaten Mitgliedern oder Personen aus dem Camp Ashraf Asyl gewähren, und zwar jenen Personen, die eine europäische Vergangenheit haben. Liegt dieser Vorschlag noch auf dem Tisch? Was halten Sie von diesem Vorschlag?

  Elmar Brok (PPE). - Herr Präsident, Frau Vizepräsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Ich glaube, dass das, was wir mit den Resolutionsentwürfen bezwecken und was die Hohe Beauftragte hier vorgetragen hat, relativ gut zusammen passt. Auch ich bin der Auffassung, dass die Sanktionen verstärkt werden müssen, dass sie so sein müssen, dass sie nicht kontraproduktiv sind, dass sie nicht zu einer Solidarisierung der Bevölkerung mit dem Regime führen, sondern einen gegenteiligen Effekt haben.

Ich glaube, wir sollten deutlich machen, dass dieses Regime, das eine wirkliche Diktatur ist, sich nicht an die Bedingungen des Nichtverbreitungsvertrags hält und dass aus diesem Grunde auch Maßnahmen entsprechend der UN-Resolutionen, also wie diese jetzt der Europäischen Union, durchgeführt werden müssen.

Aber ich meine auch, dass das Regime gewarnt werden sollte, Abenteuer in der Straße von Hormus zu versuchen, weil dies nämlich nicht im Interesse des Regimes ist. Denn mit unseren Vorschlägen, mit diesen Sanktionen, die auch gegen eine größere Bevölkerungsgruppe, insbesondere aus Unternehmen der iranischen revolutionären Garden, gerichtet sind, wollen wir versuchen, deutlich zu machen, dass die Europäische Union einen Weg sucht, bei dem kein militärisches Vorgehen notwendig ist, und dass, wenn sie erst am 1. Juli greifen sollen, auch hier noch ein Zeithorizont ist, das abzuwenden, wenn die Botschaft richtig begriffen wird.

Lady Ashton, ich danke Ihnen dafür, dass Sie sagten, dass diese Botschaften gegeben werden durch unsere Beschlüsse, durch Gespräche, durch Partner wie die Türkei, aber ich hoffe, verstärkt auch durch Länder wie Russland und China, die hier ihre Verantwortung wahrnehmen müssen, damit eine eindeutige Botschaft der Weltgemeinschaft vorhanden ist.

Ich meine, dass wir auf dieser Grundlage in der Lage sein sollten, nicht nur ein Regime zu stabilisieren, sondern gleichzeitig dafür Sorge zu tragen, dass die Welt nicht unsicherer wird, dass ein solches Regime nicht mit Raketen ausgestattet wird und nukleare Waffen bekommt. Gegen ein friedliches Nuklearmodell hat niemand etwas, und ich glaube, dass das Regime aus diesem Grunde endlich bereit sein sollte, mit der internationalen Gemeinschaft zusammenzuarbeiten, damit niemand eine Begründung findet, militärisch vorzugehen.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - Mr President, the Iranian authorities persist in enriching uranium at a suspicious level which is incompatible with their stated ‘peaceful civilian purposes’. We say that we are strengthening sanctions, but are we sending strong enough warnings to all European agents that sanctions are not to be circumvented this time? This is a very dangerous year, with US elections on the horizon and intense sabre rattling in some quarters in the US, Israel, and even in Europe.

The EU should rule out a military solution which can only spell disaster for the region and beyond, notably Israel. Instead, in our dual-track approach, we should consider exploring a broader settlement by all diplomatic means. We could do this by recognising Iran as a regional power and establishing a diplomatic mission in Tehran and by shifting the non-proliferation focus to an internationally controlled fuel bank which Iran could access. We could create a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free Middle East by working for regional security and economic arrangements, which would include Saudi Arabia and possibly Israel, thus guaranteeing inviolability of current borders and economic progress for the region. And we could send clear support and solidarity to the Iranian people, namely those fighting for basic human rights, making clear that sanctions will not target the people and produce counterproductive effects that would only fuel the opportunistic propaganda of the regime.

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). - Herr Präsident! Ich habe mich ausdrücklich über den Beschluss des Rates, Sanktionen zu verhängen, ein Ölembargo zu verhängen und den Druck auf den Iran zu erhöhen, gefreut. Ich halte das für sinnvoll und für richtig, und ich bin erstaunt, wenn manche Kollegen sagen, es gäbe keine Beweise für eine militärische Absicht oder man könne nicht trennen zwischen ziviler und militärischer Nutzung. Man braucht sich nur die Tatsachen anzusehen. Der Iran besitzt 5 000 kg Uran, das auf 3 % angereichert ist. Das ist das, was man für die Energieherstellung braucht. Aber er hat schon 75 kg, die auf 20 % angereichert sind, und das ist nur zu erklären, wenn man eine militärische Nutzung anstrebt. Die Anreicherung muss auf 90 % getrieben werden. Technisch ist das komplex, aber alles andere als unmöglich.

Alle Fakten, auch der neueste Bericht der Internationalen Atomenergiebehörde, sprechen dafür, dass hier eine militärische Nutzung angestrebt wird. Das heißt, hier haben wir einen überschaubaren Zeitrahmen, in dem sich das Ganze abspielt, und es ist deswegen richtig, dass die Europäische Union jetzt den Druck erhöht. Das gleiche gilt für die Trägersysteme, Vulgo-Raketen. Die Iraner arbeiten selbstverständlich an Mittel- und Langstreckenraketen. Die Dringlichkeit der Lage wird hierdurch noch stärker in den Vordergrund gerückt. Es wäre besser gewesen, das Ölembargo wäre mit sofortiger Wirkung in Kraft getreten – bei allem Verständnis für die Notwendigkeit einiger Mitgliedstaaten, Diversifizierungsmöglichkeiten zu finden. Aber so hat auch der Iran die Möglichkeit, Ausweichmöglichkeiten zu finden.

Ich freue mich darüber, dass der gemeinsame Parlamentsentschluss von einer breiten Basis getragen wird. Ich freue mich auch über die besonders konstruktive Rolle der IAEO, insbesondere, seit Yukiya Amano den Posten des Generaldirektors dort übernommen hat. Das ist eine große Hilfe, und ich freue mich auch über die positive, konstruktive Rolle, die die Türkei neuerdings in dieser Frage spielt.

  Struan Stevenson (ECR). - Mr President, the lessons of the Arab Spring hold true for Iran just as much as for any oppressive government anywhere in the world. Khomeini, Ahmadinejad and their fascist colleagues in Tehran are not immune to the winds of change that are sweeping across the Middle East. They see the writing on the wall and that is why they are intensifying their efforts to build a nuclear weapon so that they can reassert their authority in the region and hold the free world to ransom.

We have surely by now recognised the abject failure of our policy of appeasement. Our attempts to appease them has simply provided the regime with time to continue its promotion of terrorism worldwide and its construction of nuclear weapons at home against a background of desperate oppression and human rights abuse. Therefore, I welcome tougher sanctions against this brutal terrorist regime in Iran. It is worthy of note that they are one of the few remaining countries who still support Assad in Syria. There is no place for dialogue with these tyrants. Let us work robustly for regime change.

  Sabine Lösing (GUE/NGL). - Herr Präsident! Atomwaffen gehören zu den grauenhaftesten Waffen, die es gibt, und sie gehören weltweit abgeschafft! Die zivile Nutzung der Kernenergie ist unbeherrschbar. Deshalb müssen wir uns mit aller Kraft für einen weltweiten Atomausstieg und für eine weltweite atomare Abrüstung, aktuell für eine atomwaffenfreie Zone im Nahen und Mittleren Osten, einsetzen. Friedlich!

Bis dahin gelten die aktuellen Verträge. So kritikwürdig das Regime im Iran auch ist, so ist festzustellen, der Iran hat den Atomwaffensperrvertrag, im Gegensatz zu Indien, Israel, Nordkorea und Pakistan, unterzeichnet. Er nimmt somit das allen Staaten in diesem Vertrag garantierte Recht zur zivilen Nutzung der Atomenergie in Anspruch. Das ist gefährlich – so wie es auch in anderen Ländern gefährlich ist. Und niemand kommt auf die Idee – zu Recht – nun gegen alle Staaten, in denen es Atomkraftwerke gibt, militärisch vorzugehen oder sie mit Sanktionen zu bestrafen. Weder Geheimdienste noch der jüngste Bericht der Atomenergiebehörde geben stichhaltige Beweise, dass im Iran Atomwaffen gebaut, vorbereitet oder geplant werden.

Doch eben aus diesem Vorwand werden seit vielen Jahren unverhohlene Kriegsdrohungen gegen den Iran Realität. Hinzu kommt ein immer aggressiverer Wirtschaftskrieg, der das Land destabilisieren soll. Diese Politik, meine Damen und Herren, ist hochgefährlich für den Weltfrieden und beschränkt die Möglichkeiten der fortschrittlichen Opposition im Iran. Es sieht sehr danach aus, dass wie so oft Frieden und Menschenrechte globalen Interessen der USA und der EU zum Opfer fallen sollen.

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

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD), "blauwe kaart"-vraag. – Is het u bekend dat van de zijde van de Islamitische Republiek Iran bij herhaling de Joodse staat Israël in het Nabije Oosten met vernietiging heeft bedreigd? Zijn u gevallen bekend dat Israël Iran op dezelfde wijze bejegende? Graag uw reactie!

  Sabine Lösing (GUE/NGL), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Selbstverständlich weiß ich das, ich weiß aber ehrlich gesagt nicht, was diese Frage im Augenblick mit dem Thema zu tun hat.

  Fiorello Provera (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, baronessa Ashton, è difficile essere ottimisti. Il possesso dell'arma atomica da parte di Teheran avrebbe effetti gravemente destabilizzanti nell'area tra il Mediterraneo e il Caucaso e potrebbe innescare una corsa all'armamento nucleare negli Stati vicini che per varie ragioni temono Teheran, come ad esempio l'Arabia Saudita o la Turchia.

I missili iraniani Shahab 3 di ultima generazione possono colpire Stati membri dell'Unione europea come Grecia, Cipro, Romania e Bulgaria e renderebbero possibile la minaccia del regime di Teheran di distruggere lo Stato di Israele. Un Iran nucleare potrebbe davvero bloccare lo stretto di Hormuz, rendendo estremamente rischiose eventuali contromisure politiche o militari. Non possiamo permetterci una nuova Corea del Nord in Medio Oriente.

Le nuove sanzioni decise dall'Europa sono senza dubbio positive, ma il tempo stringe per trovare una soluzione diplomatica a questa crisi ed evitare l'opzione militare.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). - Herr Präsident! Am Freitag wird Teheran vermutlich ein Notgesetz beschließen, das mit sofortiger Wirkung Öllieferungen in die EU stoppen wird. Damit werden alle Mitgliedstaaten, die einem Boykott iranischer Öllieferungen zugestimmt haben, sofort von der Belieferung ausgeschlossen. Und das, obwohl die EU noch bis Juli laufende Verträge hat.

Kurzfristig wird das EU-Embargo aber die Zivilbevölkerung treffen. Mittelfristig wird der lachende Dritte China sein und seine Energiedefizite prächtig aus dem frei werdenden europäischen Kontingent abdecken. Damit würden die Verluste durch das EU-Embargo ausgeglichen und der Druck aus Teheran letztlich ausbleiben. Der Ölboykott würde somit nicht den gewünschten Effekt zeigen, und die EU würde geostrategisch weiter ins Hintertreffen geraten.

Wir sollten mehr auf kompetente Exil-Iraner hören, die davor warnen, dass Boykottmaßnahmen die Falschen treffen werden, weil es zu einer Solidarisierung im Land kommen wird. Die EU sollte daher mäßigend einwirken und eine Eskalation mit allen Mitteln verhindern.

Anzustreben wäre natürlich ein gesamter atomwaffenfreier Nahost-Raum. Und selbstverständlich ist auch die Sicherheit Israels auf jeden Fall zu gewährleisten.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). - Pentru grupul PPE, decizia Consiliului din 23 ianuarie, de a extinde sancţiunile existente la adresa Iranului, e binevenită. E vorba despre cele mai dure sancţiuni de până acum impuse regimului de la Teheran. După îngheţarea activelor unei lungi liste de companii şi persoane fizice din Iran, după restricţionarea exporturilor de produse sensibile şi a investiţiilor în domeniul hidrocarburilor din Iran, următoarea etapă logică era sancţionarea resurselor petroliere, ce au o importanţă strategică pentru această ţară.

Adoptarea sancţiunilor nu e niciodată un lucru făcut cu superficialitate. În cazul Iranului, aceste măsuri sunt cu atât mai necesare cu cât riscul de proliferare nucleară legat de programul iranian e din ce în ce mai preocupant. Cred, de aceea, că e foarte important că Uniunea a dat dovadă de fermitate, în lipsa unui răspuns clar din partea Iranului la propunerea de reluare a negocierilor. Înăsprirea sancţiunilor şi tonul nostru ferm semnalează clar iranienilor că nu vom accepta continuarea programului nuclear.

În fine, pentru cei care susţin că sancţiunile sunt fără efect şi chiar contraproductive, vreau să subliniez două aspecte care mi se par importante: sancţiunile de până acum au îngreunat efectiv programul nuclear iranian, şi au împiedicat Iranul să obţină bomba nucleară. Pe de altă parte, Iranul a început să dea semne că aceste măsuri au un efect asupra economiei sale. Sancţiunile sunt prin urmare cheia rezolvării crizei nucleare şi pot aduce Iranul din nou la masa negocierilor.

(Vorbitorul a acceptat să răspundă la o întrebare „cartonaș albastru” (articolul 149 alineatul (8) din Regulamentul de procedură))

  Ashley Fox (ECR), blue-card question. – Mr President, does Mr Preda agree with me that the gravest threat to peace in the Middle East and the Gulf region is a nuclear-armed Iran, and therefore that maintaining the threat of military action is vital in ensuring it complies with the will of the international community?

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE), Răspuns la „cartonaşul albastru”. – Cred că, dacă am înţeles bine întrebarea, avem acelaşi punct de vedere.

  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D). - Voorzitter, mevrouw Ashton, u ziet dat er een heel brede steun over alle partijgrenzen heen is voor uw standpunt in de Europese Unie. Ik denk dat wij door de halsstarrigheid van het Iraanse regime - en dat is dan nog een sterk understatement - geen andere kant meer opkonden dan sterke sancties nemen, als geef ik toe dat ik ook wel wat gemengde gevoelens heb.

Ik weet niet - u bent de expert en er zitten ongetwijfeld andere experts - of er veel voorbeelden bekend zijn van gevallen waarin sancties ook effectief geleid hebben tot een wisseling van het regime. Dat middel moet altijd met de nodige kritiek benaderd worden. Maar goed, wij moeten daar achter staan.

Toch een paar belangrijke opmerkingen in het uitvoerige debat dat hier gevoerd wordt. Ik en mijn hele fractie zijn van mening dat deze sancties geen opstapje mogen zijn naar militaire interventies of naar een gewapend conflict in de regio en in Iran. Ik vind dat dat duidelijk moet zijn en ik denk niet dat wij de militaire dreiging nodig hebben om toch onze tanden te laten zien. Ik denk dat een militair conflict slecht is voor de regio, slecht voor Iran en ook voor Europa, en dus geen optie is.

Ten tweede, meer in een bredere context - en ik ben heel blij, mevrouw Ashton, dat u daar ook naar verwezen heeft -, wat mij nog veel meer zorgen baart is de situatie van de bevolking in Iran en de mensenrechten. Ook wat dat betreft kunnen wij de hand in eigen boezem steken. Er zijn nog altijd bedrijven in de Europese Unie die hun technologie gebruiken, verkopen om in Iran mensen te onderdrukken, bij voorbeeld via communicatietechnologieën, hetzij communicatietechnologieën gebruiken om mensen af te luisteren, te bespieden of de om bijvoorbeeld internet niet vrij te laten.

Ook daar, denk ik, moeten wij zorgen dat wij voor onze eigen deur vegen, mevrouw Ashton. Ik hoop dat u en de Commissie daar het nodige werk van zullen maken.

  Antonyia Parvanova (ALDE). - Mr President, the situation in Iran emphasises more than ever that the Iranian nuclear programme has to be addressed effectively by the international community. And let us also not forget about ongoing issues, such as the permanent violations of human rights in that country.

We should once again call on the Iranian authorities to cooperate fully with the IAEA on all issues, particularly those raising concerns about the possible military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear programme. This includes access without delay to all sites, equipment, persons and documents requested by the Agency.

The European Union has been taking a pragmatic and straightforward approach when it comes to sanctions against Iran. Madam High Representative, should sanctions not deliver on their objectives? Could you elaborate on how you intend to collaborate with Middle East countries, and in particular with Turkey, in advancing towards a workable solution? How feasible is a direct dialogue between the EU and Iran?

  Νίκη Τζαβέλα (EFD). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κυρία Ashton, σας παρακαλώ θερμά να καταβάλετε περαιτέρω διπλωματικές προσπάθειες. Δεν είμαι σίγουρη ότι η δυτική διπλωματία ακολουθεί τον δέοντα τρόπο προσέγγισης προς το Ιράν. Δικαιούνται σεβασμό και έχουν μια ιστορία 4000 ετών που πρέπει να λαμβάνουμε υπόψη. Θα ήθελα να επισημάνω τρία σημεία. Το πρώτο αφορά την λεπτή ισορροπία που απαιτείται όταν επιβάλουμε κυρώσεις, σχετικά με το ποιος επηρεάζεται περισσότερο από αυτές, η ελίτ που κυβερνά ή ο λαός. Φοβάμαι ότι είναι ο λαός αυτός που θα πληγεί σε αυτή την περίπτωση και ότι θα έχουμε αντίθετο αποτέλεσμα από αυτό που επιθυμούμε. Το δεύτερο αφορά τις κυρώσεις επί της ενέργειας. Η ενέργεια περιλαμβάνει συμβόλαια πολυετή, 40 και 50 ετών, μεγάλες υποδομές, αύξηση των τιμών των ειδών κατανάλωσης σε όλο τον πλανήτη. Είναι δυνατόν να μην λαμβάνονται υπόψην όλα αυτά και να προχωρούμε με μια διαδικασία η οποία μπορεί να δημιουργήσει πολύ μεγάλα οικονομικά προβλήματα όχι μόνο στην Ευρώπη αλλά και σε ολόκληρο τον κόσμο; Συνεχίστε τις διπλωματικές προσπάθειες παρακαλώ.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, it is quite right that governments across the world are deeply concerned at Iran’s nuclear programme and the threat to global security that is posed. As many colleagues have said, this is a brittle regime not concerned with the human rights of its citizens, and one which has posed a constant threat to the State of Israel and contributes to the tinder box situation in the Middle East.

It is therefore quite right that appropriate sanctions are put in place in order to encourage Iran to enter into negotiations. A further escalation of the nuclear programme, which is undoubtedly about developing nuclear weapons, or attempts at acts such as closing the Strait of Hormuz, would be entirely unacceptable.

I welcome the resolution of the international community in this matter. The decision by the UK, the US and French Governments in sending warships and the aircraft carrier through the waters of the Strait of Hormuz sent the right signal. It is important that we have one voice and the resolve to stand together to protect the safety of our citizens, but these must not only be about dialogue and diplomacy: we need to retain the threat that actually we will take action if this continues.

  Lena Kolarska-Bobińska (PPE). - Mr President, I think we are now entering a new and extremely difficult phase in our relations with Iran – or rather in our lack of relations with Iran. The report by the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms that Iran has the knowledge and the desire to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has repeatedly tried to keep hidden from the IAEA the truth of its actions and to impede the work of the IAEA inspectors – as it is doing now.

Internationally Iran has threatened to take military action against our allies and to block the Strait of Hormuz. Internally we see more and more repression of democratic movements, and that really concerns us. There is no hope that the March elections in the country will bring about any change in those policies.

Therefore the European Union has no choice but to act, and it was right to impose sanctions. The current threats from Iran make it clear that we can no longer support this undemocratic regime by buying their oil. Right now we have to put pressure on Iran to engage fully in negotiations. These negotiations cannot be just a talking shop or a sham to play for more time but must seek to halt and clarify the nuclear programme. Baroness Ashton, you should not accept anything other than straight talk and a real exchange of opinions. We can begin to talk about renewed imports of Iranian resources only when Iran applies the United Nations resolution and the suggestions of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  Μαρία-Ελένη Κοππά (S&D). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, Βαρόνη Ashton, η σημερινή συζήτηση στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο είναι μεγάλης σημασίας. Η επιβολή των νέων κυρώσεων κατά της Τεχεράνης ήταν απολύτως επιβεβλημένη αλλά εξίσου επιβεβλημένη είναι και η προσπάθεια να εξαντλήσουμε όλες τις δυνατότητες προκειμένου το Ιράν να επανέλθει στο τραπέζι των διαπραγματεύσεων. Η απόφαση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης να επιβάλει τις κυρώσεις, αν και αναγκαία, δεν είναι απλή διότι θα έχει ως συνέπεια να αυξηθούν οι τιμές του πετρελαίου και διότι παράλληλα θα δημιουργήσει πρόβλημα στα ενεργειακά αποθέματα πολλών χωρών. Το οικονομικό κόστος εξάλλου, ειδικά για τις χώρες του Νότου, αν ληφθεί υπόψη και η οικονομική κρίση, θα είναι μεγάλο. Από την άλλη, δεν πρέπει να ξεχνούμε ότι το Ιράν έχει τη δυνατότητα να διοχετεύσει το πετρέλαιό του σε άλλες αγορές πέραν των ευρωπαϊκών. Υπάρχει όμως και κάτι σημαντικότερο, διότι πρέπει να εξασφαλίσουμε ότι οι κυρώσεις θα είναι απόλυτα στοχευμένες και ότι θα πλήξουν όσο το δυνατόν λιγότερο τον ιρανικό λαό. Θεωρώ, Βαρόνη Ashton, ότι θα πρέπει να εξαντλήσετε όλα τα μέσα προκειμένου να πειστεί το Ιράν να συνεργαστεί εποικοδομητικά στο ζήτημα των πυρηνικών. Αλλά δεν πρέπει να είναι αυτό το μόνο ζήτημα. Η διεθνής κοινότητα και η Ευρώπη φαίνεται ότι έχουν ξεχάσει τη φρικτή κατάσταση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων στη χώρα αυτή. Νομίζω ότι πρέπει να υπενθυμίσετε το ζήτημα στην Τεχεράνη και να τους επιστήσετε ξανά την προσοχή σε αυτό το θέμα. Σε κάθε περίπτωση, πρέπει, με κάθε τρόπο, να αποφευχθεί η ένοπλη σύρραξη. Δεν συμφέρει κανέναν μια σύρραξη στην περιοχή του ήδη επιβαρυμένου αραβικού κόσμου. Φοβάμαι ότι η κόκκινη γραμμή που έχουν θέσει οι Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες σχετικά με το κλείσιμο των στενών του Ορμούζ κλιμακώνει επικίνδυνα την κατάσταση. Πρέπει βεβαίως το Ιράν να πείσει έμπρακτα τη Δύση για την ειρηνική χρήση του πυρηνικού του προγράμματος, αλλά και για τη διάθεσή του να συνεργαστεί. Όλοι γνωρίζουμε ότι αυτό δεν είναι αυτονόητο.

  Nick Griffin (NI). - Mr President, on weapons of mass destruction, one should remember how politicians and media liars queued up to demand action against Iraq over WMDs. That propaganda lie justified sanctions and an illegal war. MEPs who voted for sanctions against Iraq over those non-existent WMDs might have meant well, but they helped to murder hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, who died through lack of food and medicine. Now it is nuclear weapons of mass destruction. It is a new target, Iran, but the main victims will be the same – children – because a successful oil and banking embargo would make it impossible for Iran to buy enough food and medicine for its population.

If the EU votes for sanctions it exposes itself as bankrupt – not merely financially, but morally too. If Saudi Wahabis and Zionist neo-Cons want war with Iran, that is their business, but it is not ours, and we should stay out of it.

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

Elnököl: SURJÁN László
alelnök

  Charles Tannock (ECR), blue-card question. – Mr President, Mr Griffin has a liking for Iran with its existential threats to the state of Israel. The words ‘neo-Cons’ and ‘Zionist’ were a bit of a giveaway, I am afraid. That is where, I am afraid, he and his party come from politically. But I wanted to ask him a more serious question relevant to the debate. If he believes that Iran is pursuing a peaceful option for its nuclear programme, what on earth does it need 20 – or even 50 – percent enriched uranium for?

  Nick Griffin (NI), blue-card answer. – Mr President, I am no friend of Iran. I am very critical of Islam and all things Islamic, and the Islamic threat to Europe. But, as regards the Middle East, that is the affair of the countries of the Middle East. It is not for us to interfere. When the Iranians look at what happened to Libya – which did not have effective weapons – you really cannot blame them for wanting to defend themselves, if that is what they are doing.

As for weapons of mass destruction, however, we have heard the lies before and I think we are hearing the lies again.

  György Schöpflin (PPE). - Köszönöm a szót, Elnök úr, és szeretnék Önnek külön gratulálni. Angolul folytatom.

Iran’s nuclear programme is I think without any question a source of potential danger for the wider West Asian region, but we should not allow ourselves to be mesmerised by the nuclear issue because that way we run the risk of missing several other strategic developments. For one, Iran is a major power in conventional military terms; indeed militarily it hardly needs nuclear weapons. Secondly, Iran has the potential to block the Strait of Hormuz. This has already been mentioned. This would affect oil exports from the entire Gulf region – I want to stress that – and it would involve around a fifth of the world’s oil consumption. Then, with Iraq gradually evolving into an Iranian satellite, Tehran’s power has increased markedly. The uprising in Syria, another of Iran’s allies, directly affects Iran’s interest, hence the support extended to the Assad regime.

In all it is not hard to see the ultimate objective of Iran’s strategy: control of the Gulf, the neutralisation of Saudi Arabia and the exclusion of the United States from the region. The nuclear question is only a part of these strategic issues.

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Der Nahe und der Mittlere Osten sind für Europa und die Welt eine lebenswichtige Region. Hier wird darüber entschieden, ob sich unsere weitere Zukunft friedlich entwickelt, und in diesen Tagen steht sehr viel auf dem Spiel. Die gegenwärtige Regierung des Iran trägt alles dazu bei, dass sich die Entwicklung zuspitzt: ihr Spiel mit der atomaren Aufrüstung, die Bedrohung der Existenz Israels und die Unterstützung terroristischer Aktivitäten in der Region.

Wiederholt hat die Völkergemeinschaft, hat die Europäische Union den Iran darauf hingewiesen und gewarnt. Die iranische Regierung hat diese Warnung in den Wind geschlagen und alle an einer diplomatischen Lösung Bemühten verhöhnt. Die Sanktionen der EU sind daher ein logischer Schritt. Verständlich und kohärent, wenn sich die Politik, den Iran an den Verhandlungstisch zu bringen, fortsetzt.

„Zuckerbrot und Peitsche“ kann man diese Politik nennen. Momentan ist offensichtlich die Peitsche am Werk. Wir sollten aber auch gerade jetzt daran denken, die Karotten sichtbar zu machen. Dies würde vor allem die Opposition im Iran stärken und das Regime von innen her unter Druck setzen.

Im Sinne der Kohärenz und Kontinuität der europäischen Politik ist es wichtig, alles zu tun, um zu verhindern, dass sich der Konflikt zu einer kriegerischen Auseinandersetzung aufschaukelt. Historische Beispiele gibt es auf diesem Kontinent genug. Ein Krieg hätte verheerende Folgen für die Bevölkerung Irans, für die Region, gerade auch für Israel, und es würde die Region um Jahrzehnte zurückwerfen.

In diesem Sinne ist es wichtig, alles zu tun, um zu verhindern, dass wir in eine kriegerische Auseinandersetzung hineinschlittern, weil Krieg keine Antwort ist.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). - Mr President, I welcome the EU decision to place an embargo on Iranian oil imports, ban new contracts and freeze Iranian central bank assets, because the recent EU decision, coupled with existing American measures, will come close to imposing the ‘crippling sanctions’ referred to by the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

It is important to note that the EU, as a block, is Iran’s second largest customer, taking about a quarter of Iranian exports. The latest set of EU and US sanctions goes beyond targeting the persons and institutions involved in the nuclear programme. Hopefully those sanctions will achieve their aim, but more important is that the EU Member States are perfectly aware of the possible consequences and that the respective governments are prepared to deal with them.

The European Parliament, in its resolution, makes a strong statement in support of the EU’s dual-track approach for the negotiations with Iran, which offers both rewards and punishments. What is clear is that we are far away from trusting the current Iranian regime and, at the same time, we would wish Iran to become a country like Japan, which has the capability to become a nuclear power quickly if need be, but which has rejected taking the final steps to possessing nuclear weapons.

Finally, in this context, what could give negotiations and diplomacy a chance is the ever-changing situation in Iran and in the region, including the move towards democracy in the Middle East.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). - Iranul se situează într-o regiune extrem de sensibilă. O armă nucleară iraniană ar însemna practic un pericol în plus pentru pacea din această zonă şi o metodă pentru exercitarea controlului asupra ţărilor vecine. Sunt, prin urmare, de acord că este nevoie de clarificarea intenţiilor acestei ţări. Cu toate acestea, trebuie să ne întrebăm dacă o sancţiune generalizată asupra petrolului iranian va da rezultatele scontate.

Cred că nu putem pedepsi întreaga societate pentru greşelile comise de clasa conducătoare şi, de aceea, sancţiunile trebuie dirijate către cei care deţin puterea, şi vreau să atrag atenţia, doamnă Ashton, că este necesară evaluarea permanentă a efectelor acestor noi sancţiuni. În acelaşi timp, Uniunea Europeană trebuie să încurajeze în mod constant dialogul cu partea iraniană, şi, aşa cum aţi spus, să ne folosim de relaţia pe care aceasta o are cu Turcia. Însă dialogul nu trebuie să se limiteze doar la problema nucleară, ci să includă şi situaţia drepturilor omului, aşa cum au spus şi mulţi dintre colegii mei.

Referitor la acest ultim aspect, Uniunea Europeană trebuie să obţină de la propriile ei întreprinderi sistarea exporturilor de produse folosite întocmai pentru oprimarea cetăţenilor iranieni, precum, în special, produsele electronice.

În final, aş dori să subliniez că singura soluţie la situaţia tensionată a relaţiilor cu Iran este una paşnică. O intervenţie militară ar reprezenta o greşeală majoră, cu consecinţe dezastruoase. Uniunea Europeană, prin intermediul Înaltului Său Reprezentant, trebuie să declare ferm că este împotriva unei intervenţii militare şi să-şi afirme deschiderea către dialog.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Wysoka Przedstawiciel! Nie mam żadnych wątpliwości, że Parlament Europejski musi wypowiedzieć się w sprawie Iranu i jego programu nuklearnego. To nie my, lecz Międzynarodowa Agencja Energii Atomowej ma poważne obawy dotyczące ewentualnych wojskowych aspektów irańskiego programu nuklearnego. A jak pokazują dowody, Iran pracuje nad stworzeniem jądrowego urządzenia wybuchowego. To nie my zmusiliśmy Iran, aby został stroną układu o nierozprzestrzenianiu broni jądrowej, w związku z czym sam wyrzekł się nabywania broni jądrowej i jest prawnie zobowiązany do zgłaszania wszelkich prowadzonych przezeń działań jądrowych. To nie my, tylko Iran nadal nie wywiązuje się ze swoich zobowiązań wynikających z odnośnych rezolucji Rady Bezpieczeństwa ONZ, w tym najnowszej z nich nr 1929, oraz nie przestrzega wymogów Rady Gubernatorów Międzynarodowej Agencji Energii Atomowej. To nie my, ale polityka irańskiego rządu w niektórych dziedzinach stwarza zagrożenie dla stabilności i pokoju w regionie.

Chciałbym, aby Pani Wysoka Przedstawiciel pamiętała w tej nuklearnej atmosferze o innych problemach związanych z Iranem, o których zresztą sama mówiła:o przestrzeganiu praw człowieka czy ciągle niepewnej i niebezpiecznej sytuacji obozu Ashraf. Posłowie pytali też o to w turze pytań. I musimy zrobić wszystko, aby te problemy wspólnie rozwiązać.

  Peter Šťastný (PPE). - Mr President, Iranian refugees from Camp Ashraf will move to a new Camp Liberty, which the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly has compared to a prison camp. The green light was issued by the UN mission in Iraq. This approval was granted without the consent of Camp Ashraf residents, despite the promise of the UN Envoy, Ambassador Martin Kobler, that such approval be obtained.

The EU should take a much more active role, with Baroness Ashton’s direct involvement – especially after the refusal of the Iraqi Government to let it play an active part in the negotiations. In addition there are approximately 900 Camp Ashraf residents with links to Europe. Therefore, we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with our US friends in exerting pressure on Iraq and the UN for a quick and humane resolution. By the way, people like the refugees of Camp Ashraf are our best hope for a democratic and nuclear-free Iran.

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE). - Herr talman! Fru Ashton! Jag måste säga att jag tycker att sanktionerna som EU har infört mot Iran är ett uttryck för ansvarstagande och moralisk resning. Jag tycker att det är viktigt att vi står enade bakom dessa sanktioner. Det är så vi får andra att följa efter, på det sätt som till exempel Australien har gjort.

Det förvånar mig att motståndet, till exempel här i Europaparlamentet, mot dessa sanktioner har varit så stort. Jag förväntade mig ett enhälligt stöd. Irans vapenskrammel är inte ett uttryck för misslyckande, utan tvärtom är det ett uttryck för att sanktionerna ger konsekvenser. Jag förstår inte dem som är emot dessa sanktioner. Vilka i den iranska oppositionen är det egentligen som de har pratat med? Jag har träffat och talat med oppositionen, och de välkomnar att vi är tuffa mot Iran. Ingen vill straffa den iranska befolkningen, men regimens agerande får konsekvenser. Att bete sig orimligt och mot det internationella samfundets enade uppfattning måste få konsekvenser. Det kostar, och det ska kosta, vilket vi visar med våra sanktioner. Så detta är välkommet.

A „catch the eye” eljárás kezdete.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE). - Dažnai kalbame, kad Europos Sąjungai trūksta kalbėjimo vienu balsu užsienio politikoje, tad iš tikrųjų labai džiugu, kad Europos valstybės narės, patiriančios ekonominius sunkumus ir importuojančios Irano naftą, visgi sugebėjo susitarti ir priimti sprendimą dėl platesnių sankcijų Iranui. Tai pirmiausia rimtas signalas Irano vyriausybei. Žodiniai Irano režimo pareiškimai, kad jų atomas taikus, yra nepagrįsti ir neįtikinantys. Tuo tarpu Europos Sąjungos politika ir toliau yra dvejopo požiūrio, tad tik nuo Irano valdžios priklauso, ar šalies ekonomikos vystymasis patirs dar didesnius apribojimus. Sankcijų tikslas visų pirmiausia yra užtikrinti, jog būtų pašalintas esminis pavojus pasauliniam saugumui ir Artimųjų Rytų regioniniam stabilumui. Gaila, kad kai kurios šalys, turinčios pasaulinių ambicijų, nesugeba peržengti siaurų nacionalinių interesų ir stoti pasaulinio saugumo pusėn – kalbu apie Rusiją ir Kiniją. Vis tik manau, kad turime nustatyti labai aiškius paskelbtų sankcijų atšaukimo sąlygas ir kriterijus.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). - Je nespochybniteľné, že Irán v oblasti jadrových aktivít neplní svoje medzinárodné záväzky. Ak majú byť medzinárodné záväzky opodstatnené, ak majú mať svoj zmysel, tak potom je na mieste aj ich vymožiteľnosť a vymáhanie. Preto sa plne stotožňujeme s tým, akým spôsobom Európska únia pristúpila k Iránu v oblasti sankcií.

Na druhej strane treba zdôrazniť, že tieto sankcie by mali mieriť voči čelným predstaviteľom režimu. Nie voči občanom, ktorí v Iráne žijú a ktorí už majú aj tak pomerne komplikovaný život. Okrem toho tu je aj druhý rozmer a tento rozmer je diplomatický a diplomatické vyjednávania. Som presvedčená, že ak sa budeme snažiť tieto diplomatické vyjednávania viesť aj v iných oblastiach, ak sa nám podarí presvedčiť o tom, že máme záujem na korektnom partnerstve aj s krajinami, ako je Irán – teda nie celkom s jeho režimom, ale s krajinou ako takou – tak potom sa nám podarí byť úspešní aj v oblasti kontroly jadrového režimu v Iráne.

  Χαράλαμπος Αγγουράκης (GUE/NGL). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η επιβολή εμπάργκο στις εξαγωγές πετρελαίου του Ιράν και οι άλλες κυρώσεις που ομόφωνα αποφάσισε το Συμβούλιο αποτελούν επιθετικές ενέργειες και κλιμάκωση των μέτρων σε βάρος του λαού του Ιράν. Τα μέτρα θα εκτινάξουν τις τιμές των καυσίμων και τα κέρδη των πολυεθνικών, ενώ θα οξύνουν ακόμη περισσότερο την καπιταλιστική κρίση στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση αναγορεύεται ξανά σε παγκόσμιο χωροφύλακα, όπως υπαγορεύουν οι ιμπεριαλιστικές αξίες και τα συμφέροντά της. Αυτό επιβάλλει εξάλλου ο ανταγωνισμός με άλλες δυνάμεις στον Περσικό Κόλπο και στην Κεντρική Ασία. Αποτελεί πρόκληση ο εκβιασμός που επιχειρούν οι πυρηνικές δυνάμεις με πρόσχημα το πυρηνικό πρόγραμμα του Ιράν. Οι ίδιες αυτές δυνάμεις καλύπτουν την επιθετική πολιτική και τα πυρηνικά όπλα του Ισραήλ, τα αμέτρητα πυρηνικά όπλα στην Ευρώπη και τη διάδοση των πυρηνικών στην Ινδία και στο Πακιστάν. Είμαι βέβαιος ότι οι εργαζόμενοι θα καταδικάσουν τις προκλητικές αυτές ενέργειες. Είναι ανάγκη να ματαιωθούν τα κοινά γυμνάσια ορισμένων χωρών με το Ισραήλ και ο πόλεμος εναντίον του λαού του Ιράν. Σήμερα, είναι επείγουσα ανάγκη η αποδέσμευση από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και η ανάδειξη μιας λαϊκής εξουσίας έτσι ώστε οι λαοί να μην πληρώσουν με αίμα τους ιμπεριαλιστικούς πολέμους.

(Ο ομιλητής δέχεται να απαντήσει σε ερώτηση με γαλάζια κάρτα, σύμφωνα με το άρθρο 149, παράγραφος 8 του Κανονισμού)

  Charles Tannock (ECR), blue-card question. – Mr President, I have to say that I am sick and tired of people comparing the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons to what is happening in Israel or Pakistan or even India. Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and neither are the other two countries. Iran is. Iran is in violation of its international obligations. Mr Angourakis talks about being a world policeman. Well, the Security Council is indeed the world policeman and is in charge of global security. So, Mr Angourakis, what is wrong with Iran being forced to adhere to its international obligations?

  Χαράλαμπος Αγγουράκης (GUE/NGL), απάντηση με γαλάζια κάρτα. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Tannock, κατ’ αρχάς διευκρινίζω ότι όσα είπα δεν αφορούσαν την Ινδία και το Πακιστάν αλλά αφορούσαν την αξιότιμη χώρα την οποία αντιπροσωπεύετε, τη Μεγάλη Βρετανία, η οποία είναι μια πυρηνική δύναμη και θέλει να επιβάλει το μονοπώλιο των πυρηνικών όπλων σε όλο τον κόσμο. Δεύτερον, δεν υπάρχει καμία απόφαση του Συμβουλίου Ασφαλείας του ΟΗΕ, η οποία καταδικάζει το Ιράν για το πυρηνικό του πρόγραμμα. Λέω ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση αυτοανακηρύσσεται σε παγκόσμιο χωροφύλακα διότι θεωρεί ότι μόνο η ίδια μπορεί να είναι φύλακας του διεθνούς δικαίου και διότι θεωρεί ότι έχει το δικαίωμα να επιβάλει κυρώσεις. Αυτό είπα.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). - Herr Präsident! Nur allzu leicht kann der Embargobeschluss der Europäischen Union zum Eigentor werden; wenn etwa Schwellenländer das auffangen, was an europäischen Exporten wegfällt, oder wenn Teheran den angedrohten Lieferstopp umsetzt, dann sind nämlich mit Italien, Spanien und Griechenland ausgerechnet diejenigen Länder betroffen, die besonders unter der Schuldenkrise leiden. Oder wenn der Iran mit der Sperre der Straße von Hormus die weltweit wichtigste Ölroute blockiert, dann haben wir eine veritable Ölkrise.

Wir wissen ja, dass Massenvernichtungswaffen bereits einmal als Vorwand für einen völkerrechtlich fragwürdigen präventiven Militärschlag genutzt wurden. Auch wenn eine drohende Militärintervention derzeit mit der Wandlung des Atomstreits in einen Ölstreit vom Tisch zu sein scheint, muss uns allen doch klar sein, dass ein Militärschlag gegen den Iran verheerende Auswirkungen hätte.

Ebenso wie völkerrechtswidrige militärische Präventivschläge ist aber natürlich der heimliche Bau von Nuklearwaffen abzulehnen, und wir alle – auch in Europa – müssen uns fragen, wie man die Sicherheit – etwa Israels – unter diesen Umständen garantieren kann.

  Paul Rübig (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Ich glaube, dass diese Debatte für uns alle sehr wichtig ist, weil sich das Modell Europa vom Modell Krieg verabschiedet hat und das Modell Frieden gesucht hat, nämlich Verhandlungen. Deshalb ist es wichtig, Partner im Iran zu suchen, die gesprächsbereit sind. Ich weiß, dass es im iranischen Parlament viele gibt, die mit der derzeitigen Politik nicht einverstanden sind.

Ich glaube, es wäre dringend notwendig zu sagen, dass eine Zusammenarbeit auch immer die Basis und das Angebot für eine zukünftige friedliche Zusammenarbeit ist. Der Handel ist letztlich auch Basis für Demokratie, weil natürlich die Freundschaften – im Sport, in der Kultur – auch andere Meinungen erlauben und zulassen.

Ich glaube, es ist wichtig, diese Diskussion in der iranischen Bevölkerung zu fördern und die iranische Bevölkerung zu fordern. Wir brauchen dort nicht Sanktionen gegen die Bürgerinnen und Bürger, sondern wir brauchen Sanktionen für jene, die Recht missbrauchen.

(A „catch the eye” eljárás vége.)

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, this has been an important debate and I have listened with great care to all of the contributions that have been made. I will just try to bring together some of the themes that have been expressed in the House and to take them forward as part of our thinking about how to deal effectively with this extremely important issue of the nuclear aspirations of Iran.

A number of colleagues, beginning with Mr Salafranca in his first contribution, talked about the need to work with others to ensure that we are collaborating with our allies, who of course include those that we call the E3+3 – Russia, China and the United States plus the UK, France and Germany – the six countries which, when we do find ourselves in dialogue with Iran, sit behind me as the E3+3 designated by the Security Council.

Of course, we are not only talking with those countries. I saw Dai Bingguo, the State Councillor of China, when I was in India the week before last. We are constantly talking with Russia – the political director is there currently – as well as with other countries like Japan and Korea, with the ambition of ensuring that the gap created by EU sanctions is not filled in ways that mean that there would not be an effect on the regime.

A number of colleagues have mentioned the role of Turkey. I keep in close contact with Foreign Minister Davutoğlu on this issue. Turkey has provided a conduit of information and dialogue to Iran, being the reinforcer of messages, and also hosted the last round of talks. I pay tribute to the way in which that country has worked with us on this issue.

I will be going to Brazil this weekend for a number of discussions. One of these will be on what we are doing on Iran and why. I take very much the points that have been made about strengthening and broadening the understanding of what the EU is doing, the reasons behind our actions and the need for the international community to stand together to seek a satisfactory resolution.

So in all our discussions across the world we are keeping this on the agenda. We keep making the point that the sanctions are important and that their purpose is to try to persuade Iran to come to negotiations. It is a twin-track approach, specifically designed to that effect.

The second area I wanted to touch on is the effect on the people of Iran. We are very clear that what we are seeking to do is to persuade the regime that it needs to come to the talks. I am very worried about Iran’s economic capacity. It is a country that should have been able to grow economically. I keep watch over what we are doing, to try to ensure that the effects on the people of Iran are minimal but that they also understand what it is that we are doing. As has been said, there are many people in Iran who share the aspiration that we have to see Iran turn away from its current path.

It is also true that we are looking, with the Member States, at the effect on the European Union of all our work on sanctions. It is vital that we ensure that we understand what we are doing and that we look at the effect that it has. National legal systems are responsible for ensuring there is no circumvention, but the EU as a whole is working together in this direction.

Colleagues also mentioned the fact that Camp Ashraf has an Iranian population. I have already mentioned a couple of times, in our Question Hour, the importance that we attach to trying to find a satisfactory solution for the people of Camp Ashraf. My concern is straightforward. It is to try to find a way in which we can keep them completely safe and give them a future. Members of the UN are in discussion with Member States where there are issues of citizenship, and members of the High Commission for Refugees are engaged with this, as is Martin Kobler who, as I have indicated already, will be here tomorrow. We are working closely with the US and with the international community, and we will keep this on the agenda in our discussions with Iraq.

It is important that we move forward and that the people find a future, not that we simply keep them there because we do not have a plan. There does seem to be, if not a perfect plan, then a compromise solution under which, if we do things properly, there is potential for a future for these people that will keep them safe which, as I have said, is our final objective.

My final point concerns something that Mr Tannock said about the glorious Persian culture. Absolutely. We are clear in this House, and right across the European Union, that our quarrel on this issue is not with the people of Iran. We wish them well. We wish to see this glorious Persian history and culture rise and be part of the region and part of the international community, but we have obligations as countries and as the European Union.

Those obligations are that, when people sign up to treaties and say they will not move toward nuclear proliferation, they are taking on obligations that they have to respect, and if they do not respect them then we have to do something about it. It is all done within the Security Council. These issues go back to the Security Council, and it is the Security Council which gives me my mandate and with whom the European Union works. I do hope that we will have the support to make sure that these sanctions are seen as being an important contribution to getting the other track moving and through that medium, as I do in any other, I am asking the Iranians to respond to my letter, to pick up what I left on the table or to come forward with their own ideas and come back to the talks.

  Elnök. − Hat állásfoglalási indítvány⁽¹⁾1 került előterjesztésre az eljárási szabályzat 110. cikkének (2) bekezdésével összhangban.

A vitát lezárom.

A szavazásra 2012. február 2-án, csütörtökön kerül sor.

Írásbeli nyilatkozatok (149. cikk)

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. – I strongly support the recent sanctions that the Council has decided to impose on Iran since its non-cooperative attitude generates serious concerns in Europe and worldwide. There are serious doubts about the real objectives of the Iranian nuclear programme, which has now become a global threat. Given the authoritarian character of the Iranian regime, I also believe that the EU should do more in supporting the Iranian opposition in Iraq. After the brutal attacks last year, Iraq has imposed a deadline to close Camp Ashraf. Yesterday the inhabitants were urged by the UN’s envoy Martin Kobler to move to a new location near Baghdad which, according to the Council of Europe statement last week, seems more like a prison, with a very limited living area and a heavy police presence. The HR’s Special Adviser has been refused a visa to enter Iraq to take part in the negotiations. How come this diplomatic insult has been kept quiet by our services while we continue to pay a fortune to help Iraq for development? Should not our HR take a more active role by trying to organise even video-link interviews with the inhabitants in Ashraf to help quickly bring out those with families in Europe?

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE), in writing. – The reports relating to the development of the nuclear programme in Iran have recently become very alarming. The country has disregarded her commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as a number of United Nations resolutions. Iran constitutes a serious threat in the region and the implications of such a strained situation will have their reflection at a global level. I endorse all possible sanctions against Iran as well as other diplomatic measures that can be taken in order to make Tehran see that we are serious and that we do not hesitate to ‘put our money where our mouth is’. However, I must caution against reacting to any provocations or engaging in any military action. The region is a barrel of gunpowder and I am deeply concerned that when it goes off we will not be able to keep it under control. Therefore, let us be alert, yet not neurotic. I look forward to the High Representative reaching an agreement with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation on a joint resolution on Iran at the UN Security Council.

  Pavel Poc (S&D), písemně. – Rozšíření hospodářských sankcí vůči Íránu jsem očekával. Přesto jsem doufal, že se ctihodná Rada v této citlivé otázce nevydá svou obvyklou cestou, tj. když opatření nezabírají, uplatní se stejná opatření, jen ve větším množství. Rada doufá, že sankce vrátí Írán k vyjednávacímu stolu, ale dosavadní průběh ukazuje, že tato a podobná opatření pouze přispěla k prohlubování vzájemné nedůvěry a uplatňování politických a ekonomických zájmů jednotlivých velmocí. Po vyhrocení mezinárodních vztahů nedávnou situací v Hormuzském průlivu lze nyní navíc očekávat, že negativní dopady sankcí na íránské obyvatelstvo ještě více posílí pozici stávajícího režimu. Bohužel se tudíž nemohu zbavit dojmu, že se některé země vojenskému zásahu v Íránu či dokonce válečnému stavu nebrání, ba naopak jej z různých důvodů podporují. K takovéto situaci nesmí dojít.

Proto si troufám tvrdit, že by se EU měla přestat soustředit pouze na íránský jaderný program a opustit dosavadní kurz sankcí a ještě více sankcí. Dialog musí být naopak s vyhlídkou budoucí spolupráce veden v několika rovinách, např. o stabilitě regionu, zahraničních otázkách, lidských právech či vzájemné pomoci. Pozitivní situace v jedné z těchto úrovní pak může pomoci tam, kde vyjednávání zrovna stagnují. Posilování vzájemné důvěry a respektu je jedinou cestou, která neznamená brzký ozbrojený konflikt.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), na piśmie. – Nie pierwszy raz dyskutujemy w sprawie irańskiego programu atomowego. Jego szybki rozwój oraz groźby kierowane przez Iran w stosunku do krajów regionu oraz Izraela wprawiają w coraz większy niepokój. Niestety patrząc na dzisiejsze możliwości UE oraz strategiczne położenie Iranu, które nie tylko umożliwia jego wojskom sparaliżowanie dostaw ropy przez cieśninę Ormuz, ale również destabilizację Azji Środkowej oraz Afryki Północnej poprzez prowadzenie działań asymetrycznych z wykorzystaniem sieci ugrupowań terrorystycznych. Takie działania wydają się być groźniejsze niż sam program atomowy prowadzony przez Teheran. Dlatego należy kontynuować naciski prowadzące do częstszych kontroli irańskich obiektów atomowych. Z drugiej strony ważne jest także, aby wesprzeć irańską opozycję. Nie mamy dokładnych informacji, ale wydaje się, że działania Teheranu są pewną grą wewnętrzną przed zbliżającymi się wyborami, w których pozycja prezydenta Ahmedineżada jest mocno zagrożona. Groźba odcięcia odstaw ropy wyraźnie pokazuje również, że Unia Europejska musi przeznaczać więcej środków na wsparcie projektów zmierzających do dywersyfikacji dostaw paliw.

  Inês Zuber (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – A recente decisão da União Europeia de aplicar mais sanções unilaterais contra o Irão vem apenas confirmar a natureza imperialista da União Europeia e a sua completa submissão à agenda militarista dos EUA na região, que já movimentou vultuosos meios militares para o Golfo Pérsico e o Estreito de Ormuz. É uma decisão que contribui perigosamente para o aumento da escalada de conflito e que, como fica evidente, nada tem que ver com a busca de soluções pacíficas e negociações diplomáticas. No quadro atual, um eventual conflito militar não só significaria um ataque à soberania e ao direito de viver em paz do povo iraniano, como traria consequências económicas extremamente negativas para vários países. É importante também não esquecer que estas sanções unilaterais são impostas, de forma hipócrita, por potências nucleares como os EUA, a França ou a Inglaterra e que a União Europeia tem mantido uma estreita cooperação económica e militar com Israel, um dos países que age completamente à margem dos mais elementares princípios do Direito Internacional. É necessário defender verdadeiramente a Paz, sem hipocrisias!

(1) Lásd a jegyzőkönyvet.

15. Padėtis Rusijoje (diskusijos)

  Elnök. − A következő napirendi pont a Bizottság alelnökének/az Unió külügyi és biztonságpolitikai főképviselőjének nyilatkozata az oroszországi helyzetről.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, when societies change, political systems need to change too. More often than not, making these changes is less risky and uncertain than not making them. Honourable Members will recall that we debated Russia in our Strasbourg session on 13 December 2011, and the concerns that were raised in this House about the Duma elections were raised with President Medvedev at our summit that followed shortly afterwards. You will recall that those concerns focused in particular on the exclusion of parties from the elections.

President Medvedev talked to us about those concerns and explained that a necessary political evolution was taking place. He said this was due to improved living standards, a more active civil society, and the development of social media, and he emphasised that the government was drawing lessons. Some limited political reforms have been launched, and yet the protests that began in December, we see, are set to continue. The movement has grown. We can expect a large mobilisation this coming Saturday, 4 February.

The announcement, made in tandem in September, that the President and Prime Minister will swap jobs again made many Russian citizens feel that things were being decided between just two people, over the heads of voters. There is a growing group of people calling for real participation, for more decisive measures to rein in corruption and impunity, and for more breathing space for democratic processes. They are ready to express these opinions peacefully. Nevertheless, they want to see real change; and OSCE observers have raised real issues about registration, about access to electronic media, and about the lack of separation between state and governing party. We are moving forward to engage in dialogue with the protestors and, of course, the opposition.

The next benchmark will be the presidential elections on 4 March 2012. We welcome the fact that an invitation has been extended again to the OSCE and others to observe these elections, but expectations will be higher this time. Regrettably, issues of registration have arisen again, in relation to the presidential elections. I call on the authorities responsible to review, as a matter of urgency, the decision not to register Grigory Yavlinsky. The Russian leadership should now act swiftly on the problems identified by the OSCE, and do its utmost in the short time left to hold free and fair presidential elections next month.

Russia and the EU face challenges also on the international scene. Recently, differences have emerged about how to deal with the growing crisis in Syria. With thousands of people killed and violence escalating across Syria, we strongly urge Russia to join the international consensus and allow the Security Council to act on the basis of the Arab League proposals and the joint draft resolution.

It is true that Russia disagreed with the international community’s approach to Libya and said that the action taken went beyond the mandate given by the Security Council – I have discussed this with the Foreign Minister of Russia, Mr Lavrov, several times – but it is also clear that we cannot let the Syrian people pay the price for past disagreements. Syria is a specific case and the solution proposed by the Arab League is different from Resolution 1973. As a permanent member of the Security Council, Russia needs to take its responsibilities for international peace and security seriously. Old alliances may matter, but the fate of the people of Syria matters much more.

Having said that, experience suggests that we manage pretty well to find common ground on international affairs, be it in the Middle East Quartet or indeed in the E3+3 format on Iran. I meet often with Foreign Minister Lavrov and I was in Moscow in November.

Iran is of particular concern this year. As already discussed, the lack of progress in the talks has left us with no choice but to adopt our new round of sanctions, and I have discussed in this House this evening the purpose of those sanctions and how important it is that we work closely with the E3+3 and of course, in that context, with Russia.

Let me mention as well, in the context of our discussions on difficult issues, the important cooperation – however difficult – with Russia over Georgia and Moldova, which are both engaged in efforts to resolve protracted conflicts. As these examples show, we work intensively with Russia on international issues – albeit not without difficulty, but there is often a desire to find common ground and enable the international community to respond. It is our joint task to make sure that it responds on Syria and Iran this year.

Russia is not only a strategic partner: it is also our largest neighbour. We share close historical, cultural, social and economic ties. The EU is Russia’s most important trading partner, and Russia is our third largest trading partner. Our last summit, in December 2011, proved that the EU’s Russia policy has produced good results recently: most importantly, the World Trade Organization accession and agreements on aviation issues, visas and the partnership for modernisation. Russia’s accession to the WTO will bring the last of the major economies under a global rules-based system. The launch of the common steps towards visa-free travel opens the prospect of visas being abolished, and there was consensus at the summit that we should reinvigorate negotiations on a new agreement.

To conclude, the EU approach of constructive yet critical cooperation with Russia is bearing fruit. We will continue our support for modernising both Russia’s economic basis and the foundations for a dynamic society oriented towards the future. We are well prepared to support and encourage a domestic political process in Russia that aims to develop its democratic institutions and the rule of law, as well as a modern economy and a vibrant civil society, whose human rights are respected and whose aspirations for a more open and dynamic society are matched by the reforms undertaken by its government.

Mr President, I hope this will give us a good basis for our debate this evening.

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten, namens de PPE-Fractie. – Ik was positief verrast door een artikel van de hand van niemand minder dan minister-president Poetin die in het Handelsblad de wereld liet weten hoe hij Rusland, de staat en de economie wil moderniseren.

In dat artikel geeft hij aan dat het huidige Rusland gedomineerd wordt door de staat, dat het lijdt onder grote corruptie en dat alles anders zou moeten. Dat is voor de Russische burgers, maar ook voor ons, goed nieuws! Want wat zou het toch mooi zijn als men in staat is om een foute cultuur te doorbreken en dus een echt democratisch land te worden.

Maar, Voorzitter, wat mij ook opvalt is dat in dat artikel niet gesproken wordt over de mens in de Russische samenleving. Waar de markt nieuwe vrijheden moet krijgen om nieuw vertrouwen te wekken ontbreekt geheel en al de aandacht voor vrijheden van mensen. Een samenleving waarin de mens ondergeschikt is aan de markt, een samenleving waarin de mens als individu of collectief fundamentele rechten en fundamentele vrijheden ontbeert, zal ondanks alle mooie woorden niet functioneren.

Als Rusland modern en welvarend wil worden, moet men er eer in stellen om twintig jaar na de val van de Sovjet-Unie echt af te rekenen met alle onvrijheden en moet men echt aan de slag gaan om te werken aan een échte democratie. Voorzitter, wij hebben toch gezien, en mevrouw Ashton heeft het net gezegd, dat in de voorbije tijd de democratische rechten van burgers met voeten zijn getreden. Wij hebben dat gezien bij de Doema-verkiezingen. En wij hopen en rekenen erop dat het bij de presidentsverkiezingen anders zal gaan, maar de voortekenen zijn niet positief.

Wat geldt ten aanzien van mensenrechten in Rusland geldt ook voor de Russische invloed extern. Als het Russische leiderschap geloofwaardig is, dan ziet het af van een onverantwoord veto en dan zal het niet het Syrisch leiderschap de hand boven het hoofd houden en actief steunen met wapens tegen mensen die hun vrijheid nastreven. Voorzitter, wij kunnen nu gaan toetsen of het niet alleen woorden, maar ook daden zijn.

  Knut Fleckenstein, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Lady Ashton, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Die Präsidentenwahlen in Russland am 4. März werden zeigen, ob diese Regierung in Moskau dazugelernt hat. Sie werden uns zeigen, ob die Abläufe sich verbessern und ob wir gemeinsam Hoffnung haben können, dass die Entwicklung positiv nach vorne verläuft.

Besonders viel Hoffnung setze ich aber auch auf die zahlreichen Demonstrationen, die es seit Anfang Dezember gegeben hat. Sie sind ein Zeichen für eine erstarkende Bürgergesellschaft und insofern sind sie auch für mich ein Hoffnungszeichen.

Die für diesen Samstag angekündigte Großdemonstration offenbart aber auch gleichzeitig das Problem der russischen Opposition und auch der Protestbewegung. Die sogenannten systemischen Oppositionsparteien, die in der Duma vertreten sind, werden von der Bevölkerung weitgehend nicht als demokratische Alternativen wahrgenommen. Auch die Einbindung der Nationalisten in die Protestbewegung wird – Gott sei Dank sage ich – kontrovers diskutiert. Ich glaube, dass wir eine ganz besondere Solidarität mit denen üben müssen, die sich in den letzten Tagen und Wochen der Aktion Weißer Ring angeschlossen haben.

Die Bürger gehörten oder gehören einer Vielzahl gesellschaftlicher Schichen an und traten für die Wahrung ihrer Bürgerrechte ein, ganz ohne ideologischen Hintergrund, vor allem aber ohne jegliches Eigeninteresse. Sie wollten nicht irgendwann die Regierung stellen, sondern sie wollten das Recht haben, ihre Regierung frei zu wählen. Und das ist umso überzeugender.

Was Russland am dringendsten braucht, sind demokratisch legitimierte staatliche Institutionen und Mandatsträger, die das Vertrauen ihrer Wähler besitzen und die ein klares Bekenntnis zu den Interessen ihrer Wähler abgeben und der Korruption und anderen Willkürakten eine klare Absage erteilen. Insofern müssen wir dringend diese Bewegung unterstützen und in Gesprächen mit unseren russischen Partnern immer wieder deutlich machen, dass wir gerne mit ihnen zusammenarbeiten, aber dass wir auch gemeinsame Erfolge hin zu mehr Demokratie sehen möchten.

Wir von der EU-Russland-Delegation werden auf jeden Fall mit dieser Organisation sprechen, wenn wir in acht Wochen in Moskau sind, und es wäre gut, wenn die Kommission auch aktiv zu deren Unterstützung beitragen könnte.

  Kristiina Ojuland, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, once again we find ourselves debating a Russia which is struggling on its way to build a genuine democracy. Every time the European Parliament discusses the situation in Russia, its counterparts in Moscow express their discontent about foreigners getting involved in their domestic home affairs. Instead of considering our constructive criticism, the Russian authorities point to other issues of a completely different nature.

We all know that the Duma elections were neither free nor fair. The situation with the presidential elections is one of déjà vu. An absence of free media and the behaviour of the central electoral committee is depriving the electorate of the possibility of making a genuine choice. The demonstrations by Russian citizens show that people want free and fair elections. We need to applaud their efforts and the maturity of civil society in Russia.

The attempts of Prime Minister Putin and his court to preserve power will provoke instability that will endanger our partnership for modernisation: investors will not be attracted to corruption and the idea of Russians packing their bags and fleeing the regime does not match our expectations either.

Legitimacy of presidential power is crucial for the development of Russia, including for its status in international affairs. There are big question marks over its place in the G8 and other international fora, especially in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

The ALDE Group is glad to have the EEAS, at least, in place, to coordinate our European policies towards Russia. With one voice we can, of course, achieve more.

Europe needs a stable and reliable partner. However, the recent statements by Mr Lavrov on Iran, for example, are not at all encouraging for further cooperation in the security field. We therefore wish you bon courage, Madam Vice-President/High Representative. This Parliament is ready to cooperate with you.

  Werner Schulz, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Lady Ashton, meine Damen und Herren! Während wir gerade sibirische Kälte erleben, geht es in Russland politisch gesehen seit der manipulierten und gefälschten Duma-Wahl vom Dezember letzten Jahres eher heiß zu.

Dass diese Wahl nicht koscher war, belegen sowohl die Erkenntnisse von ODIHR als auch die Wahlbeobachtung der russischen NGO Golos. Seitdem ist die apathisch geglaubte Zivilgesellschaft in Bewegung gekommen: eine zunehmende Protestbewegung, die sich aus Selbstachtung speist und ein ehrliches Russland verlangt, die sich die Bevormundung nicht länger gefallen lassen will, die eine Annullierung der Duma-Wahl, die Abberufung des Leiters der zentralen Wahlkommission, Neuwahlen zu den Bedingungen des von Medwedew für 2013 versprochenen neuen Wahlgesetzes und vor allem freie, faire und korrekte Präsidentschaftswahlen fordert.

Vielleicht erleben wir ja in Russland, was wir so sehr vom Arabischen Frühling erhofft hatten und mittlerweile mit Skepsis sehen: einen echten demokratischen Aufbruch, die Geburt einer Bürgergesellschaft. Der Dichter Dmitri Bykow hat es am 24. Dezember bei der großen Demonstration treffend beschrieben und gesagt, einen Neugeborenen erwartet ein Leben mit allerlei Gefahren und Risiken, aber er ist geboren und wieder zurückschieben kann man ihn nicht.

Russlands gelenkte Demokratie entzieht sich der staatlichen Lenkung. Wäre sie, wie behauptet wird, tatsächlich eine souveräne Demokratie und keine inszenierte, dann bräuchte man ehrliche Wahlen nicht zu fürchten, dann könnte sich die gewählte Regierung auf den Souverän beziehen.

Ministerpräsident Putin, Kollegin Oomen-Ruijten hat es erwähnt, will den ökonomischen Wettbewerb, wie er unlängst schrieb, weil er erkennen musste, dass sich ohne Wettbewerb und Rechtsstaatlichkeit, ohne Bekämpfung der Korruption keine Modernisierung, kein gesunder Mittelstand entwickeln kann. Doch das gilt auch für die gesellschaftliche Erneuerung, die ohne politischen Wettbewerb nicht vorankommt, ein politischer Wettbewerb und ein Diskurs, der seit der Machtergreifung von Putin schrittweise abgebaut wurde.

Doch nun ist dieser alles lähmende Gesellschaftsvertrag – ihr lasst uns leben, und wir lassen euch regieren – aufgekündigt. Die Zivilgesellschaft holt sich ihre politischen Rechte zurück. Nächsten Samstag wird sich die Protestbewegung nach dem Recht auf Versammlungsfreiheit auch das Recht auf Demonstrationsfreiheit erkämpfen, und das 22 Jahre nach jenem denkwürdigen 4. Februar 1990, als in Moskau Hunderttausende die Streichung des Verfassungsartikels gefordert hatten, der die führende Rolle der kommunistischen Partei festschrieb.

Heute geht es gegen das Machtmonopol des Kremls und für Gewaltenteilung. Es geht um die alternative Rohstoffmacht und Putins FSB-Vertikale der Macht oder eine demokratisch pluralistische Wissens-, Informations- und Marktgesellschaft im offenen Austausch mit der EU. Es geht darum um die Frage, ob wir bei allen Partnerschaftsbemühungen, bei unserer Kooperationsbereitschaft, unserer Modernisierungspartnerschaft auch eine echte Wertepartnerschaft zustande bekommen.

  Paweł Robert Kowal, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Wysoka Izbo! Pani Przewodnicząca! Zastanawiamy się przed wyborami, o czym rozmawiać w kontekście Rosji. Władimir Putin wie, że my lubimy słowo korupcja, że jak będzie walka z korupcją, to jest coś nowego. Trochę jak dzieci oglądamy się za tym jednym artykułem, jakby nie zwracając uwagi na to, co się działo w Rosji w ostatnim czasie i nie zwracając uwagi na błędy, które sami, często z dobrej woli, popełnialiśmy. Jakie to były dwa błędy, które warto sobie dzisiaj przypomnieć? Pierwszy to stosowanie podwójnych standardów. Stosowaliśmy podwójne standardy w przekonaniu, że jakoś uspokoimy sytuację. Dzisiaj te podwójne standardy mogą dotyczyć np. energii, ponieważ mówi się, że Gazprom może uzyskać częściowe odstąpienie od zasad trzeciego pakietu energetycznego. Chciałbym przy tej okazji zresztą zapytać Panią Przewodniczącą, czy jest na to szansa i jak Pani ocenia te postulaty Gazpromu? Są one bardzo ważne. Nie powinniśmy dziś wysyłać sygnału, że jesteśmy gotowi do podwójnych standardów, bo wtedy cały trzeci pakiet energetyczny nie ma sensu.

Druga rzecz to mit stabilizacji. Dzisiaj, kiedy młodzi Rosjanie są na ulicach, wiemy, że nie zdobędą oni władzy, ale myśmy w stosunku do tylu krajów popełnili błąd, gdy mówiliśmy o stabilizacji w imię świętego spokoju. Dzisiaj musimy się zwrócić do tych środowisk, do młodych ludzi. I dlatego to był dobry akcent, że podpisano umowę o małym ruchu granicznym między obwodem kaliningradzkim a Polską. To dobry ruch – to droga ku łagodzeniu reżimu wizowego. Idźmy w tym kierunku, Pani Przewodnicząca. Nie zapomnijmy tych dwóch lekcji: nigdy więcej podwójnych standardów i logiki stabilizacji. Musimy stawiać na rozwój, młodość i przyszłość. To przyniesie efekty i Rosji, i państwom Unii Europejskiej. Takiej konsekwencji życzę Pani dzisiaj.

  Helmut Scholz, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Lady Ashton, liebe Kollegen! Unstrittig gehört es zu der strategischen Partnerschaft, dass Partner darüber reden, was irritiert und welche Änderungen die Gemeinsamkeiten stärken würden. Es gibt mehr als einen solchen Punkt. Was aber zunehmend verwundert, ist, dass dieses Haus sich damit begnügt, sich gegenseitig der Werte zu versichern.

Gestrige Umfragewerte aus Russland sollten uns viel mehr zum Nachdenken herausfordern. Danach wünscht sich die russische Bevölkerung ein modernes Land mit einer stabilen Wirtschaft, die für mehr als Rohstoffexporte steht. Aber nur 7 % der Bevölkerung glauben, dass die EU bei dem erforderlichen Umbau helfen will. Deren Anteil hat sich nicht nur halbiert, sondern ist vor allem in den Teilen des Landes mit engen Kontakten zur EU niedrig. Die damit verbundenen Fragen sollten wir hier diskutieren, auch im Hinblick auf die Werte von Demokratie, gesellschaftlicher Teilhabe und die geäußerten Sichten auf die Wahlen und die politischen zivilgesellschaftlichen Aufbrüche in der russischen Föderation, gerade auch vor dem Hintergrund der so widersprüchlichen Erfahrungen der russischen Menschen mit der Jelzin-Zeit des neuen Russlands.

  Jaroslav Paška, za skupinu EFD. – Po decembrových voľbách do ruskej Štátnej dumy sa v Moskve, ako aj v ďalších veľkých mestách krajiny uskutočnili početné občianske protesty poukazujúce na podozrenia z manipulácie volebných výsledkov. Najmä predstavitelia opozičných síl požadovali prepočítanie hlasov pridelených jednotlivým politickým stranám, pretože boli presvedčení, že vyhlásené výsledky volieb nezodpovedajú reálne prejavenej vôli občanov.

Skutočnosť, že štátna administratíva preskúmava opozíciou avizované nezrovnalosti a že protesty opozičných síl sú štátnou mocou rešpektované, svedčí o tom, že Rusko speje k lepšiemu vyváženiu politických síl a že opozícia dnes dokáže osloviť oveľa viac občanov ako v minulosti. Nikto z tých, ktorí realisticky hodnotia politické pomery v Rusku, neočakáva, že by silnejší hlas opozície ohrozil úspech Vladimíra Putina v marcových prezidentských voľbách. Ale z posunu voličských preferencií je zrejmé, že ak bude chcieť byť pán Putin dobrým prezidentom všetkých Rusov, bude musieť oveľa viac prihliadať aj na názory svojich konštruktívnych oponentov.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). - Herr Präsident! Wir sollten die revolutionäre Stimmung in Russland nicht unbedingt überschätzen. Anders als in Arabien protestieren ja nicht Studenten, die eine rasche Radikalisierung dieser Bewegungen brachten, sondern eben die russische Mittelschicht. Außerdem fehlt es der Protestbewegung an bekannteren politischen Führungsfiguren. Und nicht zuletzt zielt die Ablehnung oft nicht direkt auf Putin, sondern auf die korrupten lokalen Behörden. Sofern ihm keine weiteren groben Fehler unterlaufen, kehrt Putin also als Präsident zurück. Das ist so sicher, wie das Amen im Gebet.

Bei Demokratie und Menschenrechten besteht in Russland aber zweifelsohne großer Nachholbedarf. Das ist kein Wunder, wenn man bedenkt, welch große Probleme Russland aufgrund seiner 70-jährigen kommunistischen Vergangenheit zu bewältigen hat. Doch zeigen sich Fortschritte und Kompromisse etwa bei der Parteiengesetzgebung und bei der Korruptionsbekämpfung. Aber auch die EU ist nicht ohne Fehl. Auch wir haben demokratiepolitische Defizite. Auch bei uns ist die Meinungsfreiheit immer wieder in Gefahr. Und auch in der EU wird Druck auf die Medien ausgeübt. Brüssel sollte sich also nicht immer anmaßen, Nachhilfelehrer in Sachen Demokratie zu spielen.

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Wysoka Przedstawiciel! Zastanawiając się, jaką właściwie politykę prowadzimy wobec Rosji, doszedłem do wniosku, że to jest taka mieszanina: trochę naiwności, trochę iluzji i trochę nadziei. I dotyczy to zarówno sytuacji wewnętrznej Rosji, tego, co nazywamy demokracją, jak i Rosji w relacjach zewnętrznych, w polityce zagranicznej. Bo oczywiście Rosja posiada niby demokratyczne instytucje, wybory, parlament, są partie polityczne, które niby konkurują ze sobą, ale jednocześnie nie możemy zapominać o tym – i dobrze, że o tym mówimy dość często w tej Izbie – że Rosja to nadal kraj, w którym znikają dziennikarze, w którym zasądza się niesprawiedliwe wyroki, w którym prześladuje się oponentów politycznych.

Rosja w polityce zagranicznej to również kraj, który z jednej strony wspiera nasze działania, działania NATO, Stanów Zjednoczonych, Unii Europejskiej w Afganistanie, ale z drugiej strony popiera Syrię i zachowuje się w sposób skandaliczny w tym przypadku, nawet wbrew temu, co mówią państwa arabskie. Pozostaje więc pytanie, gdzie jest ta nadzieja? Nadzieja już tylko w narodzie rosyjskim. W Polsce też kiedyś myśleliśmy, że do zmian nigdy nie dojdzie, a jednak jesteśmy dzisiaj w zupełnie innym miejscu.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). - Aderarea Rusiei la OMC, la capătul a 18 ani de negocieri, deschide o nouă perspectivă asupra relaţiilor comerciale internaţionale. Cred că trebuie să apreciem deschiderea părţii ruse pentru modificarea a aproape 300 de dispoziţiile legale pentru a se conforma regulilor internaţionale ale comerţului, şi de a accepta să-şi diminueze drepturile vamale în numeroase sectoare industriale.

Perspectiva dublării schimburilor comerciale, Uniunea Europeană - Rusia în următorii 5-10 ani, este însă condiţionată de modernizarea economiei ruse şi de asumarea deplină a cadrului democratic real. Parteneriatul UE-Rusia este condiţionat de respectarea valorilor şi regulilor democratice. De aceea, ne preocupă corectitudinea scrutinului prezidenţial din acest an, în special în contextul protestelor ce au urmat alegerilor parlamentare din luna decembrie. Apariţia de duminică la televiziunile oficiale a liderului opoziţiei, prima dată după ani de cenzură, este un semnal încurajator că toţi candidaţii vor avea acces neîngrădit la mass media. Însă această premieră demonstrează şi deficitul de democraţie de care suferă societatea rusă. De aceea procesul electoral nu este o garanţie a democraţiei, decât în măsura în care alegerile nu vor fi viciate, inclusiv în faza campaniei electorale.

(Vorbitorul a acceptat să răspundă la o întrebare „cartonaș albastru” (articolul 149 alineatul (8) din Regulamentul de procedură))

VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS
Vizepräsident

  Paul Rübig (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Präsident! Ich möchte Ihnen gratulieren zu Ihrer neuen Funktion. Wir sind stolz darauf, dass wir wieder einen kräftigen Präsidenten haben. Herrn Cutaş möchte ich fragen, ob er glaubt, dass Russland die Mengen an Erdöllieferungen kompensieren könnte, die uns über den Iran nicht mehr zur Verfügung stehen.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), Răspuns „cartonaşului albastru”. – În primul rând vreau să-i mulţumesc domnului Rübig pentru întrebare. Sigur că discuţia este una care cred că comportă un răspuns mult mai laborios, însă pe scurt, răspunsul personal nu cred că va compensa acest ... Răspunsul este nu, la întrebarea dânsului.

  Edward McMillan-Scott (ALDE). - Mr President, as the High Representative will know, in English we have the expression ‘the elephant in the room’ to describe something which we know is there but we do not officially recognise. Well, the European Union has a ‘bear on the doorstep’ in the shape of Russia. My first point relates to what we say – I will come on to what we do in a minute.

What we say in our official statements in relation to Russia is very modest. I do not think it really reflects the attitudes of Russians. On my recent visits to Russia I found really very deep discontent with the decline in democracy in that very important country. There is corruption, and there is a clear failure of the democratic process. This so-called ‘managed democracy’ might be acceptable in Egypt, where my friend Ayman Nour has been prevented from standing as a candidate in the presidential elections, but it is wholly ridiculous that Grigory Yavlinsky has been banned from standing as a presidential candidate in Russia.

When it comes to what we do, apart from making clearer statements criticising the failure of democracy in Russia, I would pay tribute to the Commission and the EAS for increasing the budget for the European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights by 34% in response to the Arab Spring, and I hope that we can focus quite a lot of that effort on Russia itself.

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Chciałbym nawiązać do słów pana McMillan-Scotta. Proszę zwrócić uwagę na to, że wszystkie grupy polityczne w tym Parlamencie widzą tego słonia tak samo. Poza może dwoma głosami – przedstawiciela GUE i pana Mölzera z frakcji niezależnych – wszystkie poważne grupy polityczne w tym Parlamencie mówią jednym głosem. Trzeba wspierać ten proces, o którym Pani wspomniała, jako o tym rodzącym się nowym ruchu społecznym, bo to jest nasz obowiązek. Trzeba przeciwdziałać tym problemom, o których Pani też mówiła, problemom z rejestracją poszczególnych kandydatów i z łamaniem tych praw. Dlatego że my, jako Unia Europejska i Europejczycy czy obywatele państw Unii Europejskiej, nie mamy prawa decydować, na kogo oddają głos Rosjanie, ale z drugiej strony my, jako Europejczycy, mamy obowiązek stwarzać takie warunki rywalizacji partyjnej, rywalizacji politycznej w Rosji, żeby wszyscy mieli równe szanse, i do tego będę Panią Komisarz serdecznie zachęcał.

  Vladimír Remek (GUE/NGL). - Pane předsedající, vážení přítomní, nemohu se zbavit dojmu, že naše neustálá snaha přijímat další a další usnesení k situaci v Rusku před volbami je už takové tradiční řečnické cvičení. Nic víc a nic méně. Naše vztahy to zlepšit určitě nepomáhá a naše vzájemná propojenost, hlavně ekonomická a v energetice, trvá. Měli bychom si namísto neustálých doporučení Rusku také občas uvědomit, jak rychle se nám samotným daří řešit krizové, skoro existenční problémy v Unii. A zároveň reflektovat, že postupně se i Rusko mění. Znám ho desítky let. Nikoli z návštěv na pár hodin a připravených schůzek s vybranými partnery. Znám ho dobře z pohledu lidí žijících v Rusku. Pracoval jsem tam. Vím, že ani tam zdaleka nepanuje ráj na zemi. Vědí to i samotní Rusové. Ale ani Řím nepostavili přes noc.

  Gerard Batten (EFD). - Mr President, the BBC is currently broadcasting a series entitled ‘Putin, Russia and the West’. In the second programme, Tony Blair’s former aide Jonathan Powell recounts the famous ‘spy rock’ scandal story. The Kremlin had accused MI6 of funding Russian human rights groups and other NGOs and using a fake rock located in a Moscow square filled with electronic equipment to communicate with their secret agents. Mr Powell confirmed this story (whether it is true or not), and the BBC elevated it to the status of a scoop by issuing a press release.

The FSB reacted promptly, publicly accusing two leading NGOs – Memorial and Golos – of being subversive and extremist organisations funded by the West. Both organisations are now under systematic harassment by the authorities. Powell’s claim is either untrue or illegal under the Official Secrets Act. The BBC is guilty of gross journalistic irresponsibility, and this shows once again that Putin’s is a gangster regime.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). - Señor Presidente, Rusia es un importante vecino de la Unión Europea, por geografía y por historia, y también un socio económico y energético muy relevante. Además, es miembro permanente del Consejo de Seguridad.

Rusia es uno de los actores necesarios para una eficiente gobernanza mundial que pueda afrontar los problemas globales, y también necesitamos mayor cooperación de Rusia en cuestiones como la situación en Siria, al borde de la guerra civil, o el desafío nuclear de Irán.

Pero yo creo que la Unión Europea desea una relación con Rusia que vaya más allá de estos intereses globales o regionales. Rusia es un vecino europeo, miembro del Consejo de Europa y de la OSCE.

Yo creo que deseamos una relación de auténtica confianza y amistad con Rusia, basada en valores y principios comunes. Por eso, deseamos un nuevo acuerdo de asociación y por eso queremos para Rusia lo mismo que nos exigimos a nosotros mismos: un régimen democrático pluralista respetuoso de las libertades civiles y políticas y un Estado de Derecho en el que la corrupción y la arbitrariedad sean excepciones.

Pero el desarrollo de las elecciones legislativas de diciembre no sirvió para reforzar esa confianza. Son conocidas las irregularidades del proceso y las graves acusaciones efectuadas.

A mí me gustaría que las próximas elecciones presidenciales no repitieran esas deficiencias y que Rusia pueda encaminarse por fin en una línea de claro progreso democrático y modernidad, que es lo que sus vecinos europeos deseamos.

  Boris Zala (S&D). - Mr President, Russia faces its most competitive elections in some time. Even if the winner can easily be predicted, the impact on Russian politics is unpredictable.

For the EU, the immediate challenge is to help ensure a fair and inclusive electoral process and to be prepared for a range of scenarios. But we should not lose sight of the big picture. Regardless of the outcome, Russia will be, politically, a different country from a year ago. Pressures for political and economic reforms will only grow. Russia’s internal evolution will have major implications for our bilateral relations in terms of political dialogue, trade, visa policy, human rights and possibly also the broader security environment in Europe.

There is a strategic opportunity for a new and more effective EU policy towards Russia, but we need to readjust our policy in a flexible and timely manner. I am hopeful that Baroness Ashton and her team, besides preparing for the presidential elections, also have their eye on this bigger picture.

  Alf Svensson (PPE). - Herr talman! Låt mig uttrycka beundran över Cathrine Ashtons tålamod och balanserade och kloka svar. Vi har tidigare här i kväll talat om Iran och om kärnvapenhotet från Irans sida. Det är ju en självklarhet att Ryssland skulle kunna spela en helt annan roll än vad Ryssland gör gentemot Iran – dagar som dessa och kommande dagar.

Samma sak gäller i fråga om Syrien. Det är inte rimligt att Ryssland ska få ”spela under täcket” som man gör när det gäller Syrien. Den ryske utrikesministern uttalade sig nyligen och sade då så här: The Russian policy is not about asking someone to step down. Regime change is not our profession. Och han säger vidare: We said that the decision should be made by the Syrians, by the Syrians themselves. Då vet han väl naturligtvis också att 5 000 syrier har dödats och många, många fler tusen har fördrivits eller behandlats på ett människoovärdigt och vidrigt sätt.

Det är självfallet så, att vi ska tala om hur korrupt – i varje fall till dels – valet till duman var. Vi ska ha stora förväntningar, givetvis inför presidentvalet, men nog är det ynkedom att ett av säkerhetsrådets länder ska ha vetorätt och sedan kunna bete sig som Ryssland gör utrikespolitiskt sett.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). - Asi väčšina z nás sme pamätníkmi studenej vojny a rozpadu bipolárneho sveta. Ja sama pochádzam z krajiny, ktorá bola dlhé roky pod vplyvom Sovietskeho zväzu – predchodcu Ruskej federácie. Tvrdiť dnes, že v Ruskej federácii sa z pohľadu politických reforiem nič neudialo, by bolo veľmi nekorektné. Ruská federácia je dnes iná, ako sme ju poznali za predošlých čias. Takisto by ale nebolo na mieste, keby sme povedali, že tie reformy, ktoré sa udiali doteraz, sú dostačujúce a že nebudeme mať záujem sledovať ďalší vývoj a ďalšie napredovanie politických reforiem v Rusku.

Mali by sme ale veľmi citlivo zvažovať a prispôsobiť tón, ktorý volíme v takejto diskusii. Pani Ashton spomenula, že len v polovici decembra sme mali v pléne Európskeho parlamentu veľkú diskusiu o Ruskej federácii. Teda neprešli ani len dva mesiace a už znovu v pléne Európskeho parlamentu diskutujeme o Ruskej federácii. Predstavme si, ako často sa diskutuje v Ruskej dume o situácii v Európskej únii. Ako často kritizujú v Ruskej dume korupciu, ktorá je v členských štátoch Európskej únie. A my už každý druhý mesiac vyzývame k tomu, aby Ruská federácia bojovala s korupciou. Ak sú preukázané prípady, nech sa koná v zmysle platných predpisov a zákonov, ktoré Ruská federácia má.

Mám však taký pocit, že ak chceme byť tými kritikmi, tak naša kritika by mala byť vecná, a ak bude naša kritika vecná, tak potom by sme sa mali zamerať aj na kritiku korupcie v našich vlastných členských štátoch. Ak kritizujeme to, že v Rusku nemá priestor opozícia, pozrime sa do Rumunska, má priestor opozícia v Rumunsku? A ide o členský štát Európskej únie. Ak hovoríme o tom, že je tu hegemónia jednej veľkej strany, pozrime sa do Maďarska. Tam je predsa takisto hegemónia jednej veľkej strany a takisto sme tu mnohokrát kritizovali to, čo sa deje v členskom štáte Európskej únie. Takže chcem len požiadať, kolegyne a kolegovia, aby aj v prípade Ruskej federácie ostala naša diskusia vecná a konštruktívna.

(Rečníčka vyjadrila súhlas s tým, že odpovie na otázku položenú zdvihnutím modrej karty (článok 149 ods. 8 rokovacieho poriadku)).

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR), niebieskiej wydania kartki. – Bardzo cenię szanowną Koleżankę. Wysłuchałem jej w oryginalnym języku, ale nie jestem w stanie uwierzyć, – być może nie zrozumiałem słowackiego – że Pani Poseł naprawdę porównuje sytuację w Rosji z sytuacją na Węgrzech. W Rosji zabija się ludzi, nie pozwala się na rejestrację kandydatów w wyborach prezydenckich, nie pozwala się na rejestrację partii politycznych. Czy naprawdę chciała Pani porównać jedno z drugim?

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), odpoveď na otázku položenú zdvihnutím modrej karty. – Ja si veľmi vážim, že ste počúvali moje vystúpenie v slovenčine, ale možno – keďže ide o citlivú tému – bude nabudúce lepšie v poľštine. Hovorila som o tom, že ak sme kritickí k situácii v Ruskej federácii a ak sú niektoré naše postrehy opodstatnené, mali by sme byť rovnako kritickí aj k tomu, čo sa deje v samotných členských štátoch Európskej únie. Neporovnávala som žiaden členský štát Európskej únie priamo s tým, čo sa deje v Ruskej federácii. Vyzývala som skôr len k akejsi objektivite pri porovnaní kritiky voči Ruskej federácii a pri tom, čo sa deje u nás v členských štátoch Európskej únie.

  Inese Vaidere (PPE). - Cienījamā augstā pārstāve, godātie kolēģi! Nav vērts atkārtot, ka Krievija ir nozīmīgs ekonomiskais un politiskais spēlētājs un svarīgs partneris, jo tas jau ir vairākkārt pieminēts. Ļoti satraucoša ir cilvēktiesību situācija Krievijā. Domes vēlēšanas bija cinisks piemērs tam, cik vienaldzīgi Krievijas varai ir starptautiskie standarti. Vairāk nekā iepriekš tie tika pārkāpti, bet protesti, kuros piedalījās desmitiem tūkstošu krievu, nav guvuši atsaucību. Mums jāapliecina, ka dzirdam krievu tautas saucienus tāpat, kā dzirdējām „Arābu pavasari”. Nepietiek ar frāzēm, ka mēs palīdzēsim Krievijai demokratizēties, ja tās vara to nemaz nevēlas. Jāizbeidz dubultstandarti un acu pievēršana tikai tāpēc, ka Krievija ir liela un izejvielām bagāta valsts.

Satraucoša ir Krievijas pastiprinātā iejaukšanās Eiropas Savienības valstu iekšpolitikā, apliecinot, ka impēriskās idejas joprojām ir dzīvas. Pagājušā gada oktobrī tās Ārlietu ministrija izvirzīja jaunu stratēģiju, lai vairotu ietekmi Eiropas Savienības valstīs, pirmkārt, panākot krievu valodai oficiālas valodas statusu Eiropas Savienībā. Jau novembrī Latvijā nacionālboļševiki sāka parakstu vākšanu referendumam par krievu kā otru valsts valodu, bet šogad ir sākts absurds projekts parakstu vākšanai pilsoņu iniciatīvas ietvaros, lai panāktu krievu valodas atzīšanu par oficiālu valodu Eiropas Savienībā. Latvijai, kur okupācijas gadā tā saucamo krievvalodīgo skaits no 8 % pirms okupācijas pieauga līdz apmēram 44 % pēc tās, otras valsts valodas ieviešana nozīmētu latviešu valodas un līdz ar to Latvijas valsts iznīcināšanu. Krievijas vēlme ietekmēt Eiropas Savienības politiku ir daudz dziļāka, nekā to bieži novērtējam, tādēļ arī Jūs, augstā pārstāve, aicinu tam pievērst uzmanību, jo sekas tam būtu ārkārtīgi nozīmīgas.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). - Mr President, Russia is still unfortunately declining to join the UN resolution about Syria and in fact is continuing to deliver arms to the Syrian regime.

As for the elections on 4 March, in the eyes of the governing elite the result has obviously been decided, in so far as Mr Medvedev’s interlude will soon be over. In the view of foreign observers there is no real chance for credible decision-making, because the December elections were assessed as neither fair nor free. The convergence of the state and the governing elite has resulted in massive rigging and manipulations. Sergei Kolesnikov, Putin’s former ally, told us in December that Putin will stop at nothing to retain power.

There remains the question of the behaviour of the Russian voters. Here a real change has been taking place since December: a change of attitudes, mentality and hopes. Anna Politkovskaya’s warning more than six years ago of limitless political apathy among Russian voters has finally been heeded, and the result has been massive interest in monitoring and participation.

The EU now has a unique chance to influence the situation in a positive way, and I think the best way to do this is to follow the suggestions in Sir Graham Watson’s report, to be adopted tomorrow, about consistency towards authoritarian regimes.

  Paweł Zalewski (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Baronesso! Zastanawiam się, co się musi wydarzyć w naszych relacjach, aby Wysoka Przedstawiciel do Spraw Polityki Zagranicznej – oprócz takich ogólnych słów na temat wsparcia dla wartości, demokracji, demokratów w Rosji i stwierdzenia, jak to Rosja jest ważna dla świata i Unii Europejskiej – przedstawiła dogłębną analizę naszych relacji i propozycję rozwiązania wielu problemów na przyszłość. Widać przecież wyraźnie, że polityka prowadzona od wielu lat, polityka zaangażowania Unii Europejskiej w relacje z Rosją, która miała powodować modernizację i demokratyzację tego kraju, po prostu zbankrutowała. Ostatnie wybory parlamentarne sfałszowano, a w kolejnych wyborach prezydenckich po raz trzeci będzie kandydował ten sam kandydat – rzecz w Europie nie do pomyślenia, chociaż zgodna z rosyjską konstytucją. Zero współpracy, a wręcz przeciwnie wsparcie dla reżimów np. w Syrii czy na Białorusi, korupcja, zero konkurencyjności gospodarki rosyjskiej, której wielkie państwowe koncerny dominują nad małymi i średnimi przedsiębiorstwami. Czego jeszcze potrzeba, aby stwierdzić, że należy przygotować nową, bardziej realistyczną politykę wobec Rosji?

Jest jedna nadzieja i tym chciałem zakończyć swoje wystąpienie. Otóż jest to nadzieja w rosyjskich demokratach, którzy się obudzili, w średniej klasie, która powstaje, i to w nich, a nie w naszej polityce należy dzisiaj szukać jakiegoś pozytywnego rozwiązania w Rosji. Niestety, Pani Baronesso, polityka unijna wobec Rosji zbankrutowała.

„Catch the eye“-Verfahren

  Graham Watson (ALDE). - Mr President, I hope that if the Vice-President/High Representative is extending sanctions against individuals in the Russian regime she will include Mr N.E. Konkin, who is the secretary of the Central Electoral Commission. This is the commission which has rejected the approach by Grigory Yavlinsky of the Yabloko to be a candidate for the presidency. His supporters collected over 2.5 million signatures in 71 regions of the Russian Federation between 24 December and 10 January, the only time really open to them – including getting notaries to check them – and the Electoral Commission has declared 20% of them invalid. The party is now being investigated by the public prosecutor of Moscow who is asking where the server of its website is located.

It seems to me that this is a politically-motivated move and a blatant disregard of democratic principles and international standards which will deny the Russian people the choice of an open, democratic, modern European perspective. I hope, Vice-President/High Representative, that you will be able to intervene to make sure that Mr Yavlinsky is allow to stand in the election on 4 March.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Mr President, my affection for Russia – as opposed to its leaders – comes from the many hours I have spent reading some of its and the world’s greatest writers. I think it is for that reason I take a special interest in Russia.

It is only right and proper that we should engage with Russia even if, as Baroness Ashton put it in her most diplomatic language, to do so is not without difficulty. But I think we have a duty to highlight issues such as the lack of fundamental rights, the non-free elections and, of course, corruption. I think we all accept that change will have to come from Russia itself. Perhaps the day of the Russian version of the Arab Spring may be closer than Mr Putin would wish.

Lastly, we should also look at the question of energy supply to Europe. We are far too dependent on Russian energy sources – and that needs to change.

(Ende des „Catch the eye“-Verfahrens)

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, I would like to thank all honourable Members who have spoken in what again has been a very important debate.

A number of Members talked about a moment of hope for change. We have seen that the Russian leadership, at least in theory, has acknowledged the need for change. As I said at the beginning of my contribution, we know it is the least risky option, if I can put it like that.

There is a lot of work and many reforms ahead. The different concerns that have been expressed in the House are enormously significant. We share that concern and indeed raise it with Russia. We want to work with Russia as partners on many of the issues that have been raised, including, by the way, in the context of our new agreement, which a number of colleagues mentioned.

I want to comment on some of the specific issues that have been raised. I will refer to particular points made by individual Members, but that is not to fail to reflect the broader consensus. Mr Fleckenstein talked about the need to see that voters are given unrestricted choice. That is why registration is such an important issue. As you said in your contribution, Sir Graham, the registration rules are disproportionate. We understand that the President of the Central Election Committee is going to have to explain himself in the Duma, and there are questions there which we need to come back to and which we will continue to raise with Russia. We are following matters and talking with the demonstrators and with the opposition via our delegation. Helga Schmidt, whom I mentioned earlier, was in Moscow until today, and has been meeting with them on my behalf over the last couple of days.

A number of colleagues also raised the issue of the third energy package. Mr Kowal, I would say that it shows how important our market is that Russia spends so much time lobbying on this. It depends greatly on the EU market, and that is extremely important in our relationship with Russia. I agree that opinion is shifting and that the new President will need to think about how he governs differently. That is a significant part of many of the contributions that have been made concerning where Russia is going, the demands that people have for change and, in a sense, the atmosphere. A number of you described your visits to Russia and talks with individuals about how things are beginning to change. The policy that we are trying to develop is a good one, but it requires us to look at Russia from a bilateral set of relationships, as international partners on many things, and at the responsibilities that we have together in the international community.

Russian civil society is very important, but I would say to those who have raised this issue that the relationship between this Parliament and civil society is also extremely valuable. Many times in the course of our deliberations about what has happened in North Africa, in what is now called the Arab Spring or the Arab uprising, I have raised the fact that Members of Parliament are critically important in explaining and discussing with people the value and importance of democracy, what it can bring and how to engage with it. I do hope that will continue. Mr Batten, the important point you make for me is that Golos and Memorial should be allowed to work freely and I agree with you on that.

I agree too on the importance of the bigger picture, and also of the smaller details, and that we need to have the tough discussions with Russia that Mr Svensson talked about. We also know that there is a great deal of interest in the European Union. I accept that maybe the Duma does not discuss us, Ms Flašíková, but we do know that there is a lot of interest in the EU from the Russian people and from Ministers and officials. The Eurasian Union, which is much talked about now and which I discussed with Deputy Prime Minister Shuvalov when I was there in November, is in a sense inspired by the way that the European Union works.

Ms Vaidere, I know very well the concerns in Latvia about the language issue and I know that it is very sensitive, but I am quite sure that the Latvian authorities will handle this well.

In conclusion, this has been an important debate as we continue to try to develop the relationship with Russia. On the one hand, we see the advantages now within the World Trade Organization and the capacity we have to develop those trade relationships; we see a more active civil society with which we can engage – we can use the tools that we have to try to engage further; we see the need to continue to press on some of the basic issues that have been quite rightly raised here about the way that the internal situation in Russia is developing. Then there is Russia as an international player with whom we work on issues such as Iran. We are increasingly trying to work with it on Syria and on other areas where working together in the Security Council and the importance of collaboration really come to the fore.

  Der Präsident. − Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet in der nächsten Straßburgwoche im Plenum Februar-II statt.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 149)

  Corina Creţu (S&D), în scris. – Viitorul relaţiilor Uniunii Europene cu Federaţia Rusă depinde, mai mult ca oricând, de starea democraţiei ruse. Alegerile parlamentare din decembrie au determinat proteste fără precedent la Moscova şi în alte oraşe importante. Nu ştim cu precizie dacă a fost vorba de fraude sau nu. Este însă clar că partidul premierului Putin a fost favorizat, iar opoziţia masiv dezavantajată. A fost o disproporţie de mijloace, de acces la media, de tratament din partea instituţiilor statului. Urmează alegerile prezidenţiale. Este legitim să ne asigurăm, prin mijloacele recunoscute inclusiv de Federaţia Rusă, că ele se vor desfăşura corect și că toţi candidaţii vor fi trataţi în mod egal. Democraţia dirijată, în vigoare în Rusia, este un concept incompatibil cu valorile fondatoare ale Uniunii Europene. Consider că este în interesul Federaţiei Ruse să procedeze corect în viitoarele alegeri. Aceasta e calea cea mai bună de creştere a încrederii reciproce.

  Franz Obermayr (NI), schriftlich. – Zweifellos steckt Russlands Demokratie noch in den Kinderschuhen, was bei den letzten Wahlen wieder deutlich wurde. Und zweifellos haben 70 Jahre Sowjetherrschaft bis heute ihre Spuren hinterlassen. Immer wieder wird Russland von der EU gemaßregelt, ohne aber mit gutem Beispiel voran zu gehen: Die linke Hetzkampagne auf die ungarische Regierung ist nur ein Beispiel, wie "ernst" man es in Europa wirklich mit Demokratie und Meinungsfreiheit nimmt. Patriotische Bewegungen, die zu wenig mit dem Brüssel-Mainstream schwimmen, werden regelmäßig Opfer von Hetzen in Politik und Medien. Wir sollten daher nicht oberlehrerhaft auf andere mit dem Finger zeigen! Aufgrund der wechselseitigen Interessen im Energiebereich muss die EU sicherstellen, dass auch Großkonzerne wie Gazprom sich an die Wettbewerbsregeln am Energiemarkt halten. Auf der anderen Seite sollten auch die Interessen Moskaus am postsowjetischen Markt nicht außer Acht gelassen werden.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D), írásban. – Oroszországban az elmúlt évtizedben elmaradtak a modernizációhoz elengedhetetlenül szükséges társadalmi-politikai- és gazdasági reformok. Utóbbi téren még Kína is megelőzte az orosz felet, amelyet a két ország WTO-csatlakozása között eltelt 10 éves különbség is jelez.

Az orosz vezetésnek sürgősen átfogó gazdasági és politikai reformokat kell kezdeményeznie. Vissza kell állítania a politikai intézményrendszer és a sajtó szabadságát. A növekedés beindítása érdekében átfogó gazdasági reformokat kell indítania. Meg kell erősítenie a jogállamiságot és vissza kell szorítania a korrupciót.

Az orosz példa is azt mutatja, mennyire káros, ha egyetlen politikai erő túlhatalomhoz, alkotmányozó többséghez jut és felszámolja a hatalmi fékeket és ellensúlyokat. Az ilyen gyakorlat ellen az Európai Uniónak határain túl és azon belül is fel kell lépnie. Az orosz választásokat követő, immár két hónapja zajló tiltakozások rámutattak az oroszországi politikai rendszer több szinten jelentkező válságára.

Elfogyott az országot irányító Putyin-Medvegyev-tandem politikai tőkéje, és jelentősen megcsappant a két politikus támogatottsága. Zsákutcába jutott a sajátos irányított demokrácia is, amely a politikai stabilitás érdekében a pártok működését a végrehajtó hatalom támogatásához kötötte. A választási törvényt az országot irányító személyek elvárásaihoz igazította. Korlátozta a sajtószabadságot, a gyülekezési és az egyesülési jog szabad gyakorlását. Mindez intő példa lehet az Unióban jelentkező tekintélyelvű politikák számára is.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. – As eleições presidenciais russas a 4 de Março deste ano suscitam questões na comunidade internacional, em particular no que diz respeito à plenitude de eleições livres e justas. Estas preocupações advêm das últimas eleições para a Duma que contaram com um conjunto enorme de violações ao Estado de Direito e ao processo de eleições livres. As demonstrações que se têm vindo a suceder demonstram que a sociedade russa quer mudanças e renovação e que a privação de certas liberdades já não serão aceites como no passado. Por outro lado, receiam que haja apenas uma troca de cadeiras e não verdadeiras eleições democráticas, a partir de uma escolha genuína. Paralelamente, a Rússia deve assumir as suas responsabilidades na cena internacional, nomeadamente no CS da ONU, e evitar que casos como as violações na Síria não tenham uma resposta a nível das instituições multilaterais. Aguardo com expectativa as eleições presidenciais da Rússia e que o processo democrático se consolide verdadeiramente, uma vez que este país é um parceiro e vizinho estratégico para a UE.

16. ES užsienio politika, skirta BRICS ir kitoms sparčiai besivystančioms šalims (diskusijos)

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt folgt der Bericht von Jacek Saryusz-Wolski im Namen des Ausschussses für auswärtige Angelegenheiten über die Außenpolitik der EU gegenüber den BRICS-Staaten und anderen Schwellenländern (A7-0010/2012) [2011/2111(INI)]

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, rapporteur. − Mr President, I am glad that Lady Ashton decided to participate in this debate. It is an honour for us and especially important because the EEAS has now been in action for a year and the time has come for the first reviews and summaries of the Service’s existence.

The report was adopted in the Committee on Foreign Affairs in December last year by an overwhelming majority. By allocating such an important topic to the Foreign Affairs Committee, the European Parliament wanted to emphasise that in foreign policy terms BRICS is no longer just a catch phrase coined around trade and growth-related indicators, but that these countries have come of age and started a certain form of foreign policy making. The report goes beyond the individual country-by-country approach when thinking about Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, and tries to see in what senses their common points of interest have brought them together.

One such common item is the feeling of marginalisation on the global level, especially when it comes to BRICS participation in the key institutions of global economic and financial governance. That is why the BRICS countries have decided to strengthen their cooperation on political and foreign policy issues. It could be called a mutual support network, but one that can be a convenient fall-back option when the situation requires concerted action.

The report indicates several areas, in particular the number of votes held in the UN Security Council, on Libya, on Syria, on the status of the EU in the UN General Assembly and others, like recently in Durban on climate change, which show that when the foreign policy objectives of the BRICS converge they are ready to concert efforts and act jointly. In most cases the BRICS take positions opposed to those of the European Union and they contest our positions and policy.

Are we ready to react and to act? Those countries enjoy – some of them to a special degree, especially democracies like India and Brazil – a privileged relationship with us. At the same time, they will not give the Union the right to speak in the United Nations.

Baroness Ashton, in your report you praise the geographical desk structure of the EEAS as the leading source of advice and briefing on respective countries. The report which I submitted encourages a coordination mechanism within the EEAS which would allow geographical desk officers responsible for particular BRICS countries to exchange and coordinate information and positions in cases where concerted action on our side can be expected. Such cooperation would have added value for you and your officials in devising future strategies. The mechanism I suggest does not require a modification of the current EEAS structure and can be of a purely functional nature. I was told that the first time such coordination took place was in preparation for attending the Foreign Affairs Committee meeting to discuss my report. I am glad to hear that, as it is the best proof that the report has already brought some results. Now, it will be of the utmost importance that this coordination is maintained and developed further and does not become a one-time event in the history of your Service.

The BRICS as a cross-continental foreign policy actor does exist and the ostrich policy of hiding one’s head in the sand, believing that the BRICS will stop existing, will not serve the EU well.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, may I first of all warmly welcome the report and thank Mr Saryusz-Wolski for the work he has done to bring this report to life, as well as all those who have commented on it, amended it or participated in the discussions about it.

It is really important because the growing role of emerging powers – and we focus in this debate on what we call the BRICS countries – is really important. When we consider the relationships that India, Brazil and South Africa have developed in their coordination through the India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum (IBSA) and the relationships between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa in what we now call the BRICS, it is important that we think about them in that way.

We know the economic statistics behind the phenomenal rise of the emerging powers, but for me the essence of this is about the politics. What matters is that economic clout is translated into political clout – into self-confidence and ambition for the role that can be played. We know that the five members of the BRICS are, of course, five strategic partners of the European Union, and individually they are – as Mr Saryusz-Wolski has said and the report acknowledges – very different in many ways. Each of them has a strong and deep relationship with the European Union.

It is incredibly important that we invest in our relationship with these countries and be active and creative in our engagement with them. We have a lot in common, and potentially there is a lot we can do together. This is precisely what I have been doing, what colleagues in the Commission and in the Council have been doing, and it is why – as honourable Members will remember – when I took on this role I said that I had three priorities: to get the service running; our neighbourhood, long before the events of the Arab Spring; and, thirdly, our strategic partners.

I would just mention that there are other emerging powers – countries like Mexico; countries with which we work closely, like South Korea; and of course Indonesia and others – but I want to concentrate for the purposes of this debate on the five that we call the BRICS.

With each of them, as I have said, we need to develop a strong relationship. In China I not only met with my interlocutor, State Councillor Dai Bingguo, with whom I had long debates and discussions, but I also met Defence Minister Liang to talk about how we could work together on tackling problems that we face together – on piracy, on counter-terrorism and so on. One of the advantages, if you like, of the many hats I wear in this post is that I can move between the Foreign Ministry and the Defence Ministry in many countries and can express the views of the European Union with both.

We have also been talking, of course, in India in the last two weeks: again, trying to break new ground in developing the strength of our relationship – particularly on some of the security issues that are so important and on joint work to develop the capacity to deliver on the World Food Programme, as well as tackling some of the global issues that we and they face – and recognising the significance of India in the region.

This weekend I travel to Brazil and then on to Mexico, our ambition, here again, being to strengthen the relationship we have and to talk about issues of importance between us. In Brazil I will focus in part on Iran as well as our work with Brazil on development and our work together in the UN Human Rights Council; and in Mexico, where they have played such an important role in recent days, on climate change and on some of the challenges that they face in their part of the region.

I should mention, too, South Africa. I met the South African Foreign Minister in November, again to discuss some of the issues that are extremely important – and South Africa’s work with the EU in Durban on the climate change discussions has been of enormous importance.

We have just discussed our relationship with Russia. It is a very important bilateral relationship; Russia is a significant partner in foreign policy; and of course there is also our concern about the internal situation.

In each of these countries we are trying to invest in developing a strong bilateral relationship. Each of them is different; each has a different history and different relationships, traditionally, not only with the European Union, but also with the EU Member States. I agree that we need a more creative and joined-up approach as we look not only at how to deal with those bilateral relationships, but also at how to work with that group of countries in regional and global forums.

This brings me to a thread running through your report which I think is really important: namely, the extent to which they form a homogenous block or not. I know you have been very clear in the report, Mr Saryusz-Wolski, about not exaggerating what that means. As you stressed, there are major differences economically, politically and socially – and anyone looking at those countries would see how significantly different they are – but whether they manage to coordinate their position depends on where their interests coincide. There are issues on which coordination is relatively straightforward, others where it is more difficult, and many where they would perhaps want to develop that coordination further.

So my proposal is that we need to invest in these countries as strategic partners in a very strong and dynamic bilateral relationship, finding the themes and issues on which we can work closely: economically and politically, bilaterally and internationally. We need to do that because it is in our interest to do it, but I also believe it is in our interest to avoid a mindset of ‘the West versus the rest’ – something I discussed with President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton at the summit in the USA in December.

It is important that we recognise the significance of our relationships with each of these countries and find the common ground, where they should be with us and we should be with them, on many of the issues we face. It is important that we deal with them as individual, strong strategic partners, but what Mr Saryusz-Wolski has just said about coordination is completely right. I welcome the fact that the Committee on Foreign Affairs has highlighted coordination within the European External Action Service. May I instantly take up your proposal and say that I will – as a direct result of your report and your comments – make sure that we find ways to implement such coordination in the future.

That brings me to my last remark. Individual countries – yes. Individual relationships – absolutely critical. However, as these countries start to come together, it is really important to consider what it is that brings them together to form a common position, be it because we are in a different place, or because they feel they want to gather together as emerging powers, rather than – from their perspective – powers in a different part of the world. We need to find ways of creating a different dynamic and making common calls with some or all of them when that works.

Mr Saryusz-Wolski, may I again thank you for the report. As I said, you have already achieved at least one thing in creating new coordination within the EEAS.

  Birgit Schnieber-Jastram, Verfasserin der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Entwicklungsausschusses. − Herr Präsident, Lady Ashton! Eine enge Zusammenarbeit zwischen der Europäischen Union und den BRICS-Staaten ist angesichts der globalen Herausforderungen, z. B. der Entwicklungspolitik in Afrika, unbedingt notwendig. Sie haben das eben sehr deutlich gemacht, Lady Ashton. Ich möchte hinzufügen: Eile ist auch geboten, denn der Westen allei wird diese Herausforderungen nicht meistern.

Wir müssen uns ehrlich die Frage stellen, wo künftig der Schwerpunkt liegen soll: auf der Verbreitung europäischer Werte oder auf der Zusammenarbeit z. B. mit China. Denn eines ist klar: Einige der BRICS bevorzugen eine schrittweise Konvergenz statt verbindlicher und harmonisierter internationaler Normen und Regeln. Wollen wir die Zusammenarbeit vertiefen, müssen wir im Gegenzug bei der Frage der Werte behutsamer vorgehen. Wollen wir unsere Werte verbreiten, dann müssen wir mit Schwierigkeiten bei der Zusammenarbeit rechnen.

Ich bin der festen Überzeugung, dass der Mittelweg am besten ist. Europa sollte nicht predigen oder besserwisserisch daherkommen. Dazu gibt ein Blick auf die Geschichte übrigens auch gar keinen Anlass. Wir müssen durch unser eigenes Vorbild anziehend wirken. Sicher ist jedenfalls, dass angesichts der globalen Herausforderungen an einer engeren Zusammenarbeit kein Weg vorbeiführt. Kurz gesagt: Der Aufstieg der BRICS und die Veränderung der Weltordnung sind eine große Herausforderung, aber eine ebenso große Chance – wir sollten sie nutzen! Dieser Bericht ist ein kleiner Baustein, und ich danke Herrn Saryusz-Wolski für seine Arbeit.

  Ioannis Kasoulides, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, my congratulations to Mr Saryusz-Wolski. In today’s interdependent world, global problems need global solutions. Global solutions are necessary for international security, political, economic, monetary and ecological stability, as well as for access to raw materials and rare earths.

The financial crisis in Europe had its origins outside the Union, but to put our house in order and avoid negative externalities, the cooperation of the rest of the world is necessary. It is for this reason that coordination between the EU and the United States, and their diplomatic understanding and cooperation with the BRICS, becomes very important.

We need to correct East-West monetary imbalances – the deficit in the West and the surplus and trillions of reserves in the East – by deciding on upper limits of deficit and surplus and by fighting protectionism. The cake is common worldwide. The West is the market of the East, while stability and prosperity in the East are necessary for the security and healthy economy of the West. In this framework, the contribution of the BRICS, and particularly of China, in a specific IMF special-purpose vehicle, would significantly increase IMF firepower and robustness in dealing with the sovereign debt crisis of the EU and tomorrow – who knows – of the United States. In parallel, Beijing’s request for a further upgraded institutional role in the IMF and free market status in the WTO, which will anyhow be attained by 2016, could be accommodated.

  Boris Zala, za skupinu S&D. – O krajinách BRIC bola skutočne živá diskusia. Svedčí to o tom, že je to výzva pre nás – nielen pre Parlament, ale aj pre Európsku komisiu, pre našu zahraničnú službu. Tá živá diskusia sa viedla predovšetkým o tom, či BRIC je reálne ekonomické alebo politicko-ekonomické zoskupenie, alebo je to len naša skratka pre súbor krajín, ktoré majú veľmi silnú a dynamicky sa rozvíjajúcu ekonomiku. Na tomto sa rozvíjala veľmi živá diskusia.

Ja osobne si myslím, že BRIC nie je integračným zoskupením, že k nemu netreba pristupovať ako k jednotnej politickej jednotke – aj keď je pravdou, že BRIC môže ad hoc vytvárať jednotné stanoviská, napríklad v Organizácii Spojených národov. Nesmieme však túto polohu preceňovať. Oveľa väčší dôraz je potrebné klásť na vytváranie dvojstranných partnerstiev – strategických partnerstiev – medzi Európskou úniou a jednotlivými krajinami, ktoré my v skratke označujeme BRIC, pretože tieto krajiny sú skutočne historicky mimoriadne diferencované. Nielen historicky diferencované, ale aj v praktickej geopolitike, aj v hospodárskom rozvoji sú to úplne odlišné krajiny.

Ale napokon sme v tejto živej diskusii našli kompromis, že treba BRIC strážiť, aby to nebol partner, ktorý by nám ušiel z našej pozornosti, a Európska únia musí zároveň rozvíjať strategické partnerstvá s veľkými ekonomikami a politickými geopolitickými jednotkami, či už je to Brazília, India, Čína atď. Myslím si, že tu sme dospeli napokon k dobrému kompromisu – treba rozvíjať oba nástroje. A je to aj dôkazom toho, že nikto sme napokon tú hlavu v tom piesku nemali, a ak aj mali, tak sme ju všetci odtiaľ vytiahli.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki, ALDE-ryhmän puolesta. – Arvoisa puhemies, ensiksi onnittelut kollegalleni Saryusz-Wolskille, hän on saanut ellei nyt kivet vierimään niin ainakin kivet liikkumaan ulkoasiainhallinnossa, kuten Lady Ahston totesi, ja se on paljon.

BRICS-maat – Brasilia, Venäjä, Intia, Kiina ja Etelä-Afrikka – eivät toimi tiiviinä blokkina kansainvälisillä areenoilla, mutta niiden keskinäisellä yhteistyöllä on vaikutusta kansainvälisiin neuvotteluihin, asialistoihin ja loppupäätelmiin, muun muassa G20-kokouksissa. YK:ssa ja turvallisuusneuvostossa ne ehkä toimivat vähän eriytyneemmin.

BRICS-maat siis pystyvät vaikuttamaan hyvin usein neuvotteluiden asialistaan ja painopisteisiin, ja tämä on heikentänyt joskus EU:n asemaa ja meidän omien tavoitteidemme ajamista. On siis aivan ensiarvoisen tärkeää, että EU pystyy nyt kehittämään strategisia kumppanuusohjelmia, ja on hyvä asia, että Lady Ashton vierailee ensi viikolla Brasiliassa ja muissakin maissa. On kiire kehittää näitä suhteita, ja toimitaan aivan oikein, jos nämä maat katsotaan erillisiksi ja toimitaan kunkin oman historian ja nykytilanteen mukaisesti. Ne eivät muodosta blokkia, vaikka ne toimivatkin joskus yhdessä. EU:n on kiireesti tehtävä myös näiden valtioiden kanssa yhteistyötä, ja on todella tarkkaan mietittävä painopistealueet.

  Franziska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, coming back to development policies, we need to acknowledge that the BRICS countries are also new and increasingly important players in development policy. In fact, we should welcome this. We should try to include them in our international agreements on principles of development – including, for example, aid effectiveness principles – without using their inclusion as an excuse for watering down our own commitments.

We need to foster south-south cooperation because experience from, for example, Brazil on how to fight poverty has been very useful: the poverty reduction programmes that have been implemented in Brazil have been a great success, and now they are being implemented in other countries as well. Such proven best practices will be very important and they represent an important step for developing countries and societies.

Another crucial recommendation in the Committee on Development opinion is to push forward the reform of global financial and economic governance institutions – notably the Bretton Woods institutions – with the aim of ensuring broad representation of all member countries while reflecting changes in their economic weight. Can you tell us, Baroness Ashton, what steps the Commission and the EEAS intend to take in that regard?

We must also not forget that a large proportion of the world’s poorest people still live in the BRICS countries and therefore we cannot treat those countries as high-income countries. The EU-India free trade agreement, for instance, will have massive implications for India’s small farmers, fishermen, fisherwomen and other poor people. It is not right to look only at a country’s overall GDP because that is not a true reflection of the reality. We need to find new ways of dealing with emerging countries. Helping the poorest in these countries will continue to be necessary and important.

The Committee on Development also asked the Commission to define specific areas of cooperation with the BRICS countries in the field of development policy, for instance cooperation in the health sector, including access to basic healthcare services and infrastructure, the fight against AIDS and other matters. Maybe you could also give your view on that, Baroness Ashton, and tell us what steps you will be taking.

I will conclude with a word about our own position. Too often we have heard that what we are doing in developing countries may not be the greatest thing – but if we did not do it, China would come along and do it even worse. So I hope we will never hear that excuse again.

  Valdemar Tomaševski, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Panie Przewodniczący! Rosnące znaczenie polityczne i gospodarcze Brazylii, Rosji, Indii, Chin oraz RPA wymaga opracowania spójnej i skutecznej polityki Unii wobec tych krajów. Nie powinna ona wynikać z naszych lęków czy obaw przed pojawieniem się nowych potęg, lecz opierać się na współpracy i budowaniu wzajemnego zaufania. Stosunki z państwami BRIC powinny się opierać na rzeczywistym partnerstwie, ale – co ważne – również na wspólnych wartościach. Unia musi należycie uwzględniać nowe znaczenie polityczne i gospodarcze wschodzących potęg, aby zachować własną pozycję międzynarodową. Z tych powodów kilka priorytetów ze sprawozdania pana Saryusza-Wolskiego wymaga podkreślenia i wsparcia.

Koncepcja dwustronnych partnerstw strategicznych z każdym z wymienionych państw wzmocni pozycję Unii. Należy wspierać odnowione partnerstwo z Brazylią na bazie stowarzyszenia UE-Mercosur, które będzie najważniejszym układem, jaki do tej pory został podpisany przez Unię. Brazylia może być też dla nas doskonałym przykładem budowania samowystarczalności energetycznej dzięki wspieraniu produkcji biopaliw. Należy również podkreślić rolę partnerstwa strategicznego z Rosją, które sprzyjać będzie zachowaniu pokoju i bezpieczeństwa w Europie.

Na koniec chciałbym wyrazić nadzieję, że Unia właściwie doceni znaczenie Chin jako przyszłej głównej potęgi gospodarczej i stanie się liderem w kontaktach z tym państwem w celu ożywienia gospodarczego na naszym kontynencie.

  Νικόλαος Σαλαβράκος, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας EFD. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, απόψε είναι μια βραδιά συγχαρητηρίων. Σας συγχαίρω για την εκλογή σας, συγχαίρω τον κ. εισηγητή για την εξαιρετική έκθεση που εκπόνησε και δηλώνω ότι και η κ. Ashton με ικανοποίησε απολύτως με τις θέσεις που έλαβε. Είναι βέβαιο ότι οι χώρες BRICS αποτελούν κινητήρια δύναμη της παγκόσμιας οικονομικής ανάπτυξης. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να λάβει σοβαρά υπόψη το νέο ειδικό βάρος, σε πολιτικό και οικονομικό επίπεδο, που αποκτούν οι χώρες BRICS αξιοποιώντας το πολιτικό κύρος το οποίο αναπτύσσουν. Συμφωνώ επίσης με τον εισηγητή ότι υπάρχει ανάγκη διαφοροποιημένης προσέγγισης για κάθε χώρα. Οι δομές των τεσσάρων οικονομιών είναι διαφορετικές, όπως είναι διαφορετικές επίσης οι εμπειρίες τους από την παγκόσμια ύφεση. Δεν πρέπει όμως να ξεχνούμε ότι, παρά την πρόσφατη εντυπωσιακή οικονομική ανάπτυξη που σημειώθηκε στις περισσότερες από τις χώρες αυτές, εξακολουθεί να παρατηρείται σε αυτές η μεγαλύτερη συγκέντρωση φτώχειας σε ολόκληρο τον κόσμο. Πέραν τούτου, αν και πληθυσμιακά αντιπροσωπεύουν το 42% της ανθρωπότητας, παράγουν μόλις το 17,4% του παγκόσμιου ΑΕΠ. Οι συγκρίσεις για την ώρα είναι υπέρ της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Το ερώτημα είναι τι θα γίνει αύριο.

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowny Panie Jacku Saryusz-Wolski, autorze sprawozdania Parlamentu Europejskiego na temat relacji pomiędzy UE a państwami BRICS. Chciałbym pogratulować Panu autorstwa tego projektu, ponieważ rzeczywiście w sposób właściwy i bardzo dobry ujmuje on to, co jest istotą czasów, w których żyjemy. Świat wokół nas zmienia się dynamicznie, a jedną z oznak tych zmian jest szybki, zwłaszcza gospodarczy, rozwój krajów, które jeszcze niedawno uznawano zaledwie za tzw. rozwijające się. Rezultatem tego szybkiego rozwoju jest oczywiście wzrost znaczenia politycznego. Dzisiaj to już nie tylko potęgi gospodarcze, ale coraz poważniejsi aktorzy polityczni, wobec których, tak jak zauważa pan poseł Saryusz-Wolski w swoim projekcie sprawozdania, Unia musi wypracować spójną strategię postępowania.

Zgadzam się jednak z tymi głosami, które podkreślają, że są to kraje zróżnicowane. Różnice te są jasno widoczne, gdy przypatrujemy się chociażby realiom wewnątrzpolitycznym, a zwłaszcza sposobowi podejścia do swobód obywatelskich i praw człowieka. To są te wartości, które dla nas Europejczyków, europejskich polityków, są ważne: nie tylko współpraca gospodarcza, ale troska o wartości, które nam są bliskie i promocja tych wartości w relacjach z państwami, których znaczenie w świecie coraz bardziej rośnie. Zgadzam się z tymi konkluzjami i propozycjami zapisu w sprawozdaniu, które mówią, że powinniśmy wypracowywać wspólną strategię postępowania wobec tych krajów z naszym partnerami podzielającymi ten sam system wartości, jak chociażby Stany Zjednoczone.

I wreszcie absolutnie chciałbym przyłączyć się do tych wniosków, które mówią, że Parlament Europejski powinien mieć większy wpływ na wypracowywanie stanowiska i wspólne strategie oraz uczestniczyć w szczytach pomiędzy Unią Europejską a jej partnerami strategicznymi, również spośród krajów, które określamy dzisiaj jako BRICS.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - Cumprimento o colega Saryusz-Wolski pelo seu trabalho e por acomodar as sugestões por mim feitas e pelo meu grupo.

A emergência dos BRICS oferece novas oportunidades à União Europeia, mas também grandes desafios para concretizar o seu propósito de contribuir para uma ordem global baseada na rule of law, na universalidade dos direitos humanos, no desenvolvimento sustentável, para alcançar segurança humana e paz para todos.

Investindo na articulação com os BRICS nos diversos Fora, incluindo o G7, o G8 ou o G20, a União Europeia poderá encontrar valiosos aliados para tecer a regulação financeira e a governação económica globais de que a humanidade tanto necessita, como demonstra a atual crise com um impacto destruidor à escala global.

Mas isto supõe que a União Europeia saiba desenvolver parcerias especiais, de geometria variável como cada um dos BRICS, tendo em atenção o seu percurso histórico, as suas distintas especificidades civilizacionais, as suas alianças, mas também a sua falta de coesão e as suas ostensivas divergências. Por vezes os BRICS concertarão a sua atuação externa numa linha dissonante com a União Europeia, como sucedeu no Conselho de Segurança no ano passado, no voto da Resolução 1973 sobre a Líbia, mas também aí, um Estado-Membro, desgraçadamente, divergiu.

Em situações semelhantes cabe à União Europeia empregar todo o seu engenho e todas as suas ferramentas diplomáticas para fazer ver a cada um dos BRICS que é também do seu interesse contribuir para o reforço de uma ordem internacional coerente, respeitável e respeitada e é evidente que se a União Europeia se empenhar na reforma e alargamento do Conselho de Segurança da ONU, o que não tem feito, terá mais capacidade de audição junto dos candidatos a membros permanentes entre os BRICS, o Brasil, a Índia e a África do Sul, sem nada perder junto da Rússia ou da China que preferem o status quo apesar de não terem a coragem de o assumir. Cabe à União Europeia saber mostrar a cada um dos BRICS que, quanto mais relevância assumem internacionalmente, maiores são também as responsabilidades que lhes são exigidas na defesa dos princípios e valores universais e numa ordem global que garanta a paz e a justiça para todos.

E é evidente que nos BRICS, cujas sociedades são hoje genuínas democracias e que têm enraizadas ligações com a cultura europeia, como é o caso do Brasil, que com Portugal, o meu país, partilha a história, a língua, a cultura e boa parte das idiossincrasias populares, há um potencial extraordinário a desenvolver em partenariados e cooperações, em todos os domínios do comércio ao desenvolvimento científico aplicado, à indústria, à proteção ambiental e climática, às energias renováveis, no combate à pobreza e na promoção da democracia.

Não foi por acaso que a presidente Dilma Roussef recentemente em Cuba recitou o refrão da canção portuguesa antifascista o povo é quem mais ordena.

PŘEDSEDNICTVÍ: PAN OLDŘICH VLASÁK
místopředseda

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). - Mr President, later today we will be discussing the own-initiative report of Sir Graham Watson on consistent policy towards regimes against which the EU applies restrictive measures.

I appreciate the growing economic importance of BRICS countries. However, the EU policy towards them must take into account the principles that have been outlined in Sir Graham’s report. European values must always take precedence over economic interests. The common values referred to in Mr Saryusz-Wolski’s report are still in formation in these countries. The EU and the EEAS should make sure that constructive partnership with BRICS and other emerging powers brings about the spill-over of democracy, human rights, civil liberties, the rule of law and gender equality.

The future role of BRICS in the international arena should not be underestimated. If we cannot engage them positively, they might become extremely difficult competitors for the EU in economic terms while disregarding human values.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). - Em primeiro lugar eu queria naturalmente cumprimentar o relator, o nosso colega Saryusz-Wolski, pela elaboração deste relatório. Julgo que ele é uma peça importante para a definição da estratégia da política externa da União Europeia e por isso espero que a Comissão e, em particular, a Senhora Vice-Presidente/Alta Representante possam incorporar na sua estratégia a visão que o relator Saryusz-Wolski aqui deixa.

Queria especialmente congratular-me, como português, pela circunstância de se abrir a porta, embora apenas abrir a porta, à criação de uma delegação do Parlamento Europeu para o Brasil, porque é incompreensível que todos os BRICS tenham uma delegação própria menos o Brasil, que curiosamente é o único BRIC que tem uma língua nacional europeia, que tem uma cultura claramente ocidental, atlântica e europeia e portanto, que tem connosco afinidades únicas, que tem um papel decisivo como exemplo junto dos outros BRICS em matéria de direitos humanos, em matéria digamos de padrões de atuação internacional e que o Parlamento Europeu, ao contrário da Comissão e do Conselho, não criou para o Brasil ainda uma delegação própria.

A Comissão e o Conselho têm uma aliança, uma parceria estratégica com o Brasil, mas nós, Parlamento Europeu, muito por causa do grupo socialista, não temos ainda uma delegação para o Brasil e não podemos acompanhar a política do Brasil. Podemos acompanhar no Mercosul os assuntos económicos, mas as posições políticas internacionais do Brasil, nós não as podemos acompanhar porque não dispomos de uma delegação própria e isto é uma falha total do Parlamento Europeu que eu espero que seja reparada depois da grande visão que está neste relatório Saryusz-Wolski.

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D). - Mr President, the report we are now debating is strategic, comprehensive and sophisticated, addressing Europe’s challenge generated by the changing distribution of power within the international system: a process accelerated by the current world crisis.

Europe, which has created a modern international system, is now facing a double challenge. She has to keep her central place within it while having to fight a nasty internal crisis. In the past century, given Europe’s centrality within the international system, war in Europe has twice become world war. Today, even if war in Europe is unthinkable, our continent could still rock the world boat hard, both financially and economically.

The West – the US and Europe – now has to make room for the newcomers, either in existing bodies such as the UN Security Council or by creating new ones for them such as the G20. BRICS is a nascent grouping which is relatively heterogeneous, while Russia and China are well-established powers. There is a big question mark over the ambitions of Brazil and South Africa, with India apparently preoccupied primarily with China, which embodies this challenge. How can Europe best engage these emerging power centres without destroying the current world international institutional architecture? To engage this power successfully, Europe, which will have first to ensure coherence between the national and EU approaches towards them, will need to strike the right balance between change, namely permitting these emerging power centres to achieve their aims, and continuity, namely safeguarding her interests.

  Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Ashton, io credo che la parte più visibile dei cambiamenti legati ai BRICS, che anche quella più significativa in termini di conseguenze per la vita delle nostre società, sia quella che riguarda la penetrazione economica e commerciale di queste potenze emergenti. Si tratta di cambiamenti che possono portare a stabilità e diffusa prosperità, ma rispetto ai quali occorre un'adeguata velocità, tanto con le risposte nelle regole internazionali – e sappiamo che in sede di OMC purtroppo i negoziati sono fermi – quanto con una maggiore integrazione della nostra politica estera con la politica commerciale, tenendo conto del fatto che la nostra politica estera per alcuni aspetti è purtroppo ancora embrionale, mentre la politica commerciale, grazie alle competenze esclusive del trattato di Lisbona, è perfettamente funzionante.

Mi chiedo, ad esempio, quale sia il ruolo degli addetti commerciali nelle nostre ambasciate. Questi addetti commerciali non fanno parte del Servizio europeo per l'azione esterna ma avranno un ruolo nei BRICS tanto importante, se non più importante, quanto quello dei nostri diplomatici.

  Diogo Feio (PPE). - Senhor Presidente, Senhora Alta Representante, eu queria começar esta minha intervenção cumprimentado o nosso Colega, o Senhor Saryusz-Wolski, pelo excelente relatório que aqui nos trouxe. Nele é claro que o mundo de hoje conhece a ascensão de novos Estados à categoria de potências, o que, na minha opinião, reclama uma nova abordagem e posicionamento da União Europeia face a estes fenómenos.

Os chamados BRICS são países com histórias, culturas, sociedades e sistemas políticos muito diversos. Entre eles existem antagonismos geopolíticos, históricos e é evidente que acolhem diferentemente os nossos valores fundamentais, como a democracia, a liberdade e o respeito pelos direitos humanos.

Sem descurar os restantes países, creio que devemos estreitar as nossas relações com aqueles que não apenas partilham nominalmente esses valores, como os aplicam de forma consistente e empenhada, como é o caso do Brasil. Sendo certo que os mundos da Guerra Fria e do momento unipolar americano puderam conviver com o Conselho de Segurança das Nações Unidas, desgarrada e efetiva representatividade militar, demográfica e cultural, tenho as maiores dúvidas que tudo possa continuar como está.

A perceção de uma cidadania global não pode deixar de ser composta também por símbolos e imagens dos outros. Esta constitui uma valiosa condição para mantermos a universalidade dos valores ocidentais. Devemos dar sinais concretos de que merecemos a confiança dos nossos parceiros, de que não só contamos com a adesão e valores comuns, como estamos dispostos a trabalhar em conjunto e a dar-lhes voz à escala global e a permitir a interpretação daqueles que possa ser ouvida nitidamente.

Recordo, a este título até, o papel precursor do meu país, Portugal, no acolhimento e integração da linguagem do outro.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). - Mr President, our report was not only political, it was also an intellectual challenge – an attempt to describe the current situation, to foresee future developments and, on that basis, to outline policy proposals for our relations with the BRICS countries.

It is time for us to wake up. In many cases the EU institutions and the European leaders still live in a world of the past that no longer exists. Our eurocentric views and approaches often lead to failures, or half successes, for us on the global scene. We need to catch up with reality. Baroness Ashton, you should take this report not as a criticism of you, but rather as a call for action.

However, I would like to warn against attempts to simplify the picture and to regard the BRICS countries as a kind of unified political bloc. Indeed, we have no interest in seeing them move closer to one another to create a counterweight to the EU that will not necessarily be based on the principles and values we find important. That is why I would recommend an intensification of bilateral relations without artificially pushing these countries towards greater cohesion.

The European Parliament can play an important role here. Parliamentary cooperation with some of these countries is producing good results. Others seem to be less interested, but that should not discourage us. A good step would be for the European Parliament to be invited to participate in bilateral summits.

As regards Brazil, I am one of those who very much supported the establishment of a bilateral parliamentary cooperation committee and I am sure that this will be a reality as of 2014. By the way, the amendment which mentions this possibility in the report was introduced by the S&D Group, and specifically by Ana Gomes.

  předseda. − Vidím tady modrou kartu. Máte slovo. Vy. Viděl jsem Vás, slovo dostanete jako druhá. Chcete odpovědět na modrou kartu, pane Vigenine? Přijmete otázku? Jak jsem řekl, paní Gomes dostane slovo po kolegovi. Přijímáte otázku? Ještě jednou se ptám. Ne. Čili otázku zvednutím modré karty ruším.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). - Mr President, it was not possible to give the floor to Ana Gomes for a blue-card question, and since no time has suddenly arisen to allow a blue-card question from my colleague from the PPE Group, I will not respond to that question.

Zahájení vystoupení na základě přihlášení se zvednutím ruky.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). - Ca membru al delegaţiei cu Mercosur, aş vrea să fac câteva precizări legate de relaţia cu Brazilia, statul cu cea mai mare influenţă în America de Sud şi cu cele mai mare şanse de a deveni factor de stabilitate în această regiune.

Ca principal partener comercial al Braziliei, Uniunea Europeană generează nu mai puţin de 22,2% din volumul total al comerţului acesteia. Consider că Uniunea Europeană şi Brazilia pot, şi ar trebui, să colaboreze mult mai intensiv, printre altele în ceea ce priveşte suplimentarea volumului tranzacţiilor comerciale, în special în urma planului comun de acţiune până în 2014, şi în mod special în dobândirea unui rol de conducere în cadrul forurilor internaţionale pe tematici precum schimbările climatice, guvernanţa economică şi, nu în ultimul rând, drepturile omului.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). - Subliniez importanţa intensificării cooperării industriale în domeniul politicii spaţiale dintre Uniunea Europeană şi statele BRICS.

Ca membru al delegaţiilor Parlamentului European pentru relaţiile cu Mercosur şi cu India, subliniez importanţa acordului de asociere UE-Mercosur, care va fi cel mai important acord de asociere semnat vreodată de Uniunea Europeană, şi care vizează schimburi comerciale în valoare de 125 de miliarde de dolari anual. Totodată, subliniez rolul Braziliei ca actor principal în regiunea Mercosur, şi salutăm reînnoirea parteneriatului strategic UE-Brazilia, planul de acţiune comună 2012-2014. Regretăm faptul că acordul UE-Brazilia privind transportul aerian nu a fost semnat în cadrul summitului UE-Brazilia din octombrie 2011.

În ceea ce priveşte relaţiile UE-India, o atenţie deosebită trebuie acordată cooperării în domeniul securităţii cibernetice şi protecţiei datelor cu caracter personal. Apreciez rolul Băncii Europene de Investiţii, care a alocat 1 miliard de euro prin facilitatea privind energiile regenerabile şi securitatea energetică, pentru realizarea de proiecte energetice în India.

  Inês Zuber (GUE/NGL). - Senhor Presidente, Senhora Vice-Presidente, Senhores Deputados, no processo de rearrumação de forças em curso no plano mundial, a maioria do Parlamento Europeu defende agora uma convergência com os chamados países BRICS, separadamente, temendo a sua unidade e o que ela poderá significar para o enfraquecimento da influência e do domínio da tríade capitalista, que nós consideramos ser os Estados Unidos da América, o Japão e a União Europeia, nas instituições do capitalismo internacional.

Querem conter o seu crescimento e a diversificação da atividade económica que coloca em causa a divisão internacional do trabalho e o papel que lhe queriam acometer, o papel de produtores de produtos de baixo valor acrescentado. Já lá vai o tempo em que estes países eram sobretudo exportadores de matérias-primas e produtos agrícolas. Hoje tornam-se progressivamente grandes potências mundiais, rivalizando com a tríade, e alguns deles fazem mesmo um percurso inverso ao da União Europeia no plano do combate à fome e à pobreza que o rumo e as políticas erradas da União Europeia e dos Estados-Membros farão aumentar entre nós. Pela nossa parte defendemos o estabelecimento de relações com todos os países, recusando a sua catalogação e independente de diferenças, de conceções políticas, económicas, sociais e culturais, assegurando o interesse mútuo.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). - Myslím si, že vzťahy medzi Európskou úniou a krajinami BRIC by bolo potrebné naozaj hlbšie rozvíjať a najmä zmluvne koordinovať tak, aby tá spolupráca bola podchytená aj z hľadiska ekonomického a hospodárskeho, ale aj z hľadiska podpory rozvoja alebo ochrany životného prostredia. Chcel by som podporiť tých, ktorí hovoria o tom, že tieto vzťahy by mali byť budované predovšetkým na základe bilaterálnych hospodárskych zmlúv, ktoré naozaj vzhľadom na rôznorodosť týchto krajín, rozšírenie vo svete, rozličnú produkciu bude zrejme dobré uprednostniť.

Ale hlavný dôraz, myslím si, treba klásť najmä na podporu a budovanie ekonomických a spoločenských štruktúr v týchto krajinách tak, aby neobchádzali, povedal by som, práva pracujúcich na ochranu pred zdravotnými a pracovnými úrazmi.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - Aş dori să-l felicit şi eu pe colegul meu, domnul Saryusz-Wolski pentru redactarea acestui raport amănunţit. Parteneriatul cu economiile BRICS reprezintă baza unei dezvoltări durabile pentru Uniune. Doresc să subliniez atât evoluţia demografică accelerată din aceste state, precum şi creşterea lor economică rapidă. Atrag atenţia asupra paragrafului S, care pune accentul pe valorile şi principiile împărtăşite de cele două grupuri. Trebuie încurajată cooperarea cu statele BRICS într-un mod adaptat specificului naţional. Totodată, forumurile de dialog trebuie să includă probleme precum combaterea schimbărilor climatice sau accesul la pământuri rare. Colaborarea în aceste domenii dintre statele BRICS şi UE poate duce la o intervenţie mai eficientă şi rezultate vizibile. Este nevoie de elaborarea unor strategii comune, care să ia în consideraţie diferenţele economice şi culturale existente.

(Konec vystoupení na základě přihlášení se zvednutím ruky.)

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, with your indulgence, can I just inform the honourable Members about what has happened in Egypt tonight. There has been an incident at a football stadium in Port Said and approximately 73 people have been killed and hundreds injured. It appears to have come at the end of the match, when fans went onto the pitch. I have already sent condolences directly to the Foreign Minister of Egypt, for which I have had his thanks and acknowledgement, but I am sure the honourable Members would want to be informed and of course would want to join me in expressing our condolences and shock at this terrible incident. Mr President, I just thought it was worth interrupting my own remarks to inform the honourable Members about this terrible tragedy.

In returning to the subject of our debate, I would like to say that this is a big area of priority for our work and to thank again Mr Saryusz-Wolski and all of those who have contributed to the report and to the debate tonight. As I said at the beginning, when I laid out my own priorities for my work, strategic partnerships were critical – not just for the bilateral relationships which so many have spoken about, but also because of their significance as partners as we tackle some of the global challenges. I have already indicated some of the ways in which we work with them individually.

We have strong relationships with all the countries that we call the BRICS. We have delegations, which are very active, and we have a considerable number of meetings – not just myself, and not just in country, or in Brussels, but across the different international meetings that we have. It is not unusual to be meeting with Ministers many times in the course of a year. These are important because they keep us in touch, as well as serving as regular contacts.

My fellow Commissioners also spend a great deal of energy on developing those strong links on some of the issues that honourable Members have raised, whether it is climate change or development, education or other areas of work. Perhaps I should pick up especially on two.

We talk about the strong economic weight, and a number of honourable Members have raised that. I think the work that we do together in developing and enhancing our bilateral trade work is very significant. With some countries, like Brazil, it is all part of a broader strategic approach in Mercosur. With others, such as India, we are in the final stages of trying to close a free trade agreement. With others, such as China, we are developing those links that are so important if we are to tackle some of the issues, for example intellectual property rights and the level playing field of trade and investment that are so critical to European industry and business and our future.

So it is extremely important work, not just with ministries but with Chambers of Commerce and supporting industry. In our delegations, as the honourable Members know, we have officials from the Commission who work on these issues as their priority, and this is how they spend their time while they are in country.

I just want to focus in my final remark on development, because this is a theme that has also been raised. We have enormous engagement with all these countries in two different ways. First of all, honourable Members have pointed to the fact that for some of them there are still real challenges of poverty: India is an obvious example. So, although the engagement may change and may not be in the way that it used to be, it is about engaging with them to provide support, for example with climate change, energy and some of the key areas of work where the Commission has played such a vital role and will continue to do in the future.

But it is also about them as partners in development. Talking with our colleagues in Brazil, we have worked hard to develop how we can work together, for example in delivering our development in Africa. This is an area that I think we need to consider working on further, where we are able to collaborate and use our contributions more effectively by thinking through the strategy of how we work on our development priorities.

So all of these areas are ways in which we can continue to develop our individual bilateral relations. But I accept that when they coordinate, they create in a sense a collaborative approach on certain issues. We certainly need to be able to respond to that approach, while recognising that, primarily, they are distinct and separate countries with different histories and traditions and certainly different relationships with us.

I would just like to thank Mr Saryusz-Wolski again for this work and to commend him for putting forward this important report and to say to honourable Members that we will of course continue actively to pursue our work with Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, together and, most importantly, individually.

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski, rapporteur. − Mr President, first let me thank Lady Ashton for the openness with which she has received the report, which calls for more action, as somebody has rightly said. I would also like to thank my colleagues, who understood the message and contributed to the richness of this report.

I am happy because what has a name exists. It is named – the phenomenon has been named, so it does exist. So we should treat this report as an early notification – not a warning – about forthcoming challenges.

I did not deny in this report that there are huge differences between them, but I tried to extract the tiny part which is common to them, even if it is only 1% of the picture and even if it is only restricted to issues on which they have similar positions and act as an entity and foreign policy in the making.

You said, Lady Ashton, that we should avoid a ‘West versus the rest’ confrontation. This is also my dream, but the world is not as we would wish. My comment would be ‘yes, but...’. In some cases, we see that democracies there – India and Brazil – were seduced by autocracies regarding their common positions, and regarding human rights and democracy (and I see the convergence with the Watson report), Libya, Syria, the Ivory Coast and Sudan. In some cases they were jointly challenging the current system of international governance.

The question of the EU voice in the UN was an appalling and most regrettable case. Having strategic partners (as we call them with all due respect) means having reliable partners sharing values. Very often they neither share nor practice our values.

In the policy towards the BRICS we should avoid the creation of coalitions of the lowest common denominator on democracy and human rights. Our policy should be inclusive, in order to involve them in the system of governance – but on the basis of universal values. They should be our partners and not our opponents, as has happened in the past. In the EU we should think strategically. In 2050 they will be immensely bigger than we are. Let us be prepared. The EU has to act together under your leadership, Lady Ashton, to avoid Member States’ divergent policies, for example on Libya. Regarding Libya, BRICS were more united than the Union itself. We need strong European foreign policy.

  předseda. − Rozprava skončila.

Hlasování: 2. února 2012

Písemná prohlášení (článek 149)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. – Tal como esta iniciativa refere, o Acordo com o Mercosul, a acontecer, será o acordo de associação mais importante jamais assinado pela UE, abrangendo 750 milhões de pessoas e com um comércio no valor de 125 mil milhões de dólares anuais. No passado dia 8 de novembro de 2011, num debate com o Comissário e Ministros de Agricultura, tive oportunidade de questionar o Senhor Comissário relativamente às respostas que a nova Politica Agrícola apresentaria, para que os produtores pudessem enfrentar com sucesso os problemas de concorrência que o Acordo com o Mercosul lhes traria. A Comissão propôs, então, que a resposta a este problema fosse o Fundo Europeu de Ajustamento à Globalização. Mas a resposta devia ter sido a defesa da agricultura europeia no Acordo, e não esta desajustada proposta que foi apresentada. Considero que esta proposta está longe de ser a resposta aos verdadeiros problemas que os nossos agricultores precisariam para enfrentar as consequências que um possível Acordo, que não proteja os interesses da agricultura europeia, lhes pode trazer. Levantando mesmo interrogações, sobre se não se tratará de uma forma expedita, mas atabalhoada, de legitimar uma negociação que não proteja a nossa agricultura.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), în scris. – Pentru a deveni tot mai importante în domeniul politicii externe pe plan mondial, ţările BRICS şi alte puteri emergente, este necesar ca creşterea lor economică să continue şi să se consolideze. Aşa cum criza economică actuală o demonstrează, există o puternică interdependenţă între puterile existente şi puterile emergente. Astfel pentru a se consolida creşterea economică a acestora din urmă este necesar în mod clar o creştere economică şi o bunăstare economică a celor dintâi. În acest context UE trebuie să acţioneze ca o singură entitate politică şi economică solidă pentru a continua să promoveze valorile universale în noul sistem multipolar de guvernanţă globală. O atenţie mare trebuie însă acordată tendinţei de a reglementa excesiv piaţa financiară, acest lucru nefăcând decât să ducă la o migrare a capitalurilor către statele BRIC cu reglementări corecte. Efectele asociate acestui fenomen sunt deosebit de grave, începând cu creşterea costurilor de finanţare pentru companiile europene până la pierderea competitivităţii acestora. Încercări transnaţionale ca schimbările climatice, chestiunile de reglementare mondiale, accesul la materiile prime şi elementele rare, terorismul, dezvoltarea sustenabilă, stabilitatea politică şi securitatea mondială vor necesita o abordare bazată pe valori comune, consens, consultare şi cooperare strânsă cu noile puteri emergente.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), in writing. – I agree with the statement that there are significant political, economic and social divergences among the BRICS countries. We also have to take into consideration the instrument of strategic partnerships in the EU’s relationships. Furthermore, it is not in the interest of the EU to consider BRICS countries as a bloc. We have to be aware of our place in the world and the importance of our relationship with other actors. The report points out that BRICS have shown regional integration capacity and hence the capacity to engage in multipolar governance systems. There is a potential interest of the BRICS in contributing to global governance. What I want to point out is that opportunities for collaboration can appear in investments, exchange of experience, technology and research partnerships in major projects.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), na piśmie. – Sformułowanie polityki UE wobec państw występujących pod skrótową nazwą BRICS jest szczególnie trudnym zadaniem. Z jednej strony są to bowiem kraje, które cieszą się szybkim rozwojem gospodarczym. Z drugiej strony warto pamiętać, że ponad 70% najbiedniejszych ludzi świata mieszka w krajach o średnich dochodach. Nie ulega wątpliwości, że kraje BRICS różnią się od państw UE nie tylko w zakresie wskaźników ekonomicznych, ale również w stosunku do wartości, które my uznajemy za powszechne i niezbywalne.

Polityka UE i państw członkowskich wobec BRICS powinna też cieszyć się wsparciem naszych obywateli. Aby coś wspierać, trzeba najpierw to zrozumieć. Obawiam się, że wielu Europejczyków nie rozumie, dlaczego Chiny są odbiorcą stosunkowo dużej pomocy rozwojowej (ODA) ze strony Europy. To rzeczywiście jest trudne do wytłumaczenia i zracjonalizowania.

Jestem przekonany, że osią strategii politycznej UE wobec BRICS powinno być konsekwentne budowanie wspólnych standardów, które zmniejszą różnice zarówno w zakresie konkurencyjności, jak i w stosunku do wartości. Nie osiągniemy tego celu przez jednostronne podnoszenie standardów w UE. Mam na myśli na przykład plany zmniejszania emisji CO2. Każdy, kto choć trochę zna kraje BRICS, doskonale wie o tym, że obecnie państwa te nie zamierzają w żaden sposób ograniczać swego rozwoju. Zmiana tej postawy jest dla UE poważnym wyzwaniem.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), písemně. – Největší státy EU trpí dlouhodobě přesvědčením o své výjimečnosti, velikosti, významu a rozhodujícím postavením ve světě. To pochopil i autor zprávy z vlastního podnětu a prakticky celá zpráva se zabývá možností, jak se vyhnout například nebezpečí, aby se země BRICS bez ohledu na zájmy rozhodujících států EU a USA staly rozhodující silou tohoto světa. Z některých pasáží jasně vyplývá, že bude snaha na různých úrovních EU na jedné straně co nejvíce sjednocovat stanoviska nejen v zahraničněpolitické, ale i v dalších oblastech tak, aby EU mohla vystupovat jako jediný dostatečně velký partner. Na druhé straně jde o individuální jednání s jednotlivými zeměmi BRICS za účelem odstranění nebezpečí jejich jednotného postupu. Výbor pro rozvoj pochopil, že právě spolupráce v oblasti životního prostředí, regionální spolupráce a zavádění systémů snižování sociálních nerovností (bod 1 stanoviska výboru uvádí „účinné daňové systémy a systémy sociální ochrany“) znamená směr od dnešního neoliberálního kapitalismu k něčemu jinému. Ani Výbor pro rozvoj si netroufl toto nazvat socialismem, přesto se zdá, že právě jeho členové to pochopili. Každopádně pouze dialog s nejsilnějšími a rychle rostoucími státy světa umožní plnohodnotné zapojení EU a USA do budoucího nového světového pořádku. Panika není na místě, ale je třeba se zeměmi BRICS jednat jako s plnohodnotnými partnery.

  Vladko Todorov Panayotov (ALDE), in writing. – Until recent times, Europe’s diplomatic efforts were mainly turned towards the US and other industrialised countries. Nowadays, globalisation and the emergence of the BRICS as major exporters on international markets are the driving forces behind the industrialised countries’ loss of global market shares. This has brought the EU to reconsider its foreign policy towards these countries which have gained colossal power on the international political chessboard. Nevertheless, the approach on how to reshape our foreign policy towards the BRICS is, in my opinion, too often based on the fear of industrial competition, especially in the case of China. As a matter of fact, if all BRICS present common challenging features, such as a prominent land size, a large population, a rapid economic growth, they also provide formidable opportunities for the EU’s market in the fields of exports. That is why our foreign policy should be built on the grounds of these positive prospects as opposed to dreading irreversible rivalry.

17. Nuosekli politika autoritarinių režimų, kuriems ES taiko ribojamąsias priemones, atžvilgiu (diskusijos) (trumpas pristatymas)

  předseda. − Dalším bodem je zpráva, kterou předkládá Graham Watson za Výbor pro zahraniční věci, s návrhem doporučení Evropského parlamentu Radě týkajícího se konzistentní politiky uplatňované vůči režimům, proti nimž zavedla EU omezující opatření týkající se osobních a komerčních zájmů vůdců těchto režimů v EU (2011/2187(INI)) (A7-0007/2012)

  Graham Watson, rapporteur. − Mr President, I would like to thank my shadow rapporteurs on this recommendation. It may bear my name, but it is the result of collective effort on a cross-party basis.

One of the most important tools we have in our foreign policy toolkit is that of the sanction or restrictive measure, and this report aims to make our current policies on restrictive measures coherent and consistent. It recommends that all external restrictive measures be matched by an equivalent approach towards the activities of authoritarian leaders when they come within the Union’s borders. By allowing them to act with impunity within our borders as we currently do, we undermine our foreign policy, and yet we currently allow them to shield their often dubiously-acquired gains within our banking systems. We offer them the incentive and the capacity to continue with corruption and the exploitation of their people and their resources.

The main focus of this report is to advocate a consistent approach to authoritarian leaders that is in tune with our values and visions. We recommend updating our policies to make them more proportionate, more targeted and more humane, and to use the new tools given us in the Lisbon Treaty to create a multi-instrument strategy to be coherent and effective. It seeks to prohibit them from holding financial and material assets within our borders, commits us to a more rigorous adherence of travel bans so that they cannot travel within our borders for non-humanitarian purposes, and asks Member States to prosecute those within the EU suspected of assisting them in circumventing sanctions policy.

Zahájení vystoupení na základě přihlášení se zvednutím ruky.

  Tarja Cronberg (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I consider this report to be extremely timely, particularly given the restrictive measures recently adopted against Iran. The European Parliament should continuously maintain a high-level debate on the very idea of restrictive measures and their effectiveness or ineffectiveness in achieving the EU’s fundamental objectives of international stability, peace and democracy.

Firstly, the report recommends that the Council develop clear criteria for when restrictive measures are to be applied, and objectives for such measures. In the case of the embargo on Iran, this is exactly what we need.

Secondly, the report is very explicit about the prerequisite that sanctions should not harm the population. This also is important in the case of Iran. The last thing we need is for the Iranian people to consider the EU its enemy.

Finally, I would like to point out that a coherent policy within the EU’s borders is a necessity. I have heard today from a lecturer who contacted the Delegation for relations with Iran to say that he has had EUR 900 frozen by the Bank of Austria, while the Maltese Times has got in touch with me to say that Iran has EUR 2 billion invested in Malta which is not going to be frozen.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). - Senhor Presidente, a imposição de sanções constitui uma decisão unilateral, uma decisão que anula o espaço que poderia e deveria ser usado para o diálogo, para a negociação, para a intermediação diplomática, uma decisão baseada na imposição da vontade dos mais fortes. É a razão da força mesmo que, como tantas vezes sucede, contra a força da razão. Associar à imposição de sanções a intromissão direta em assuntos internos de um país, tomando parte em conflitos, apoiando uma das partes em conflito contra outras, constitui um inaceitável ato de ingerência. São muitos e tristes os exemplos de interferência externa de potências que provocam mudanças no poder político de um país, a seu belo prazer, promovendo interlocutores dispostos a satisfazer as suas imperiais ambições.

A mudança no poder político de um país deve decorrer do exercício da vontade soberana do seu povo e não de imposições externas que cobrarão mais tarde essas mudanças com a exigência de satisfação dos seus interesses. O que se impõe é assim, e termino, Senhor Presidente, o respeito escrupuloso pelo direito internacional, pela Carta das Nações Unidas e pelos princípios nela contidos. Lamentavelmente não é esta a visão deste relatório.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). - Mr President, in order to be successful in using restrictive measures, we need to enhance the consistency, transparency and credibility of their application. Coordinated action in the case of Iran or Syria shows that, if it is to be effective, all Member States should ensure they have the same policies and uniform sanctions towards these regimes. Restrictive measures, if used cautiously, should play an important role. We need to be careful to use the measures in such a way that they do not harm the general population or the development of civil society, which could help in the processes of change.

I think that the assets of representatives of regimes that have been frozen in the EU as a result of the sanctions should be streamed to the development of civil society in those countries. That would certainly be the most helpful thing.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). - Chcem sa pripojiť ku všetkým kolegom, ktorí sa vyjadrili k otázke jednotného postupu voči režimom, ktoré reštriktívnym spôsobom obmedzujú slobody svojich obyvateľov. Je dobré, aby sme v našej zahraničnej politike mali skutočne konzistentný, jednotný postup voči všetkým takýmto predstaviteľom režimov, aby si títo ľudia nemohli napríklad v bankách na pôde Európskej únie ukrývať svoje imanie a aby ich imanie mohlo byť v bankách v Európskej únii aj zmrazené, pokiaľ si to okolnosti vyžadujú. Takisto by nemali cestovať na pôdu Európskej únie, iba ak za účelom riešenia nejakej humanitárnej okolnosti. To by sa bralo pravdepodobne ako výnimka.

Musia teda existovať jasné kritériá, jednotné kritéria, ktoré budeme aplikovať. Určitým typickým príkladom by mohol byť Irán, kde už máme prijaté určité presné pravidlá.

(Konec vystoupení na základě přihlášení se zvednutím ruky.)

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, it has been an evening of congratulations for those who are sitting in the presidential chair, so allow me to add mine – to you and also to Sir Graham Watson who has just been elected President of the ELDR Party. Good luck is all I will say to you. I know how you like to take on new positions.

The report is really important and I am grateful to you for the work you have done and also for the contributions that have been made to our thinking on how we deal with what we call restrictive measures guidelines. These are an important foreign policy tool that the European Union uses, and the Foreign Affairs Council on 23 January 2012 perhaps demonstrated the importance we attach to them.

The purpose of these measures is to bring about a change of policy or activity in a country, in a government, in entities or indeed in individuals. In that sense they are preventive instruments, which should allow us to respond swiftly to political challenges and development. It is essential that any sanctions taken should minimise the impact on the general population – they need to be targeted – so consistency in their application is important, as you have recommended in your report, Sir Graham, and that is clearly very welcome. They also, as you equally recognise, have to be tailored to the specific objectives of each restrictive measures regime.

The uniform and consistent interpretation and effective implementation of these measures is essential if we are to ensure that they are effective in achieving the desired political objective, and that is directly related, of course, to the adoption of similar measures by third countries.

We want the restrictive measures that we impose to be properly understood. We have to be actively engaged in communication about our sanctions, including with the country that we have targeted and with its population. These steps are never taken lightly and they are taken with a specific objective in mind. I want to be very clear here, using the example of Iran. The purpose of the sanctions on Iran is to persuade them to fulfil the obligations that they signed up to in signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty and to allow the inspectors to do their work and convince us of Iran’s desire to have only a civil nuclear power programme, if that is what they wish, but certainly not a nuclear weapons programme.

When countries and regimes fail in their objectives in terms of either their commitments internationally or, as we have seen in Syria, their ability to support their people – and when, indeed, they turn to violence against their people, we are obliged to act, both morally and, I believe, internationally because of the positions that we hold. However, the purpose of the sanctions is to achieve that change. That, I think, is really important. It is important that it be understood here, and that it be understood by the country and especially by the people. Whatever we do, we have to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, due process and the right to an effective remedy in full conformity with the jurisprudence of the European Union courts.

I wanted to make those points not only to clarify our policy but also because they reflect the outcome of the RELEX working group that has been updating our best practice on these measures; and the working group’s document was welcomed by the PSC in January. I believe they also echo the recommendations made in the report that you have put forward this evening.

I note, too, the concerns that you mentioned in your introduction, Sir Graham, in relation to individuals and commercial interests, particularly those of some leaders. You will know that during the Arab Spring we froze the assets of senior figures from the former Tunisian, Egyptian, Libyan and Syrian regimes. Even where we have a successful democratic transition, the issue of assets misappropriated by former regimes remains. Those assets that have been frozen cannot simply be released; they have to be rightfully transferred to the new state, and that is very complex. I just wanted to inform honourable Members that we are ready to assist those states concerned. Indeed, the European Union, together with the World Bank, is planning a workshop in Tunisia bringing the relevant experts together to provide help and to support them in getting back the assets that rightly belong to the people of Tunisia.

I recognise the importance of the report in making sure that we are consistent and that we look to the ways in which we direct our sanctions or restrictive measures – ensuring not only that they are effective but also that they do not afford loopholes that may damage their credibility and, equally, being ready to lift them quickly when we are in a position to see that assets are returned to the people. That is an area of work that will be extremely important in the coming weeks and months, and I am very grateful to you for the report.

  předseda. − Vážená paní vysoká představitelko, dovolte, abych Vám poděkoval za Váš závěrečný komentář a zároveň za blahopřání, rovněž tak svým kolegům, velmi mne to potěšilo. Dovolte mi, abych také ocenil Vaši výdrž a vitalitu, protože tady čelíte otázkám zhruba od 17:00 a takto nepřetržitá práce, kdy člověk musí sledovat debatu, je jistě velmi náročná.

Tímto je bod uzavřen

Hlasování: 2. února 2012

Písemná prohlášení (článek 149)

  John Attard-Montalto (S&D), in writing. – There is no doubt that in normal circumstances a consistent policy is admirable. Indeed when restrictive measures are applied against regimes it should be understandable that a consistent policy should be applied to leaders of such regimes in the exercise of commercial and personal interests. On the other hand one must, first of all, discuss whether the restrictive measures against regimes themselves should be consistent. The level and type of restrictive measures against regimes do vary according to particular circumstances. Similarly targeted measures against leaders of such regimes do in fact vary. It is inevitable that a certain amount of flexibility exists given the diverse approaches which the EU adopts vis-à-vis not only regimes but also countries which have not adopted democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. The EU is still in transition. From commercial clout we are endeavouring to establish political presence. In times of transition one has to be realistic and allow flexibility.

  Olga Sehnalová (S&D), písemně. – Plně podporuji praktické výhody, které pro poškozeného evropského spotřebitele přináší forma kolektivního odškodnění oproti individuálnímu řešení právního sporu v EU. Jsem toho názoru, že členské státy by měly více podporovat hromadný přístup ke spravedlnosti, zavádět centra pro alternativní řešení sporů a podporovat nástroje výkonu jejich pravomocí. Považuji za důležité, aby byl vzhledem k současnému vzrůstajícímu množství sporů přeshraničního charakteru vytvořen také přeshraniční mechanismus a spotřebitel měl možnost obrátit se s žádostí na kterýkoli nejbližší subjekt na území Evropské unie. Toto opatření je zásadní například pro uplatnění odškodnění cestujících v letecké dopravě v případě krachu letecké společnosti. Systémy odškodnění, které jsou díky své povaze účinnější, méně nákladné a časově úspornější, jsou jedinečnou šancí pro poškozeného spotřebitele.

18. ES lygmens veiksmai sporto sektoriuje (diskusijos)

  předseda. − Dalším bodem je zpráva, kterou předkládá Santiago Fisas Ayxela za Výbor pro kulturu a vzdělávání, o evropském rozměru v oblasti sportu (2011/2087(INI)) (A7-0385/2011)

  Santiago Fisas Ayxela, Ponente. − Señor Presidente, antes que nada quisiera dar las gracias a la Comisaria Vassiliou, a mis colegas de la Comisión de Cultura y Educación y a los ponentes alternativos de los otros grupos políticos por la fructífera colaboración que hemos mantenido en los últimos meses.

Hoy el mundo del deporte está de luto por las muertes en un partido de fútbol en Egipto. Expreso mi condena más firme, pero también mi recuerdo a las víctimas y a sus familias.

Para la redacción del informe he estado en permanente contacto con el mundo del deporte, escuchando sus preocupaciones e intentando reflejar los temas sobre los que pide que la Unión Europea se pronuncie.

La entrada en vigor del Tratado de Lisboa ha supuesto una revolución en el mundo deportivo, ya que por primera vez crea un fundamento jurídico propio, en el artículo 165. La primera respuesta del Tratado fue la Comunicación de la Comisión titulada «Desarrollo de la dimensión europea del deporte», que sigue las directrices del Libro Blanco de 2007. Desde el Parlamento hemos dado respuesta a través de un informe de iniciativa con el mismo título. El informe fue aprobado en la Comisión de Cultura y Educación por 28 votos a favor y 2 en contra.

Me gustaría destacar dos conceptos o fronteras relacionados con el deporte que he tenido muy en cuenta a la hora de redactar el informe: el principio de subsidiariedad, que reconoce las competencias de los Estados miembros, y el concepto de la especificad del deporte, contemplado en el artículo 165. Pero este no es un principio universal, sino que debe ser estudiado y aprobado caso por caso. Asimismo, hay que respetar la autonomía de las estructuras de gobierno del deporte como principal fundamento para su organización.

Permítanme ahora destacar brevemente algunos puntos del informe. En primer lugar, el voluntariado; la desinteresada participación de miles de ciudadanos garantiza la celebración de innumerables eventos deportivos, por lo que nuestro apoyo debe ser incondicional.

En segundo lugar, el dopaje. Las sustancias dopantes son una lacra para el deporte y para la sociedad. Debemos educar en la prevención, condenar a los traficantes, perseguir a los tramposos y armonizar las sanciones entre el Derecho deportivo y el Derecho civil, siempre con el mayor respeto posible hacia los deportistas. En el informe se pide que se persiga el tráfico de sustancias ilegales como se persigue el tráfico de drogas y que se adopten legislaciones nacionales al respecto.

Es fundamental apoyar la práctica del deporte en la escuela, y por eso pedimos que el deporte figure en sus planes de estudio.

La vida del deportista acaba tarde o temprano, y es necesario que durante su carrera el deportista pueda tener acceso a una formación académica de calidad para su posterior integración en el mundo laboral.

Desgraciadamente, el racismo, la xenofobia y la homofobia están presentes en el deporte, por lo que es necesaria la puesta en marcha de nuevas medidas para eliminar cualquier atisbo de estas amenazas en los eventos deportivos.

Me gustaría resaltar el innegable beneficio que el deporte reporta a la salud de las personas y que supone una disminución considerable del gasto en salud pública. Quisiera destacar la importancia del deporte como medio integrador para los grupos más vulnerables, como los inmigrantes o grupos excluidos socialmente, y también para las personas con discapacidad.

Hay que proteger las apuestas deportivas de actividades no autorizadas y de la sospecha del match fixing, especialmente mediante el reconocimiento de los derechos de propiedad de los organizadores sobre las competiciones que organizan. En el informe también se exhorta a los Estados a que sancionen penalmente el fraude deportivo.

Es fundamental que la explotación comercial de los derechos de televisión en competiciones deportivas se lleve a cabo de una forma centralizada y territorial para garantizar que los ingresos se distribuyen de forma justa entre el deporte de élite y el de masas.

Quisiera destacar la propuesta de instaurar un Día europeo del deporte y también la creación de un Erasmus deportivo europeo, además de la protección de los deportes autóctonos como parte de nuestro patrimonio cultural.

Esto solo son algunos temas de los que aborda el informe; espero contar con el apoyo de sus Señorías.

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, first of all let me also express my congratulations on your election.

As the Commissioner responsible for sport I cannot but express my deep regret for what has happened in Egypt today, which shows exactly why we have to work to find a healthy way of conducting sport at all sporting events.

I would like to thank, first of all, the rapporteur Mr Fisas Ayxela and the shadow rapporteurs for all their work in producing this excellent report on the European dimension in sport.

I am glad to note that Parliament endorses the proposals contained in the Commission communication adopted last January. The Commission will carefully consider all the suggestions made in the report.

Two years after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, we are now implementing a coherent set of actions in the field of sport and we are doing this on the basis of the priorities agreed by the Council and Parliament.

Following on from the Commission’s communication on sport and the Council’s work plan, Parliament’s new report completes a solid policy framework which will guide the EU as it develops the European dimension in sport over the coming years.

Let me briefly mention some of the initiatives that the Commission is, or will, be carrying out in line with the suggestions made in Parliament’s report. These cover the following policy priorities: health and participation, anti-doping, statistics, sustainable financing, good governance, education and training. Several of the report’s suggestions will be developed by the expert groups set up by the EU work plan in order to prepare concrete policy deliverables.

In line with Parliament’s report, the Commission has been implementing a number of actions that were set out in our communications. These include recent studies on the funding of grassroots sport and on the contribution of sport to economic growth and employment in the EU, and forthcoming studies on health-enhancing physical activity, on economic and legal aspects of the transfer of players and on a possible sports monitory function in the EU. We have also organised two EU conferences on statistics and sports agents, which were very well received.

Furthermore, thanks to Parliament’s support, a third year of preparatory actions has been launched to address the fight against violence, racism and discrimination in sport and to promote good governance in sports organisations. These initiatives would not be complete if we were not able to secure sustainable multiannual EU funding to support our policy. Parliament is right in requesting that the Commission propose an ambitious budget for sports policy under the future multiannual financial framework.

Thanks to Parliament’s support the Commission has proposed a new programme – Erasmus for All – which includes a substantial chapter on sport. The new programme responds to our Europe 2020 goals and sport, as an economic and social sector in its own right, has an important part to play.

  Burkhard Balz, Verfasser der Stellungnahme des mitberatenden Ausschusses für Wirtschaft und Währung. − Herr Präsident! Ich möchte dem Berichterstatter zunächst einmal für den exzellenten Bericht danken. Mit meiner Stellungnahme für den Wirtschafts- und Währungsausschuss war es mir am wichtigsten, deutlich zu machen, dass der Sport neben seiner allgemein bekannten gesundheitlichen und sozialen Bedeutung eben auch ein erhebliches wirtschaftliches Gewicht hat.

Ich bin sicher, dass auch in diesem Bereich auf europäischer Ebene einiger Mehrwert generiert werden kann. Grundsätzlich sollte jedoch meiner Ansicht nach beim Thema Sport das Subsidiaritätsprinzip weiterhin im Vordergrund stehen. Der Sport muss nah bei den Menschen bleiben. Das funktioniert am besten, wenn er national, regional und dann eben auch lokal organisiert ist. Die Europäische Union sollte sich über die genannten Punkte hinaus darauf beschränken, einen angemessenen rechtlichen Rahmen zu schaffen. Dies gilt zum Beispiel mit Blick auf die öffentlichen Finanzen von Sport, Wettbewerbsregeln oder auch Wettbewerbe und Nutzungsrechte. Ich begrüße daher, dass diese Aspekte in den Bericht des Berichterstatters Eingang gefunden haben, und kann den Text voll und ganz unterstützen.

  Toine Manders, Rapporteur voor advies van de Commissie juridische zaken. − Dan mag ik wellicht de drie minuten volmaken om de tijd van de twee collega´s die er niet zijn te gebruiken.

Ik wil collega Fisas bedanken voor het verslag. Ik vind het wel bijzonder jammer dat een amendement dat zowel in de Commissie JURI als in de Commissie IMCO is aangenomen, namelijk over een dialoog van de Commissie met de professionele sportorganisatie, niet is aangenomen in de Commissie CULT. Dat betekent dat wij ontkennen dat de professionele sporten zich moeten houden aan de economische wetgeving binnen Europa en dat er - als het gaat over de Europese competities - nog steeds onvoldoende gelijkheid is.

Wij zien minimale leeftijden voor sportcontracten. Niet goed! Wij zien dat er enorme verschillen zijn in belastingbehandeling van professionele sporten. Wij zien heel veel zaken die niet kloppen ten opzichte van elkaar. Daarom is het nodig dat de Commissie in dialoog gaat met de professionele sportorganisaties, om ervoor te zorgen dat de professionele sporten op één lijn komen, opdat wij in de toekomst enorm kunnen profiteren van deze sporten en dat de jeugd daarvan leert. Daartoe roep ik op.

Voor de rest ondersteun ik hetgeen mijn collega Fisas heeft geschreven, maar ik vind het jammer dat hij het advies van de Commissie JURI en de Commissie IMCO niet heeft overgenomen.

  Emine Bozkurt, Rapporteur voor advies van de Commissie burgerlijke vrijheden en binnenlandse zaken. − Sport is de belangrijkste bijzaak voor miljoenen Europeanen. Sport houdt ons dagelijks een spiegel voor van de maatschappij waarin wij leven.

Het is nu aan de EU om het Europees sportbeleid goed op poten te zetten en misstanden aan te pakken. Helaas blijkt uit de voorstellen van de Europese Commissie en de conclusies van de Sportraad dat goede intenties niet gevolgd worden door concrete actie om deze misstanden effectief aan te pakken.

Zo zijn er in 2010 maar liefst 1100 minderjarigen in het voetbal verhandeld bij wijze van uitzondering. Om deze jongeren te beschermen moet er een algeheel verbod komen. Ook moet er een einde gemaakt worden aan wanpraktijken van malafide spelermakelaars door een registratiesysteem met beroepseisen, een gedragscode, sanctiemechanismen en een Europese zwarte lijst.

Europa wordt de laatste tijd geplaagd door racistische incidenten in sport. De EU moet meer leiderschap tonen en laten zien het eigen motto "Verenigd in verscheidenheid" serieus te nemen door het implementeren van wetgeving die discriminatie op de werkvloer verbiedt. Zij moet gerichte campagnes inzetten om duidelijk te maken dat discriminatie onacceptabel is.

Dat is enorm van belang in deze tijden waarin populisme en rechtsextremisme hoogtij vieren.

Criminelen op of naast het veld werken over de grenzen heen. Dan moeten wij hen ook op dat niveau aanpakken. Sportfraude hoort in het strafrecht van elke lidstaat opgenomen te worden. Europa moet sportorganisaties duidelijk maken dat samenwerking met Europol en Eurojust hard nodig is.

Kortom, een Europees sportbeleid is bittere noodzaak en kan een voorbeeldrol vervullen. Voorlopig zijn de eerste voorstellen voor een nieuw sportbeleid te vrijblijvend. Fair play en broederschap op het sportveld zijn nog steeds het belangrijkste doel, maar dit kan alleen met een krachtig sportbeleid.

  Marco Scurria, a nome del gruppo PPE. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, desidero rinnovare gli auguri e i complimenti al Presidente per la sua nuova elezione.

Io volevo ringraziare il nostro relatore, il collega Fisas Ayxela, per l'ottimo lavoro svolto: è una relazione davvero completa con cui diamo un segnale importante nel campo dello sport. Il relatore ha lavorato bene e ha lavorato bene anche con tutti i relatori ombra – e ringrazio ovviamente anche loro per il risultato. Rivolgo infine un saluto anche al Commissario Vassiliou.

Tra l'altro, è davvero un buon segnale svolgere questo dibattito e aver portato a termine questa relazione nell'anno in cui si svolgeranno le Olimpiadi, che è il momento più alto dello sport a livello mondiale, il momento in cui lo sport diventa confronto e socializzazione mondiale. Per questo, abbiamo sottolineato come lo sport sia un veicolo per lottare contro le discriminazioni, pensando a quanto ancora sia difficile, per esempio per le donne, praticare lo sport in alcuni paesi, come ad esempio l'Iran, che quindi non ci impensierisce solo per le sue scelte sul nucleare.

Un altro elemento importante è l'idea di sostenere la designazione della capitale europea dello sport, sotto l'egida dell'ACES, l'associazione delle capitali europee dello sport. Come ci insegna l'iniziativa delle capitali della cultura, questi sono momenti in cui la promozione delle attività è al massimo livello tra giovani e anziani. La relazione include inoltre la lotta contro il doping, l'attenzione per il gioco d'azzardo e la riscoperta dei giochi tradizionali.

Penso, insomma, che abbiamo fatto un buon lavoro per onorare al massimo la nuova competenza sullo sport che il trattato di Lisbona ci ha consegnato.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan, în numele grupului S&D. – Vreau să mulţumesc şi eu domnului raportor Santiago Fisas pentru că de la bun început a plecat pe ideea consensului. Am discutat fiecare paragraf în parte şi am căutat ca toate grupurile politice să se regăsească în acest raport, să fie un raport în care nu există divergenţe, ci dimpotrivă, cuprinde viziunile tuturor. Şi aici este meritul lui Santiago Fisas pentru că a reuşit să ne pună pe toţi la aceeaşi masă. Cu toate acestea, dat fiind importanţa sportului în Uniunea Europeană, au fost sute de amendamente depuse, şi iarăşi un merit deosebit al domnului raportor este acela că raportul în sine nu reprezintă doar o radiografie a sportului în Uniunea Europeană. Acest raport nu s-a limitat doar la a prezenta sportul aşa cum este el astăzi în Uniunea Europeană, ci dimpotrivă, conţine paragrafe şi idei inovatoare, idei îndrăzneţe pe care le-am susţinut, le-am dezbătut, unele s-au retras, altele au rămas în proiect. Este foarte important că s-au atins subiecte sensibile, cum ar fi statutul minorilor care practică sportul, pariurile sportive şi aşa mai departe.

Cu toţii ştim, şi am văzut şi avizul comisiilor de specialitate, că sportul reprezintă mai mult decât o activitate recreativă. Are implicaţii foarte importante în ceea ce priveşte sănătatea, educaţia, reducerea violenţei, economia şi aşa mai departe, creşterea productivităţii şi tot ce înseamnă o economie stabilă şi performantă în viitor. Prin urmare, eu cred că doar 1% din bugetul pentru programul „Erasmus for All” este mult prea puţin pentru sport, având în vedere implicaţiile pe care le are sportul în Uniunea Europeană. De aceea, eu zic că trebuie să milităm pentru mai mulţi bani pentru sport.

  Liam Aylward, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I too would like to thank the rapporteur for his excellent work and his inclusive approach to this report.

The report has drawn attention from across a wide interest spectrum: from athletes, volunteers, sporting organisations and the media. Sport is intrinsic to the lives of European citizens, it crosses social divides and borders, it unites people and it enriches our lives. A European sports policy is not about harmonisation, it is not about taking the soul of competition out of sport and it should not be narrowed down to a debate on the presence of the EU flag. The compromise text is flexible and it remains up to sporting organisations and Member States to decide.

The excellent recommendations in this report on supporting volunteers, strengthening and improving access to training, education for coaches and athletes, promoting traditional sports, eliminating doping and tackling corruption in sport should not be overshadowed. This is a report that provides us with a strong framework for creating a European sports policy based on social inclusion and enhancing sport in Europe.

As an MEP from a Member State that boasts the world’s largest amateur and volunteer sporting organisation – that is the Gaelic Athletic Association, with one million amateur members – I am pleased that this report has acknowledged the important role which volunteers play. There are 35 million amateurs involved in sporting organisations in Europe. The role of volunteers and amateurs is central to the continued success of sporting organisations in every community, and that is why it is essential that the Commission allocates a budget to sports policy. Sport is a vehicle that delivers on broader EU aims across several policy areas, such as Community development, active ageing and healthy and active living. It has a successful economic dimension and it is a social phenomenon that delivers an invaluable public good.

Finally I would like to highlight the importance of the right of journalists to access and report on sporting events. There is public appetite for sports news and we must be sure to safeguard the right of the public to obtain and receive independent news and information on sporting events.

  Tatjana Ždanoka, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I would also like to congratulate Mr Fisas and the authors of the opinions on their excellent work.

Our political group welcomes the EU-level action in the field of sport being mentioned in the Commission’s communication. We also support the proposals included in Parliament’s motion for a resolution. In particular we are fully satisfied that the report voices the concern regarding support for traditional sport and games as an important part of our diverse cultural heritage. Member States should take measures to protect them, since some traditional games and sports are in danger of disappearing.

The main matters of concern are some social aspects of the life of professional sportsmen and women, many of whom face an uncertain future at the end of their sporting careers. This problem was outlined especially by the leaders of the Latvian Trade Union of Sport and Tourism during our discussions on the subject. Europe should promote its social model and improve social standards concerning such a specific category of employees as professional athletes. I hope the appeal to the Member States to consider ways of alleviating the financial burden on the lowest-paid professional sportspersons will be acknowledged. Nevertheless, the implementation of a common European definition of the procedure and determination of terms for professional athletes and coaches retiring is welcomed.

Therefore we support the suggestion in the opinion of the Committee on Legal Affairs to call on the Commission to initiate a dialogue with all EU professional sports organisations on how to tackle problems arising from differences in the Member States regarding employment contracts.

  Emma McClarkin, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, there is no doubt that sport has an important place in Europe. Not only does it generate billions of euros and many thousands of jobs, but it also provides health and joy to millions. I am passionate about sport myself.

Under the Lisbon Treaty, Parliament’s new supporting competence in sport should have provided it with the opportunity to explore ways the EU could help grassroots sport through volunteering initiatives and community sports development etc., but sadly this report misses the opportunity. It has turned into a matter of how the EU can take advantage of the popularity of professional sport – what sport can do for the EU instead of what the EU can do for sport.

The report focuses mainly on professional football. It takes little account of minority or grassroots sport – where I believe the focus should have been. The EU can have a role in influencing some aspects of sport – the fight against doping and cross-border gambling etc., but the report goes much too far in calling for the EU itself, rather than individual Member States, to sign up to WADA and to doping conventions.

The report also ignores the limits of EU power by proposing special tax regimes and impinging on the right of Member States to decide on their educational curricula, and touches on social security provisions. All of these are in the realm of the Member State and not of the EU. But most damaging is the attempt to make national sports teams wear the EU flag on their shirts and to fly the EU flag at all sporting events. At first this was compulsory and now it is voluntary, but the proposal to have the EU flag on national teams is still outrageous and unnecessary.

Sport has a very special place in the United Kingdom, and our national sports teams form a key part of our identities and our heritage. The EU is trying to impose an artificial European identity on us by forcing our athletes to wear its emblem. Does this add value to sport? No it does not. It is simply an attempt to add value to the EU itself.

It is for these reasons, amongst others, that I will be unable to vote in favour of this report tomorrow.

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

  Godfrey Bloom (EFD), blue-card question. – Mr President, as a supporter and sponsor of Cambridge University’s Ladies’ Rugby Club for, I guess, 15 to 20 years, I wonder whether they should wear the logo on the front of their shirts or on the back?

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). - Mr President, I do not wish to reply.

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Monsieur le Président, à l'échelle européenne, le sport, comme de nombreuses autres activités, notamment associatives, a longtemps été appréhendé sous le seul angle de la concurrence et vu comme une simple activité économique.

Ce rapport reconnaît enfin au sport, et plus largement aux activités physiques et sportives, leurs dimensions éducatives, culturelles, sanitaires et sociales, autrement dit sociétales. Il insiste sur le rôle des bénévoles et sur l'importance d'étudier la faisabilité d'un cadre légal et fiscal adapté. Comment ne pas s'en féliciter?

L'importance du développement, et donc de l'investissement dans le sport de masse y est mise en exergue, ainsi que la nécessaire redistribution entre sport professionnel et sport de masse.

Nous souhaitons souligner l'importance des financements publics, seul moyen de garantir réellement l'égalité d'accès sans discrimination, et la nécessité d'un réel partenariat avec le mouvement sportif. Les États ont bien évidemment un rôle majeur à jouer, y compris pour faire respecter l'éthique sportive et garantir la santé des sportifs, amateurs ou professionnels.

Quelques regrets néanmoins sur l'insuffisance du rôle régulateur des États au regard des dérives que connaît ce secteur. Partons d'un exemple: celui des jeux en ligne et des paris sportifs. Nous avions fait une proposition réaffirmant la nécessité d'un monopole des États dans ce domaine, et ce conformément à l'arrêt du 8 septembre 2009 de la CJCE. Cela n'a malheureusement pas été retenu.

Nous aurions aussi souhaité que l'on encourage davantage les États à garantir les droits économiques et sociaux des sportifs, notamment en matière de formation et de droit à une reconversion professionnelle.

Mais les mots ne suffisent pas. Il faut des actes et que le prisme du marché intérieur et de la concurrence soit remis à sa juste place, que les activités physiques et sportives soient reconnues pour ce qu'elles sont, c'est-à-dire un formidable outil d'émancipation individuelle et collective.

  Paul Nuttall, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, paragraph 100 of this report clearly states that you would like to see the EU flag at major sporting events and on the jerseys of athletes. Are we now going to see the EU flag at the British Olympics, at the Champions League Final or even on the shirt of the England captain? This is nothing more than sheer EU propaganda and vanity. The EU has never been so unpopular, yet here you are, wanting to stamp your flag on sporting stars in the hope that you can force the people to love you. But they will not.

What you propose also seems to break the rules of sporting competitions. For example, under Law 4, Decision 1 of the FIFA laws of the game, it states: ‘The team of a player whose basic compulsory equipment has political slogans or statements will be sanctioned by the competition organiser or FIFA.’ What right do you think the EU has to interfere in sport in such a way to encourage countries to break the rules? It is hypocritical, because the EU is in effect a political organisation. You even say in paragraph 20 of the report that political propaganda should be banned, which is hypocritical. Athletes proudly wear the flag of their own national countries. They should not wear the flag of the European Union.

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

  Gerard Batten (EFD), blue-card question. – Mr President, I agree with Mr Nuttall but I do not think he goes far enough. Surely this is a disgrace and surely it raises a quandary for sports fans because, for example, in the World Cup, if the national flag and the EU flag are being displayed, then who are sports fans supporting – their country or the EU? Would Mr Nuttall not agree with me that they cannot support the EU because it is not a country?

  Paul Nuttall (EFD), blue-card answer. – Mr President, I would like to agree with my colleague. The EU is not a country; the EU is a false state. What is being created is something very dangerous, because false states like the Soviet Union only ever break up in one of two ways. They break up in peaceful divorce, like Czechoslovakia – which is the way in which I hope this organisation will break up – or in bloody revolution, like Yugoslavia – which I fear very much indeed.

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). - Herr Präsident! Der Bericht über die europäische Dimension des Sports ist besonders für die Gesellschaft von großer Wichtigkeit. Artikel 165 des AEUV deckt die neue Zuständigkeit der EU für den Sport. Die Bedeutung des Sports für unsere Gesellschaft, sei es die Gesundheitsförderung, Toleranz, Wirtschaft, Tourismus oder Organisation, kann man an meinem Heimatland, dem Salzburger Land, sehr gut verfolgen. Bei uns haben sowohl im Sommer als auch im Winter Sportaktivitäten ihren festen Platz im Terminplan wohl jeder Familie. Besonders wichtig erscheint mir dieser Bericht auch in Bezug auf die Bedeutung des Sports für unsere älteren Mitbürger sowie darauf, dass die Vertretung von mehr Frauen in den Entscheidungsorganen des Sports gefordert ist.

Die ausdrückliche Erwähnung und konstruktiven Lösungsvorschläge zu Doping und Korruption im Sport sind hoffentlich nur dieses Mal zu erwähnen, und es gibt bald eine Besserung. Ich möchte mich beim Berichterstatter für den Bericht bedanken.

  Barbara Matera (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sono da sempre convinta che lo sport svolga un ruolo educativo fondamentale. Esaltando valori pedagogici e culturali, lo sport costituisce allo stesso tempo uno strumento d'integrazione, di confronto e di crescita.

L'obiettivo deve essere quello di conferire una maggiore omogeneità e allo stesso tempo garantire la fruibilità dello sport per tutti i cittadini europei senza alcun tipo di discriminazione. Non è quindi possibile confinarlo all'interno di un singolo Stato, ma interessa nell'insieme tutti i membri dell'Unione europea come soggetto unico.

L'Unione europea deve intervenire in un periodo in cui lo sport attraversa una crisi acuta e persistente, soprattutto a causa delle attività criminali che a esso si sono collegate. Basti pensare agli scandali connessi alle agenzie scommesse o alla manipolazione delle gare a fini di lucro.

Alla luce di queste considerazioni risulta necessario e allo stesso tempo auspicabile un maggior controllo da parte delle Istituzioni europee sul mondo dello sport, in modo da arginare le derive che potrebbero nascere. Una regolamentazione dettagliata e attuabile permetterebbe il miglioramento dello standard di governance sportiva. Pertanto, risulta prioritario intervenire per regolare l'attività degli agenti sportivi e i trasferimenti di giocatori nonché per lottare contro la frode e contro il doping, così come consigliato dal relatore.

  Nessa Childers (S&D). - Mr President, the debate this evening has pooled many valid and crucial reasons for the Commission to up its game and back sport more effectively in the EU. I come at this debate from a different angle, as a former mental health professional of 25 years. The psychological benefits of regular sport are understated yet unquestionable. Exercise converts adrenaline into energy and is a primary creator of endorphins. Exercise advances self-confidence and can afford someone a new lease of life. The many and varied benefits of sport are, I hope, fully understood by the Commission following today’s debate, and I look forward to progress in this area.

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - Arvoisa puhemies, ensinnäkin haluan onnitella Teitä teidän valinnastanne puhemieheksi, olen iloinen siitä, että meillä on näin sporttinen puhemies myös tällä erää parlamentissa. Haluan myös kiittää Santiago Fisasta hyvästä mietinnöstä ja samoin komission jäsentä, joka on tehnyt erittäin hyvää työtä tällä urheilun saralla komissiossa. On nimittäin totta, että urheilu on Euroopan suurin kansanliike. Siitä pitää puhua, ja on tärkeää, että sille myös paalutetaan selkeää roolia Euroopan unionissa.

Nyt kun oikeusperusta on saatu, on tärkeää, että mennään konkreettisiin toimintamalleihin. Tämä mietintö antaa hyvän suunnan siihen, mihin päin urheilun kautta lähdetään, koska me tiedämme urheilun terveysvaikutukset, me tiedämme urheilun muutkin yhteiskunnalliset vaikutukset niin hyvinvoinnin kautta kuin myös integroidessa ihmisiä yhteiskuntaan. Tiedämme myös, kuinka urheilu on tärkeää, kun me taistelemme rasismia ja monia muita ikäviä piirteitä vastaan Euroopan tasolla.

On tärkeää myös huolehtia rahoituksesta. Tässä yhteydessä haluan nostaa esille sen, että toivon tietenkin, että budjettikehykseen saadaan riittävästi varoja urheilun rahoitukseen, jotta voidaan mennä sinne urheilun ruohonjuuritasolle, mutta on tärkeä myös huolehtia kansallisista monopoleista. Veikkaus on Suomessa hyvä esimerkki siitä, kuinka se ruohonjuuritasolla rahoittaa toimintaa. Sitä tarvitaan jatkossakin.

Lopuksi tästä lippukysymyksestä, joka on noussut voimakkaasti esille brittitoryjen puolesta: ei kai se nyt ketään haittaa, jos Euroopan unionin alueella lippu joskus liehuu? Ja eihän sitä tarvitse peliasuihin antaa. Mutta ehkä suurin uutinen minulle oli tänään se, kun Nuttall puhui jalkapallosta ja hän sanoi, että maita pitäisi fanittaa, että Iso-Britanniakin tulee jatkossa pelaamaan omana joukkueenaan, yhden Ison-Britannian lipun alla. Täytyy sanoa, että tämä on yllättävä uusi näkemys, ja koen sen hyvin tervetulleeksi.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Mr President, may I too congratulate you on your election.

Being British, I understand the important role that sport plays in our lives. What I do not understand is why the EU should be meddling in the business of sport. The EU should focus on growth, jobs and the single market.

This report has been through seven committees and I have shadowed it on behalf of the ECR Group in two of them. I had intended to talk today about the British women who are sporting heroes to millions, such as Rebecca Adlington, Kelly Holmes and Paula Radcliffe. I wanted to talk to you today about how excited my home constituency of London is to welcome the world’s Olympic and Paralympics athletes later this year. But I cannot. Because I have to use this speech to denounce this report’s calls to fly EU flags at major sporting events and for the flag to be displayed on athletes’ clothing. I must also condemn the proposals to waste money on the European capital of sport at this time of austerity. The Brussels bubble needs to remember that we live in hard times.

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

  Seán Kelly (PPE), Blue-card question. – Mr President, in relation to the speaker’s point about use of the European flag, it is specifically stated that this should be entirely voluntary and up to Member States. I would like to ask the speaker what her understanding is of the term ‘entirely voluntary’.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), blue-card answer. – Mr President, entirely voluntary – it should not even be mentioned at this stage. We are here to support sport. I do not mind supporting sport – we are here to support our national teams. I do not feel it is the right area to address this, and it should not really be in it at all. The report would be stronger without this ‘voluntary or not voluntary’.

  Inês Zuber (GUE/NGL). - Consideramos fundamental para o desenvolvimento social e pessoal dos indivíduos que o acesso gratuito e universal à prática desportiva com qualidade seja garantido a todas as pessoas sem qualquer tipo de discriminação. Este direito deve ser garantido pelos Estados-Membros, através de apoios às organizações desportivas, mas também às escolas e ao movimento associativo e popular que têm aqui um papel fundamental.

Concordando, na generalidade, que o relatório em apreciação caminha no sentido positivo em direção à promoção do desporto, propondo um orçamento específico e ambicioso para a política desportiva, pensamos, no entanto, que deve ser salvaguardado o financiamento ao desporto amador, não o deixando dependente das receitas provenientes das apostas do jogo.

E temos mais um pequeno problema: é que pensamos que as medidas de austeridade que estão a ser impostas pela orientação geral da União Europeia e que promovem o recuo do estado social e da escola pública, não se conciliam em nada com as orientações deste relatório.

  Piotr Borys (PPE). - Chciałem bardzo podziękować Santiago Fisasowi, który przez ponad rok pracował nad tym ważnym sprawozdaniem – sprawozdaniem, w obliczu którego nowa polityka sportowa może mieć zupełnie inny charakter. Sprawozdaniem, na które miliony odbiorców sportu, tysiące organizacji czekają od dawna. Chciałem podziękować za tę wielką, wielką pracę Santiago.

Tak naprawdę to, jak polityka sportowa będzie wyglądać przez następne lata, będzie zależało od nas, od Parlamentu, ale także od Pani Komisarz, od tego, na ile te ważne postulaty, które zostały zawarte w sprawozdaniu, będą właściwie wdrożone w praktyce. Myślę, że zachowanie tych trzech elementów: wpływu społecznego na sport, elementu gospodarczego oraz całej organizacji sportu jest bardzo trafne.

Chciałem skupić się na kilku niezwykle ważnych elementach, które poprzez europejską politykę sportową w końcu będą mogły być naprawione czy też poprawione. Jest to kwestia regulacji dotyczących agentów sportowych, przejrzystości tego systemu, całego systemu, którego celem ma być łowienie młodych talentów. To również kwestia minimalnych kwalifikacji, o których pisałeś, Santiago, w tym sprawozdaniu, dotyczących tego ważnego odpowiedzialnego zawodu, jakim jest agent sportowy. To jest cały zakres pakietu finansowania fair play sportu, które jest niezwykle ważne właśnie z punktu widzenia systemu szkolenia i łowienia młodych talentów. To jest kwestia całej patologii sportowej związanej z ustawianiem meczy, na którą musimy zareagować na poziomie wspólnotowym, bo proceder ten ma często nawet charakter mafijny. To jest kwestia ogromnego wpływu turystyki sportowej.

Chciałem powiedzieć, że przed nami, tak naprawdę, przed Panią Komisarz, jest jeszcze kwestia ukierunkowania funduszy strukturalnych, a szczególnie Europejskiego Funduszu Społecznego, tak aby poprawiać bazę sportową, ale też dawać wszystkim zawodnikom kończącym karierę szansę na to, aby byli dzięki temu funduszowi profesjonalistami przekazującymi swoją wiedzę sportową. I na koniec chciałem powiedzieć, że to sprawozdanie jest znakomite, bo przypada na rok igrzysk olimpijskich i mistrzostw Euro 2012 w piłce nożnej, więc mam nadzieję, że zostanie znakomicie przyjęte przez państwa członkowskie.

  Monika Smolková (S&D). - Chcem podporiť návrh uznesenia a stanovisko výboru k sociálnej úlohe športu. Som za to, aby bol šport na všetkých úrovniach škôl povinným predmetom, ale som tiež za to, aby všetky športoviská, ktoré slúžia školskému športu po ukončení vyučovania, slúžili širokej verejnosti.

Šport v každom veku má veľký potenciál zvyšovať celkovú úroveň zdravia. Šport by mal byť ten fenomén, ktorý dokáže integrovať sociálne vylúčených a eliminovať všetky formy diskriminácie. Preferovanie medzigeneračného športovania môže mať mnoho podôb v prospech verejného zdravia, sociálnych, kultúrnych či hospodárskych prínosov pre spoločnosť. Športovanie mladých je zase zmysluplné využívanie voľného času, eliminovanie drog, násilníctva a iných negatívnych javov.

Ako žena – bývalá aktívna športovkyňa – však očakávam viac podpory pre športujúce ženy, zabezpečenie rovnakého prístupu, ako i prijatie opatrení v oblasti rovnosti príležitostí.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - A Uachtaráin, ar dtús ba mhaith liom mo chomhbhrón a dhéanamh faoin tragóid a tharla san Éigipt anocht.

Maidir leis an tuarascáil seo, caithfidh mé a rá go bhfuil an-áthas orm páirt a ghlacadh sa díospóireacht go háirithe ós rud é go raibh baint agam leis an spórt ar feadh mo shaoil ar fad: mar imreoir, mar Uachtarán ar Chumann Lúthchleas Gael agus mar phríomhfheidhmeannach ar Fhoras Spóirt na hÉireann. Anois, tá tuarascáil againn a thugann seans dúinn Airteagal 165 de Chonradh Liospóin a chur i bhfeidhm. Molaim Santiago Fisas Ayxela agus gach duine a chabhraigh chun an tuarascáil seo a chur le chéile.

I am very pleased with the report, particularly as some amendments that I tabled have been taken on board, especially in relation to grassroots sport, which gives effect to the written declaration that the Members so kindly passed here last year. Also the possibility of growth in sports tourism, and the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund to be used to develop infrastructure in sport, particularly in indigenous sports, of which the GAA, as my colleague Liam Aylward mentioned, is a shining example in my country.

But as the Commissioner mentioned – and I was pleased to hear her mention it – the MFF and the budget are going to be crucial. One argument we can certainly put forward in this context is that sport implies, directly or indirectly, 15 million people contributing 3.6% of GDP in the European Union. There are many more arguments, but that certainly justifies a good sports budget.

There are other suggestions which I am very pleased about. I see nothing wrong, by the way, with the suggestion about the European flag; after all, where do you expect to fly the European flag – outside the European Union or inside it? That is one argument. Also the European Day of Sport and the European Capitals of Sport, which is a wonderful development (I have seen that in my own country as well recently), and the Erasmus for All programme. There are a lot of good suggestions, and with a good budget we will make a lot of progress.

  Ivo Belet (PPE). - Vooraf mijn felicitaties voor collega Santiago Fisas voor het uitstekende verslag en de brede steun die hij hiervoor in het Parlement heeft weten te verwerven.

Sport heeft vanuit maatschappelijk oogpunt, sociale cohesie, gezondheid, zo'n evidente voordelen, dat wij daar niet meer bij hoeven stil te staan. Het kan echter niet genoeg worden onderstreept en ik denk dat het belangrijk is dat wij dan ook ruimte scheppen voor maatregelen die de integriteit van sport maximaal garanderen en de strijd tegen de uitwassen, tegen de illegale praktijken opvoeren.

In dat verband, beste Voorzitter en mevrouw de Commissaris, heb ik een boodschap voor sommigen van onze Britse eurosceptische vrienden die intussen al verdwenen zijn uit de vergaderzaal. Kijk naar wat er vandaag is gebeurd in Egypte, waar tientallen supporters zijn omgekomen bij voetbalgeweld. Kijk wat er vandaag in Wenen is gebeurd, waar tientallen supporters zijn opgesloten en door de rechtbank veroordeeld omwille van geweld in de voetbalstadia.

Daarom, beste collega's, hebben wij nood aan een Europees sportbeleid. Ik ga letterlijk citeren wat er in het verslag van mijnheer Fisas staat: "supporters die gewelddadig of discriminerend gedrag hebben vertoond de toegang tot stadions te ontzeggen", en "ervoor te zorgen dat stadionverboden ook gehandhaafd worden bij internationale wedstrijden". Dat staat in dit verslag, dat is brandend actueel en daarvoor hebben wij dat Europees sportbeleid nodig en daarom, Commissaris, zullen wij u 100% steunen.

Een database om informatie uit te wisselen over hooligans die zich schuldig maken aan geweld en racisme, ik denk dat dat veel efficiënter kan op Europees niveau, net als, zoals de collega's gezegd hebben, de strijd tegen doping, tegen gokfraude enz.

Dus laten wij ons, beste collega's, daarop concentreren in plaats van hier de hele avond te zitten zeuren over een Europese vlag die op een T-shirt kan worden afgebeeld, een voorstel waar ik trouwens voor 100% achter sta omdat het, collega Kelly, inderdaad op vrijwillige basis is, met 100% eerbiediging van de subsidiariteit.

Zahájení vystoupení na základě přihlášení se zvednutím ruky.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). - Šport je jednou z mála aktivít, ktorá stiera rozdiely medzi ľuďmi, lebo sa týka všetkých občanov Európskej únie bez ohľadu na pohlavie, etnický pôvod, náboženstvo, vek, štátnu príslušnosť či sociálne postavenie. Pravidelný šport nesporne prispieva k zdravému životnému štýlu a zvyšuje celkovú úroveň zdravia občanov EÚ, a práve preto je potrebná väčšia propagácia aktívneho športovania nielen zo strany pracovníkov v zdravotníctve, ale aj politických predstaviteľov.

Pre ľudí s duševným alebo telesným postihnutím predstavuje šport zase osobitnú kategóriu, pretože vďaka nemu si vytvárajú nový pozitívny vzťah k sebe navzájom, ku kolektívu, čo napomáha k ich začleneniu, inklúzii do spoločnosti. Keďže šport plní aj spoločenskú a vzdelávaciu funkciu, pretože v ľuďoch rozvíja zmysel pre fair play, tímovú prácu v multikultúrnom prostredí a pocit spolupatričnosti, budem podporovať túto správu, pretože má veľa výborných myšlienok a iniciatív a tiež rozpočtový riadok na túto spoločnú úlohu.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). - În calitate de vicepreşedintă a Comisiei de transport şi turism, subliniez că evenimentele sportive contribuie la dezvoltarea turismului în Europa, şi în acest sens trebuie identificate sinergii între sport şi turism, mai ales prin modernizarea infrastructurilor colective.

Un exemplu în ceea ce priveşte sinergia dintre dezvoltarea regională, sport, transport şi turism, îl reprezintă potenţialul turistic al ciclismului. Proiectul EuroVelo, care are deja 14 rute europene ce acoperă peste 70 000 de kilometri, reprezintă un exemplu de contribuţie la valorile pozitive, promovarea integrării sociale şi întărirea comunităţilor, promovarea sănătăţii, dezvoltarea urbană. Subliniez importanţa pistei ciclabile care se întinde de-a lungul întregului curs al Dunării pentru dezvoltarea turismului în regiunea Dunării. Subliniez totodată rolul autorităţilor locale, regionale şi naţionale în dezvoltarea dimensiunii europene a sporzului, în special prin dezvoltarea de planuri de mobilitate urbană şi prin alocarea de resurse financiare pentru dezvoltarea infrastructurilor necesare activităţilor sportive.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). - Úvodom by som chcel oceniť skutočnosť, že Zmluvou o fungovaní Európskej únie získala Komisia možnosť organizačne aj finančne prispievať k rozvoju športu. Moderná spoločnosť trpí nedostatkom telesnej aktivity, čo sa nepriaznivo premieta na zdraví našich občanov, najmä v rozširovaní obezity a s ňou spojených zdravotných komplikácií. Preto je potrebné širšiu podporu športu vnímať aj ako podporu zdravia, ktorá sa iste pozitívne prejaví aj v nižších nákladoch na zdravotníctvo.

Propagácia zdravého aktívneho spôsobu života s väčším podielom športových aktivít našich občanov by mala byť jednou z najvýznamnejších priorít Európskej únie v tejto oblasti. Ďalšou významnou prioritou by mala byť podpora európskeho rámca športových súťaží v jednotlivých druhoch športu v záujme združovania sa občanov na báze spoločných záujmov. Som presvedčený, že dobre organizovaná podpora športu zo strany Komisie napomôže aj lepšiemu vnímaniu Európskej únie zo strany našich občanov.

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, Northern Ireland is passionate about sport. I say this in particular because, in the last 18 months, three proud Ulster men have brought home three world golfing majors to a very small part of the United Kingdom. Somehow or other I do not quite think that the flag of the EU would have warmed the heart or brought a tear to the eye in quite the same way as that Ulster flag did on those very special occasions.

However, I want to turn your attention to recital AH of this report tonight, which states that international competitions continue to constitute a reference model and action should be taken against naturalisations of convenience. In this context, I believe it is right to highlight the continuing problem faced by the Irish Football Association, the governing body of football in Northern Ireland, which in recent years has seen several players declare allegiance to the Republic of Ireland despite being born in the United Kingdom and having represented Northern Ireland throughout junior levels.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). - Nedá mi pri tejto príležitosti nespomenúť, že Slovensko malo v predchádzajúcom volebnom období komisára, v ktorého kompetencii bol aj šport. Komisár Ján Figeľ počas celého obdobia prikladal významnú úlohu športu v modernej Európe a intenzívne sa angažoval za čistotu športu. Dovoľte mi odcitovať z jedného jeho prejavu: „Šport rozvíja podobné hodnoty, aké potrebuje európska spoločnosť, a je veľmi silným komponentom pre formovanie demokratickej spoločnosti. Skrýva v sebe množstvo pozitív, ale spájajú sa s ním aj mnohé negatíva. Peniaze v športe často rozhodujú viac ako športový výkon. Problémy ako násilie na športoviskách, rasizmus či doping – to sú rakoviny, ktoré nivočia šport. Aby sa týmto problémom dalo čeliť, treba stanoviť pravidlá“.

A dovoľte mi ešte dodať, že som čestnou predsedníčkou ženského hokejového oddielu, a môžem potvrdiť, že rovnosť príležitostí v športe zďaleka nie je realitou.

  Iosif Matula (PPE). - ... pentru raportul excelent elaborat, cuprinzător şi binevenit în contextul dezbaterilor despre rolul deosebit al sportului.

Una dintre activităţile cele mai complexe, sportul, are implicaţii asupra unor domenii diverse, de la sănătate la turism şi economie, de la educaţie la integrare socială şi promovarea păcii. Insist asupra atenţiei care trebuie acordată atât sportului profesionist, cât şi celui pentru amatori. Se ştie că investiţiile în activităţi sportive reduc semnificativ cheltuielile publice în materie de sănătate. Susţin astfel practicarea sportului de către persoanele în vârstă, dar şi de către copii. Dotarea şcolilor cu echipamente necesare orelor de educaţie fizică este vitală pentru a încuraja practicarea numărului minim de trei ore de sport recomandat de către Parlamentul European. Acestea sunt doar câteva argumente pentru a avea un buget dedicat sportului în viitorul cadru financiar multianual, astfel încât să respectăm o componentă conferită UE prin Tratatul de la Lisabona. Mulţumesc şi felicitări domnule vicepreşedinte şi succes în noua funcţie.

(Konec vystoupení na základě přihlášení se zvednutím ruky.)

  Androulla Vassiliou, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, let me once again pay tribute to Mr Fisas for the excellent report, which is very much in line with the Commission’s thinking and the challenges facing sport in Europe. I am happy to say that the Commission is already implementing some of the main ideas expressed in the report.

I will not deal with the question of the logos on the flag. As a matter of fact I see that the Members who raised this objection were in a hurry to leave the Chamber, but honestly we have many more important challenges in sport to deal with than this. One that comes to mind is the question of violence because, as a result of violence, we have lost 70 people tonight, with one thousand injured. Violence, match fixing, sports agents and many issues are challenges with which we have to deal very urgently.

As we look to the future, let us take encouragement from the Commission’s proposal for a new programme, which gives us the tools and resources to develop a European dimension in sport. Therefore I look forward to cooperating with all of you who are great believers in sport and working together in order to achieve what we aspire for in sport.

  Santiago Fisas Ayxela, Ponente. − Señor Presidente, gracias también a todos los colegas que han intervenido en este turno. No voy a perder ni un segundo en rebatir algunas mentiras que se han dicho aquí. El que sepa leer, que lea el informe.

Sí me gustaría acabar señalando la importancia que tiene el deporte en temas tan diversos y cruciales para la sociedad como la integración de los colectivos más desfavorecidos, la salud de las personas, la educación, el empleo o la economía.

Pensemos que el deporte representa en Europa, directa o indirectamente, unos 15 millones de puestos de trabajo -el 5,4 % de la población activa- y un valor añadido anual de 407 000 millones de euros -el 3,65 % del PIB europeo. Por eso, por la importancia del deporte, me alegro de la iniciativa de la Comisión, de su apoyo, y me atrevería también a pedirle a la señora Comisaria que los Fondos Estructurales puedan aplicarse específicamente al deporte.

Y, sobre todo, quiero agradecer el apoyo de los principales Grupos de esta Cámara. Gracias al apoyo de estos Grupos, espero que en la votación de mañana podamos aprobar este informe.

  předseda. − Děkuji Vám, pane zpravodaji, dovolte, abych také ocenil Vaši zprávu a jenom dodal ze zkušenosti, že když jsem byl členem Rady Evropy, tak jsme se zabývali násilím na stadionech, což má i tuto souvislost, a myslím si, že některé zprávy, které již Rada Evropy v této věci přijala, by bylo dobré si vzít a prostudovat a mohly by býti obohacením.

Rozprava skončila.

Hlasování: 2. února 2012

Písemná prohlášení (článek 149)

  Zoltán Bagó (PPE), írásban. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr, Kedves Képviselőtársaim! Üdvözlöm Fisas úr jelentését, és köszönöm munkáját! Fisas Kolléga jelentése támogatja a Bizottság és a Tanács sport területén hozott eredményeit. Éppen ezért én meg azt kiemelten támogatom, hogy az Európai Parlament sporttal kapcsolatban kinyilvánított prioritásaival összhangban az „Erasmus mindenkinek” program a sportot új támogatási területként vonja be.

Az új programban a sport támogatására javasolt akciók beleillenek a magyar elnökség alatt elfogadott EU Sport Munkatervbe. Üdvözlöm, hogy az egészségfejlesztő testmozgást fontos kérdésként kezeli a program. A sport európai dimenziójáról szóló jelentésében megfogalmazott igény a sport mobilitásának támogatására vonatkozóan az „Erasmus mindenkinek” programban új elemként az eddig nem támogatott sport ágazat számára is tartalmaz egy alprogramot. Az Aktív idősödés évének kezdetén a jelentés megszavazásával kifejezetten sikeresen indulhat az évünk, hiszen a sportnak elismert szerepe van az egészség megőrzésében és kiemelt fontosságú az aktív öregedésben.

  Lívia Járóka (PPE), in writing. – The participation of the most disadvantaged communities in sport activities and their access to related facilities is way below the average. Their higher involvement in competitive or mass sport would not only improve their physical and mental health but would also serve as an effective tool for social inclusion and education. Moreover, extending the sport sector could also function as an employment creation factor, particularly in disadvantaged regions. The full access to sport should therefore not only be viewed as a matter of leisure, but as a social service of general social and economic interest. Member States must take appropriate measures to increase the number of socially disadvantaged children in competitive and leisure sport activities and to improve skills and develop a positive attitude to an active life for disadvantaged youth, and the Structural Funds could be mobilised in order to develop sport facilities and opportunities so that disadvantaged children can engage in sport outside school in disadvantaged regions. Special incentives – such as scholarships – might also be developed to help disadvantaged children enter the talent care programmes of all main branch associations.

  Ádám Kósa (PPE), írásban. – Fisas Ayxela képviselő úr jelentéséhez jómagam is hozzájárultam, mint a LIBE szakbizottság véleményének árnyék-jelentéstevője. Külön öröm számomra, hogy a fogyatékossággal élők sportja markánsan megjelenik a jelentésben, ez összhangban van az EU által ratifikált, fogyatékossággal élő személyek jogairól szóló ENSZ-egyezménnyel.

Felszólítom a Bizottságot, hogy a Lisszaboni Szerződés kereteit kimerítve tegyen meg mindent a fogyatékossággal élők sportolásának fejlesztéséért és támogatásáért! Itt ragadom meg az alkalmat, hogy jelezzem, a siketek olimpiai mozgalma, a siketlimpia (deaflympics) több éve szenved az EU és az EU-tagállamok szűkmarkúsága miatt, 2010-ben Szlovákiában törölték a téli siketlimpiát, 2013-ra pedig Görögország mondta vissza a szervezést.

Most Magyarországon próbálnak egy csökkentett tartalmú siketlimpia szervezésének megteremtéséért tenni. Ezzel több ezer profi siket sportoló jövőjét veszélyeztetjük súlyosan. Ez megengedhetetlen! Ez ellen tenni kell!

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE), na piśmie. – Jako Prezes Polskiego Związku Rugby oraz wiceprzewodniczący Intergrupy Rugby w Parlamencie Europejskim chciałbym odnieść się do punktu poświęconego społecznej roli sportu. Doceniam fakt, że sprawozdawca wzywa Komisję do przedstawienia możliwości finansowania polityki Unii Europejskiej w dziedzinie sportu w nowych wieloletnich ramach finansowych. Ponadto uważam, że dobrym rozwiązaniem byłoby stworzenie możliwości finansowania z EFS zatrudnienia instruktorów i trenerów prowadzących dodatkowe zajęcia sportowe w szkołach i ośrodkach dla młodzieży.

Społeczna rola sportu zasługuje na podkreślenie. Sport ma ogromne znaczenie dla rozwoju osobistego, zwłaszcza dzieci i młodzieży, a także stanowi efektywne narzędzie integracji społecznej. Odgrywa również znaczącą rolę w walce z wszelkiego rodzaju dyskryminacją i wykluczeniem społecznym. Dlatego tak istotne jest, według mnie, propagowanie sportu oraz wspieranie wszelkiego rodzaju inicjatyw sportowych.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), în scris. – Sportul poate contribui în mod semnificativ la atingerea obiectivelor care au fost stabilite în strategia Comisiei Europene „Europe 2020” pentru dezvoltare rapidă, sustenabilă şi constantă.

Potrivit estimărilor recente, 15 milioane de persoane din UE sunt direct sau indirect angajate în sectorul sportiv şi, conform aceloraşi estimări, acest sector ajunge la 3,65% din PIB-ul UE. Evenimentele sportive majore, precum Jocurile Olimpice sau Campionatele europene de fotbal, atrag milioane de spectatori şi generează efecte substanţiale în planul economic şi cel al locurilor de muncă. Cu toate acestea, potenţialul sportului, ca domeniu, nu a fost încă exploatat în totalitate, deşi articolul 165 din Tratatul pentru Funcţionarea Uniunii Europene conţine acum bazele legale pentru a include sportul în programele europene existente.

Solicit Comisiei Europene includerea sportului în cadrul programelor FEDR şi FSE. Astfel, s-ar îmbunătaţi în mod semnificativ condiţiile de finanţare pentru proiectele privind sportul.

  Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), písomne. – V prvom rade by som chcela zablahoželať spravodajcovi, ale aj celému výboru za veľmi plodnú diskusiu a následne aj za veľmi komplexnú správu na tému, ktorá sa na pôde Európskeho parlamentu takto samostatne rieši prvýkrát. Vítam tiež fakt, že Európska komisia dala športu priestor v novom programe pre vzdelávanie a mládež Erasmus pre všetkých na nové rozpočtové obdobie 2014 – 2020.

Som rada, že sme takto s kolegami dostali priestor ovplyvniť budúcnosť európskeho športu ako jedného z prostriedkov sociálnej integrácie a posilnenia európskej identity a presadiť také dôležité elementy, ako je povinná telesná výchova na školách, rovnaké príležitosti v športe pre dievčatá a ženy a tiež telesne postihnutých a zabezpečiť im prístup k vhodným športovým zariadeniam. Tiež je dôležité vytvoriť efektívne pravidlá, aby sme zabezpečili mladým športovcom popri ich aktivitách riadne štúdium na školách a riadny profesijný rozvoj. Šport je dôležité vnímať ako nástroj boja proti netolerantnosti, rasizmu a násiliu a tiež treba zvýšiť ochranu neplnoletých mladých ľudí v profesionálnom športe.

Preto dúfam, že Komisia predstaví ambiciózny rozpočet pre športovú politiku berúc do úvahy aspekty verejného zdravia, sociálnych, kultúrnych a ekonomických výhod a že tieto návrhy budú čoskoro implementované v praxi.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), na piśmie. – Jako autorka opinii dot. kobiet w sporcie, za szczególnie ważne uważam kobiety w kadrze zarządzającej udział kobiet w sporcie, następujące kwestie: edukacja i sport. Trzeba zagwarantować kobietom i mężczyznom równy sportem, dostęp do przystępnej, dostosowanej do wieku aktywności sportowej. W szczególności wśród dziewcząt i kobiet ze środowisk w niekorzystnym położeniu ekonomicznym i społecznym. Należy zapewnić i promować te dyscypliny, które są dopasowane do potrzeb i aspiracji kobiet. Istotny jest również równy dostęp do stanowisk decyzyjnych w działalności sportowej oraz do struktur administracyjnych stowarzyszeń sportowych, a także stanowisk trenerów sportowych. Mimo wzrostu udziału kobiet w sporcie, który miał miejsce w ostatnich latach, nie zwiększył się ich udział w zakresie podejmowania decyzji i sprawowania funkcji kierowniczych. Dopóki brak będzie kobiet na stanowiskach kierowniczych i decyzyjnych, a tym samym kobiecych wzorców w sporcie, dopóty postulat równych szans dla kobiet i dziewcząt nie będzie możliwy do zrealizowania. W ramach edukacji i sportu postuluję prowadzenie kampanii uwrażliwiających skierowanych do przedszkoli i szkół, aby pobudzić zainteresowanie sportem wśród dzieci i młodzieży. Ważne jest zwiększenie, urozmaicenie oraz uzupełnienie programu zajęć wychowania fizycznego o kwestie związane z treningiem kobiet, takich jak różnice w tempie i poziomie osiągania osiągnięć sportowych.

  Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska (PPE), na piśmie. – z zadowoleniem przyjmuję dzisiejsze głosowanie nad raportem w sprawie europejskiego wymiaru sportu. Fakt, że z chwilą wejścia w życie Traktatu z Lizbony ta dziedzina weszła w zakres kompetencji Unii Europejskiej stanowi punkt zwrotny w rozwoju sportu na skalę europejską. Bezsprzecznie najważniejszym jest, aby Komisja Europejska w przyszłych wieloletnich ramach finansowych przedstawiła specjalny budżet służący finansowaniu polityki w dziedzinie sportu. Istotne jest także stworzenie podstaw dotyczących szkolenia i kształcenia trenerów oraz ich kwalifikacji, zachęcanie kobiet do większego zaangażowanie w profesjonalne uprawianie sportu oraz potępianie łamania zasady fair play. Rywalizacja profesjonalistów często nasycona jest negatywnymi emocjami zdecydowanie przekraczającymi granice współzawodnictwa. W kontekście całego społeczeństwa taka sytuacja jest niedopuszczalna biorąc pod uwagę siłę oddziaływania zachowań sportowców szczególnie na ludzi młodych. Trzeba odnotować palącą potrzebę odbudowy wartości, wynikających z czystej sportowej rywalizacji, Ważne jest również, aby walczyć z dopinigiem, za pomocą kampanii prewencyjnych i informacyjnych, a handel tymi środkami traktować jak handel narkotykami. Skoordynowane działania ukierunkowane na jednolite podejście do nakładania i egzekwowania sankcji wobec kibiców zachowujących się w sposób agresywny lub dyskryminacyjny przyczyni się do podniesienie poziomu bezpieczeństwa na stadionach podczas zawodów sportowych. Na zakończeni chcę wyrazić swoje poparcie również dla stworzenia niepublicznego europejskiego rejestru agentów sportowych.

19. Vienos minutės kalbos svarbiais politiniais klausimais

  předseda. − Dalším bodem jsou jednominutové projevy k důležitým politickým otázkám.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). - EÚ je založená na spoločných hodnotách, právach a povinnostiach a na ich rešpektovaní. S touto myšlienkou bola vytvorená a iba s ňou môže fungovať ďalej. Z tohto pohľadu je Maďarsko pre nás dôležitým partnerom, ktorý často preukázal svoju neodškriepiteľnú príslušnosť do európskej rodiny. Je preto dôležité, aby o tom neboli žiadne pochybnosti ani dnes.

Momentálne vedieme s Maďarskom diskusiu o technických detailoch týkajúcich sa nezávislosti národnej banky a súdnictva, ale aj o prístupe k hodnotám, ktoré sú jasne definované v zmluvách o EÚ. Patrí medzi ne predovšetkým rešpektovanie princípov demokracie, ľudských práv a slobôd. Akokoľvek silná populárna vláda si nesmie dovoliť tieto hodnoty podceniť. Som presvedčený, že je našim spoločným záujmom mať v Maďarsku naďalej silného a spoľahlivého partnera rešpektujúceho hodnoty, ktoré nás spájajú. Verím, že Maďarsko má podobný záujem.

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D). - Vreau să atrag atenţia că se discută în aceste zile despre două tratate foarte importante, ACTA şi Tratatul de stabilitate. Sunt două tratate care influenţează viaţa oamenilor radical, sunt reguli, sunt măsuri foarte dure care se vor lua în viitor şi care vor afecta atât viaţa privată a cetăţenilor europeni, cât şi locul de muncă şi nivelul de trai. Sunt ţări în Uniunea Europeană în care aceste tratate nu au fost absolut deloc dezbătute public. Sunt preşedinţi de state care nu au discutat nici măcar o singură dată în parlamentul naţional despre cele două tratate. Nimeni nu ştie de exemplu în România ce înseamnă ACTA, sau ce înseamnă Tratatul pentru stabilitate. Aceasta nu este democraţie, iar dacă vrem să ieşim din criză, dacă vrem să avem o Europă unită şi puternică, trebuie să apărăm valorile democratice.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). - Señor Presidente, entre los años 60 y 80 se robaron en España miles de bebés. El móvil era económico. Muchas madres recibieron entonces la trágica y falsa noticia de que el hijo o la hija que acababan de alumbrar había muerto. Se certificaba la muerte y se simulaba un enterramiento, pero, en realidad, se secuestraba y vendía a estas criaturas.

Solo en el País Vasco puede haber 600 casos que han originado 200 investigaciones judiciales. Hasta ahora se han abierto tres tumbas: todas estaban vacías. Solo una trama oficial organizada pudo cometer estos delitos.

Hasta hace unos pocos meses solo hubo silencio. Se archivaron todas las denuncias. La asociación SOS Bebés Robados está difundiendo este problema. La componen víctimas que buscan a sus hijos e hijas y reclaman justicia y reparación.

Los responsables de estos hechos han delinquido, han creado miles de dramas personales difícilmente reparables, porque afectan a padres, hijos y familias adoptivas.

Por eso les pido implicación, apoyo y sensibilidad. Una mirada vigilante de las instituciones europeas sobre este oscuro asunto ayudará a su total esclarecimiento.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). - Os dados do Eurostat agora divulgados sobre o desemprego são um vivo libelo acusatório que pende sobre esta União Europeia e as suas políticas. Em Portugal, o desemprego geral atinge já os 14%, 31% entre os jovens, algo nunca visto em 38 anos de democracia.

São números que comprovam as consequências dramáticas do programa de agressão do FMI e da União Europeia: Mais recessão, mais desemprego, aumento brutal do custo de vida, ataque aos serviços públicos como a saúde e os transportes, a tomada de assalto de setores estratégicos da economia do país, mais desigualdades, mais pobreza.

São números e factos que deitam por terra a retórica vazia do crescimento e emprego que saiu do último Conselho Europeu. Ao mesmo tempo, a dívida externa - a justificação usada para este sórdido programa - crescerá em 2012, sujeito que está o país à agiotagem e à predação dos seus recursos por via dos juros da dívida. Este é um caminho que não tem outra saída que não o desastre. Desastre que pode ser evitado com outra política. São cada vez mais os que a reclamam em Portugal e por toda a Europa.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD). - Panie Przewodniczący! Otóż 18 listopada skierowałem pytanie do Komisji Europejskiej dotyczące ACTA. Rzecz dotyczy sprawy niezwykle istotnej, budzącej wiele emocji i kontrowersji w debacie publicznej w wielu krajach Unii Europejskiej, w tym i w moim kraju, czyli w Polsce. Pytałem m.in. o to, czy ACTA jest zgodne z prawami podstawowymi, z podstawowymi rozwiązaniami i unormowaniami prawnymi Unii Europejskiej. Dnia 5 stycznia otrzymałem odpowiedź od pana komisarza Karla De Guchta w imieniu Komisji, że owszem, umowa jest zgodna z obowiązującym prawodawstwem Unii Europejskiej, co więcej, że jest zgodna również z ogólnymi, cytuję, zasadami prawa Unii Europejskiej oraz obecnie także z Kartą praw podstawowych Unii Europejskiej. Tymczasem dnia 24 listopada 2011 roku zapadł wyrok Europejskiego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości, który orzekł, ku mojemu zdziwieniu, że jest zupełnie inaczej, że jednak ACTA w jednym aspekcie naruszają podstawowe prawa człowieka i prawa gwarantowane przez Unię Europejską. Sprawa wymaga więc pilnego wyjaśnienia.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE). - Rok 2012 jest wyjątkowo bogaty w różne ważne wydarzenia w Unii Europejskiej. W marcu planowane jest podpisanie uzgodnionego właśnie paktu budżetowego. Kontynuowane będą również inne działania antykryzysowe. Ponadto w kluczowy etap wkraczają prace nad wieloletnimi ramami finansowymi Unii na lata 2014-2020.

W bieżącym roku obchodzimy również 50-lecie funkcjonowania wspólnej polityki rolnej. Była to jedna z pierwszych polityk o wyjątkowo dużym udziale w budżecie Unii, ale też jej zadania wynikające z Traktatów Rzymskich były wyjątkowo ważne: zapewnienie dostatecznej ilości żywności po odpowiednich cenach, a także zagwarantowanie odpowiednich dochodów dla rolników. Europa w czasie wojny i w okresie powojennym doświadczyła głodu, dlatego problem wyżywienia stał się wyjątkowo ważnym celem funkcjonowania Unii. Pięćdziesięcioletnie doświadczenia w zakresie wspólnej polityki rolnej są wyjątkowo bogate. W tym roku będą one zapewne przedmiotem szeregu konferencji i dużej kampanii informacyjnej, a opracowane wnioski posłużą do właściwego prognozowania wspólnej polityki rolnej na lata 2014-2020.

  Ricardo Cortés Lastra (S&D). - Señor Presidente, la dirección de la multinacional Teka ha anunciado un expediente de extinción de empleo que afectará a 198 trabajadores de su factoría en Cajo, Santander (Cantabria), una región ya de por sí muy afectada por el desempleo creciente en los últimos meses.

Esta medida afectará, además, a 400 empleos inducidos de empresas subsidiarias ubicadas también en la región.

Teka no tiene razones económicas suficientes para tomar esta decisión. Detrás está la simple y llana deslocalización, fuera de la Unión Europea, de la empresa.

Por ello, quisiera pedirle a la Comisión Europea que exija a los Gobiernos de Cantabria y de España un mayor compromiso con los trabajadores de nuestra región mediante la búsqueda de una solución final a este conflicto social y que, por tanto, examine todas las posibilidades a nivel europeo, como la de acogerse al Fondo Europeo de Adaptación a la Globalización.

Europa no puede permitirse un parado más y quiero, especialmente, decirle al Presidente de Cantabria, que en su programa electoral se comprometió a cuidar las empresas ya instaladas en la Comunidad, que lo haga, que pase de la palabra a los hechos. Los trabajadores de Teka son la prioridad para el tejido industrial de nuestra región.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). - Mr President, in Ireland we are told to keep the rules of the new fiscal treaty, as it will eliminate any risk of future crisis and will help solve the current one. From 2002 to 2008 Ireland did not once break the Stability and Growth Pact – unlike others. So we know from bitter experience that keeping to the rules does not always deliver and certainly will not deal with the current crisis. In 2007 we had a debt-to-GNP ratio of 30%. By 2014 it will have ballooned to 145%. No developed economy can survive those levels of debt.

We have just survived four years of austerity. Our debt levels, directly linked to bailing out banks in Ireland and in Europe, are unsustainable, and yet we are told that more of the same, without any commitment to Eurobonds, to redemption funds or debt restructuring, will solve our problems. It will not and it cannot, and given that our access to the ESM is tied to ratification of the Treaty, this is little short of blackmail. Those are the hardest words I have ever said in this Parliament. I hope I never have to repeat them. Europe can do much better than that for itself and for Ireland.

  Miguel Portas (GUE/NGL). - Depois de Berlim ter imposto à Grécia um tecnocrata como Primeiro-Ministro, acha, Senhor Presidente, que esse país ainda precisa, por cima, de um Ministro das Finanças que seja europeu? Não saberá a Senhora Merkel que o pior que se pode fazer a um povo é humilhá-lo, obrigá-lo a rastejar?

Senhor Presidente, na União Soviética do tempo de Brejnev contava-se uma anedota: o comboio da revolução tinha perdido a sua locomotiva e o partido, em vez de a concertar, pedia aos passageiros que pulassem. Claro que o comboio não andava, apenas abanava. Mas porque os gerontes, os líderes desse país, já só sabiam fingir. O mesmo se passa com as atuais lideranças europeias. Elas insistem sempre e sempre na mesma receita, apesar do fracasso dos resultados.

Um dia isto muda, um dia o emprego contará mais do que os mercados, um dia deixaremos de fingir!

  Γεώργιος Παπανικολάου (PPE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, δεν χρειάζεται να υπενθυμίσω πόσο κρίσιμες είναι οι επόμενες ημέρες, εάν όχι οι επόμενες ώρες, για την οριστική αντιμετώπιση της ελληνικής κρίσης χρέους. Χρειάζεται όμως να υπενθυμίσω ότι στις δύσκολες αυτές στιγμές πρέπει όλοι να κάνουν ό,τι είναι δυνατό για την αντιμετώπιση αυτής της κρίσης. Αυτό, κατά τη γνώμη μου, πρέπει να κάνει και η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα, δηλαδή να κάνει μια κίνηση που θα ελάφρυνε κατά 10 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ το δημόσιο χρέος της Ελλάδας, δεχόμενη το ανάλογο κούρεμα στα ομόλογα που κατέχει. Προσοχή, δεν ζητώ από τον κ. Draghi να υποστεί ζημιές η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα. Αυτό που ζητώ είναι απλώς να μην προσποριστεί κέρδος διότι, όταν η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα αγόρασε τα ελληνικά ομόλογα στο 75% της αξίας τους περίπου στη δευτερογενή αγορά και αναμένει στη λήξη τους να πληρωθεί στο 100%, τι άλλο παρά κέρδος μπορεί να χαρακτηριστεί αυτό;

  Inés Ayala Sender (S&D). - Señor Presidente, Spainair ha quebrado estos días, dejando, de un día para otro, 2 000 trabajadores desesperados y abandonados y 22 000 viajeros completamente afectados, no reembolsados, sin ninguna información; todos ellos, víctimas de la mala gestión y de una gestión irresponsable de una patronal habituada a vivir del dinero público y a no gestionarlo bien; víctimas, también, de pugnas entre compañías aéreas y de un régimen de ayudas criticado por no eficiente; se ha llegado incluso a echar la culpa a la Comisión Europea.

Pero nosotros decimos que, ya en 2009, pedimos medidas legislativas a la Comisión para paliar precisamente las consecuencias de la quiebra de compañías aéreas y para resolver la absoluta insuficiencia de la protección de los viajeros y los consumidores, así como de los procedimientos para proteger a los trabajadores en esa situación.

Necesitamos, señora Comisaria, una propuesta legislativa, no procedimientos exclusivamente voluntarios, y la necesitamos ya, para poder proteger a los viajeros y a los trabajadores.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE). - În a doisprezecea zi a lunii ianuarie mulţi români se află în stradă. Sunt cetăţeni europeni, la fel ca noi toţi, cei de aici, şi Parlamentul European nu poate rămâne surd la strigătul lor. Sunt cetăţeni care vor să trăiască într-o ţară europeană în care alegerile nu sunt comasate doar pentru a face un avantaj partidelor aflate la guvernare, care vor să trăiască într-o ţară europeană în care nu se schimbă organizarea administrativ-teritorială fără referendum şi fără consultare, într-o ţară europeană în care legile nu sunt adoptate fără dezbaterea parlamentară, în dispreţul pluralismului politic, într-o ţară europeană în care sistemul de sănătate nu se schimbă peste noapte şi în care nu se taie peste 1% din produsul intern brut de la salarii pentru a creşte cu o sumă asemănătoare cheltuielile cu bunuri şi servicii. Sunt cetăţeni europeni care vor să meargă cât mai repede la urne pentru a putea să facă o schimbare.

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL). - Señor Presidente, quiero llamar la atención sobre lo que está suponiendo la política de recorte del gasto público en algunos Estados de la Unión Europea, concretamente en el mío, España.

En España, tanto el Gobierno central como algunas comunidades autónomas están recortando drásticamente el gasto público en sanidad y en educación, y esto está creando un deterioro gravísimo tanto del sistema público sanitario como el de la educación, iniciando la privatización de estos servicios. Eso es inaceptable.

Como botón de muestra, en un pequeño Ayuntamiento -no tan pequeño-, Hospitalet de Llobregat, en Cataluña, en estos momentos está intentándose cerrar su centro de atención primaria, lo que ha llevado a los habitantes de esta ciudad a movilizarse; llevan encerrados 97 días ya, para impedir el cierre del centro de atención primaria de Bellvitge.

Es todo un símbolo: las personas se están movilizando para defender algo que es suyo, los servicios públicos de calidad en salud y en educación.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE). - Am fost profund şocat când am văzut în presa de dimineaţă un desen, o caricatură rasistă şi xenofobă publicată şi chiar realizată de un politician francez, membru al Frontului Naţional şi candidat la alegerile legislative. Într-un mod nepermis şi lipsit de decenţă, acesta insultă poporul român printr-o frază pe care mi-e greu să o repet, domnul politician spune: „Atenţie la Moş Crăciun din România, care-ţi intră pe uşă şi pleacă cu televizorul.” Domnul Poncet generalizează într-un mod nepermis, jignind un popor muncitor şi educat, care a fost întotdeauna de partea Franţei şi a valorilor pe care Franţa le reprezintă. Conducerea Frontului Naţional Francez a criticat acest mesaj politicianist, mă aştept ca şi cei trei colegi ai noştri aparţinând Frontului Naţional să facă acelaşi lucru.

  Corina Creţu (S&D). - Situaţia politică a României cunoaşte un moment de criză ce atacă fundamentele democratice ale statului de drept. În ultimii trei ani lucrurile s-au degradat până la ieşirea cetăţenilor în stradă, aşa cum s-a spus aici, într-o serie de proteste fără precedent în ultimele două decenii. Actuala putere a guvernat prost, a încălcat libertăţi cetăţeneşti, a provocat multă suferinţă socială, a pus între paranteze instituţii fundamentale, precum parlamentul, a încercat anularea pluralismului politic, a inventat partide parlamentare care să-i susţină guvernul, dar care nu au primit niciodată girul urnelor. În aceste condiţii, opoziţia a decis astăzi să adopte forma mai drastică de acţiune politică, cea a refuzului participării la lucrările parlamentului, încercând astfel să-i fie respectate demnitatea şi drepturile constituţionale. De asemenea, solicităm revenirea la un comportament democratic şi civilizat, în acord cu valorile politice europene.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). - Mr President, the European Parliament came under cyber attack by Anonymous last week after the EU had signed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement in Japan. Meanwhile I have received a vast number of messages from EU citizens and beyond, who were concerned about their rights.

I find it bizarre that the EU and 22 of its Member States signed ACTA before addressing the concerns of the citizens in an appropriate transparent manner, as democracies should. Therefore, I call on the Commission and the Member States to increase efforts to communicate ACTA to citizens and to seek their consent when it is ratified. The EU and the national governments have to reassure citizens that ACTA will not violate the fundamental rights to freedom of expression and privacy.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). - Magyarország új alaptörvénye kapcsán több bírálat is elhangzott a sajtóban és a Parlament falai között is. Többen súlyos vádakat fogalmaztak meg a magyar kormánnyal szemben. Nem részletezem, többen elmondták már előttem. A bírálók sok esetben nincsenek tisztában a magyarországi viszonyokkal, törvényekkel, mindennapi élettel.

A romániai magyar kisebbség képviselőjeként szoros figyelemmel követem nemcsak Magyarország, de Románia, Szlovákia, még Szerbia belpolitikáját is.

Kedves képviselőtársaim! Ha az emberi és kisebbségi jogokért aggódnak, felhívom a figyelmüket a Szlovákiában még mindig érvényben levő államtörvényre, és arra, hogy embereket fosztanak meg állampolgárságuktól, holott a hatályos szlovák alkotmány tiltja ezt.

Felhívom a figyelmüket a szlovák nyelvtörvényre is. De felhívom a figyelmüket Romániára is, ahol a hatályos oktatási törvény előírásait semmibe veszik, amikor a kisebbségi egyetemi karok létrehozataláról van szó. Ha Önök a jogállam érvényesüléséért aggódnak, kérem hitelesen tegyék, elkerülve annak látszatát is, hogy csak egyetlen ország kormányának tevékenysége érdekli Önöket.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - Aş dori să vă atrag atenţia asupra unui incident tragic, care aparent a trecut neobservat la Bruxelles, petrecut pe data de 1 ianuarie, în regiunea separatistă transnistreană. Cetăţeanul moldovean Vadim Pisari, de doar 18 ani, a fost ucis la punctul de control Vadul lui Vodă, de un militar rus din trupele de menţinere a păcii. Acest incident a bulversat întreaga societate şi a trezit un sentiment de nesiguranţă în rândul ei. Tragedia ne reaminteşte că la porţile Uniunii Europene se află un conflict îngheţat, iar nesoluţionarea sa întârzie apropierea Republicii Moldova de Uniunea Europeană. În Transnistria, populaţia vorbitoare de limba română este discriminată şi i se încalcă flagrant drepturile omului. Soluţionarea conflictului transnistrean impune transformarea misiunii de menţinere a păcii în una civilă, cu mandat internaţional. Cer ca UE să se implice mai ferm în clarificarea situaţiei.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). - Acordul interguvernamental semnat de 25 de state membre la 30 ianuarie este un angajament pentru întărirea disciplinei fiscale. Regretăm lipsa unui angajament la fel de ferm şi pentru stimularea ocupării forţei de muncă mai ales în rândul tinerilor şi pentru stimularea finanţării economiei. Dezamăgiţi de actuala guvernare care a mărit numărul familiilor expuse riscului sărăciei, care are cea mai mică rată de absorbţie a fondurilor structurale, care a adoptat prin asumarea răspunderii legi fundamentale, precum codul muncii, legea educaţiei naţionale, legea privind comasarea alegerilor, din fericire ultima declarată neconstituţională, cetăţenii români au decis să-şi exprime public îngrijorarea pentru viitorul lor. Mişcările populare din ultimele trei săptămâni în numeroase oraşe ale României solicită un lucru esenţial: vrem să avem încredere în politicieni, vrem să avem încredere în democraţie. Ca şi cetăţenii români, toţi cetăţenii europeni aşteaptă nu doar angajante pentru austeritate ci, mai ales, respectarea democraţiei şi şansa de a contribui la dezvoltarea societăţilor în care trăiesc.

  László Tőkés (PPE). - Tavalyelőtt a Parlament plénuma elsöprő szótöbbséggel szavazta meg a ciántechnológiát alkalmazó bányászat betiltására vonatkozó határozatot. Ennek ellenére a képviseleti demokrácia európai alapszabályát teljességgel figyelmen kívül hagyva, illetve a tagországok nemzeti hatáskörére hivatkozva az Európai Bizottság a cián bányászati használatát nem képes betiltani, Romániában pedig minden tiltakozás ellenére feltartóztathatatlanul halad előre a verespataki bányaberuházás engedélyeztetése.

A 2000. január 30-i tiszai ciánkatasztrófa évfordulóján a határozat egyik előadójaként ezúton kérem fel Martin Schulz elnök urat, hogy a Parlament nevében járjon közben a Bizottságnál és Romániánál tavalyelőtti határozatunk életbe léptetése érdekében. A gigantikus terv megvalósulása esetén a nagybányai zagytározónál negyvenszerte nagyobb verespataki tározó valóságos ökológiai atombombát jelent.

  Daciana Octavia Sârbu (S&D). - În acest moment la Bucureşti temperatura se apropie de -20°C şi totuşi, oamenii protestează în continuare în centrul oraşului, aşa cum fac de mai bine de două săptămâni. La fel se întâmplă şi în alte oraşe ale ţării. Aceşti oameni îşi pun sănătatea în pericol pentru că s-au săturat să fie umiliţi şi înşelaţi de cei care îi conduc. Cu toţii sunt disperaţi, nu numai pentru că li se interzice dreptul la o viaţa decentă în ţara lor, România, dar şi pentru că puterea politică îi dispreţuieşte, îi ignoră şi îi desconsideră. Disperarea lor este întrecută numai de tenacitatea cu care continuă să protesteze. Peste 90% dintre români vor ca preşedintele şi guvernul să plece. Regimul recurge însă la gesturi profund antidemocratice, precum încercarea de amânare şi comasare a alegerilor şi schimbarea legii electorale, sfidând nu numai regulile democraţiei dar şi pe oamenii care îşi câştigă nemulţumirea şi îşi cer ţara înapoi.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). - S pohnutím si dovoľujem informovať Európsky parlament, že pred niekoľkými dňami zomrela barónka de Vos van Steenwijk. Pani de Vos bola Holanďanka a počas viacerých desaťročí bola predsedníčkou medzinárodného hnutia ATD Quart Monde. Vďaka jej iniciatíve bol založený inštitút pre sociálny výskum, ktorý podporoval boj proti extrémnej chudobe v rodiacom sa európskom spoločenstve.

Následne madam de Vos nadviazala trvalé vzťahy s OSN. Vďaka tejto iniciatíve máme špeciálneho spravodajcu OSN pre extrémnu chudobu a ľudské práva. Po prvých voľbách do Európskeho parlamentu podnietila vznik výboru ATD Quart Monde v čase, keď ešte neexistovali intergroups.

Želám si, aby jej politické názory a aktivity v rodine ATD Quart Monde pohli našim svedomím a aby sme si uvedomili na všetkých rozhodovacích úrovniach, že extrémna chudoba v EÚ i všade vo svete je porušovaním ľudských práv. Je to výzva pre nás všetkých.

  Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D). - Dezbaterea publică de ieri din Parlamentul European privind abaterile grave de la democraţie din România în timpul guvernării Băsescu - Boc a stârnit un interes crescut atât în rândurile românilor din ţară şi din diaspora, cât şi în ale multor cetăţeni străini şi colegi europarlamentari din diferite state membre ale Uniunii Europene.

Deşi acest eveniment a fost organizat de grupurile S&D şi ALDE, grupul PPE a fost , de asemenea, prezent în sală, fiind reprezentat de câţiva europarlamentari români aparţinând partidului aflat actualmente la guvernare în România şi a căror singură participare s-a rezumat la eforturile chinuite de a împiedica buna desfăşurare a lucrărilor şi a coborî nivelul dezbaterilor, încercând prin tactici de mult cunoscute românilor, abaterea atenţiei înspre zona trivialităţilor şi a subiectelor fără nicio legătură cu conţinutul dezbaterilor.

Încă o dată, însă, Parlamentul European s-a dovedit un for în care asemenea comportamente nu sunt tolerate, audienţa sancţionând pe loc prin dezaprobare făţişă asemenea trublioni.

Vreau să le mulţumesc pe această cale colegilor europeni străini şi românilor din ţară şi din diaspora prezenţi ieri la acest eveniment şi să îi asigur că românii de bună credinţă vor continua lupta pentru recâştigarea unei Românii guvernate democratic, corect şi cinstit.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Mr President, my subject is safety at sea. Unfortunately there are always tragedies associated with the sea. Only two weeks ago in my own constituency a fishing trawler sank just as it was coming into the safety of the harbour. Our sympathies go to the families affected, in particular the Irish and Egyptian families.

Also at that time we had the tragedy with the cruise liner off Italy. It was reported widely in the media that what I might call showboating may have been responsible for this. I want to look at the wider picture. Can we establish whether there are practices like this, which are contrary to safety regulations, being undertaken by cruise ships – and maybe others? Also, what is the optimal size of a cruiser? A few years ago the average was one thousand passengers and now it is five thousand.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski (EFD). - Panie Przewodniczący! W decydującą fazę legislacji w naszym Parlamencie wchodzi tzw. Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, czyli ACTA. Walka z podróbkami wydawałaby się rzeczą słuszną. Sam byłem – nie ukrywam – jedną z pierwszych ofiar piractwa w internecie, kiedy mój film dokumentalny, polski film dokumentalny pt. „Nocna zmiana”, zawisł w internecie i był tysiące razy nielegalnie kopiowany już w drugiej połowie lat 90.

Jestem jednak przeciwko ACTA, dlatego że poprzez niejasne zapisy, poprzez nierówność stron, wiąże się on z ogromnym ryzykiem opresji w internecie. Dlatego tysiące polskiej młodzieży wyszło na ulice 80 polskich miast, żeby zaprotestować przeciwko ACTA. W moim kraju zdarzyło się bowiem, że 8 funkcjonariuszy służb specjalnych ABW weszło do internauty, żeby zarekwirować mały portal, który krytykował władzę publiczną. Jeżeli władza, która wysyła służby specjalne, żeby dławić wolność w internecie dostanie coś takiego jak ACTA, skorzysta z tego ponad wszelką wątpliwość. Dlatego trzeba bronić wolności w internecie. Odrzućmy ACTA! Niech żyje wolny internet!