Índice 
 Anterior 
 Siguiente 
 Texto íntegro 
Procedimiento : 2012/2678(RSP)
Ciclo de vida en sesión
Ciclos relativos a los documentos :

Textos presentados :

B7-0278/2012

Debates :

PV 13/06/2012 - 6
CRE 13/06/2012 - 6

Votaciones :

PV 13/06/2012 - 9.1
CRE 13/06/2012 - 9.1
Explicaciones de voto

Textos aprobados :


Debates
Miércoles 13 de junio de 2012 - Estrasburgo Edición revisada

6. Preparativos para la reunión del Consejo Europeo (28 y 29 de junio de 2012) - Marco financiero plurianual y recursos propios (debate)
Vídeo de las intervenciones
PV
MPphoto
 

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt folgt die gemeinsame Aussprache über

– die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zur Vorbereitung der Tagung des Europäischen Rates (28./29. Juni 2012) (2011/2920(RSP)) und

– die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission über den Mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen und Eigenmittel (2012/2678(RSP)).

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nicolai Wammen, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, the European Council meeting on 28 and 29 June is due to take important decisions on measures to help stimulate economic growth and employment. This is a key element of our overall strategy to ensure that Europe emerges from the current situation with increased growth and a stronger economic basis. To put it very simply, Europe needs growth and Europe needs jobs.

The informal meeting of Heads of State on 23 May, as well as the informal General Affairs Council meeting on 10 and 11 June, paved the way for the preparation of a comprehensive package of measures as part of the growth initiative for Europe. I would like to point to some of the various elements that can be included in this package.

On economic policy, job creation is a priority for all of us. Growth is not enough in itself. It must lead to new jobs and we need to do more. The Council welcomes the Commission’s employment package, which certainly contains many interesting ideas, not least to promote youth employment and labour mobility. Let me also give a couple of concrete examples of how some of the proposals already on the table can boost employment. First, adoption of the energy efficiency directive can create up to 400 000 new jobs. Second, new trade agreements with third countries may create about two million new jobs, and a reform of the single market will create even more millions of jobs. As you know, there are roughly the same number of unemployed people across Europe as we have small and medium-sized enterprises. If we could only create one more job in each of these SMEs, we would have taken a giant step towards addressing the unemployment issue.

The Danish Presidency has been committed to making progress on all legislative files which have the potential to deliver growth and employment. On a number of dossiers we have advanced well and I would like to take this opportunity to thank Parliament for a very constructive partnership with the Presidency on this agenda. This applies, for instance, to the case of roaming regulation and standardisation, where the Council has been able to reach agreement with the European Parliament. We are also on track on issues such as venture capital and social entrepreneurship.

The June European Council will also conclude the European Semester through the endorsement of country-specific recommendations set out by the Commission in its proposal of 30 May. Our objective is to guide Member States in their structural reforms, employment policies and national budgets with the overall aim of ensuring that fiscal consolidation and growth go hand in hand. I would like to thank Parliament for the way in which it has offered strong support for the growth and employment agenda, as its motions for resolutions confirm.

We also need to step up efforts to boost the financing of the economy. I am very pleased that the Council and Parliament were able to agree on the project bond pilot phase which will start this summer. The Commission has also proposed a EUR 10 billion increase in paid-in capital to the EIB as part of a new EU growth initiative. Furthermore, efforts should be made regarding better targeting of structural funds to foster growth and convergence. The Commission will report on this issue later this month.

Another key element to our growth agenda is external economic policy. The European Council will discuss how the Union can better use a trade and investment relationship with key partners as an engine for growth.

The second major item on the June European Council agenda is the multiannual financial framework (MFF). As you know, the MFF package is a top priority for us, and from the very beginning of our Presidency we have been aiming to make as much progress as possible on this dossier. We based our work on the mandate given to us by the December 2011 European Council, and that is to press ahead with the work aimed at developing a basis for the final stage of negotiations to be discussed at the June European Council. We have taken this mandate very seriously.

While the aim of the Presidency has not been to reach a final compromise on this package, all our efforts are directed towards preparing the ground for a first serious and substantial discussion in June and delivering a fully integrated negotiating box containing all the elements for the final agreement, which should help lead to the adoption of the MFF at the end of this year. The MFF dossier constitutes a great opportunity to make the EU budget respond better to today’s and tomorrow’s challenges and needs. It is also essential that the next MFF is fully geared towards growth and job-enhancing policies.

In putting the box together we have listened carefully to delegations in Council meetings. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Parliament’s representatives who have taken part in our work. We have excellent cooperation with the representatives of Parliament, and before every meeting at which the MFF has been on the agenda, we have met with Parliament’s representatives, we have told Ministers what Parliament’s views are and we have also met afterwards. It is also important to stress – and I want to make this very clear – that we must, of course, all follow the legislative procedures laid down in the Treaty, including with regard to codecision. It is also important to say that there is no final deal before there is agreement between the Council and Parliament.

In order to ensure further progress in the MFF negotiations, thereby fulfilling the mandate given by the European Council in December, the Presidency has put forward a proposal regarding the structure of the budget, including the placement of instruments that the Commission has proposed to place outside the MFF. It is very important for me to say today that this proposal on the structure of the MFF only relates to the placement of instruments. It does not in any way prejudge the size of the budget or decision-making procedures for those instruments, nor does it prejudge the expenditure level for the headings in which some of those instruments are included. Therefore, the Presidency’s proposal does not entail a reduction in the budget or in the degree of flexibility in the Commission’s proposal. The point of departure for the Presidency is that the proposed amounts for these instruments are transferred, with the instruments, into the relevant headings.

Just two days ago we had a very fruitful discussion on this proposal for a balanced package and structure at the informal General Affairs Council meeting in Horsens in Denmark. I was particularly pleased that Members of the European Parliament were present and gave us very useful input in this regard. I noted the emphasis that the European Parliament put on ensuring a transparent budget where as many expenditure items as possible are subject to the Community method.

As a final note, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the good cooperation between Parliament and the Council on this dossier.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, you have invited me to prepare the next European Council with you, and to discuss the economic situation and the multiannual financial framework (MFF). I welcome this choice of topics. The MFF is indeed a crucial part of our response to the challenges we face, as it is a tool for investing in jobs and growth, while reinforcing stability.

We are now in a defining moment for European integration and for the European Union. We are seeing that even when governments are taking the right steps towards reform, they can be negatively impacted by events beyond their control, or by the lack of a decisive and comprehensive long-term response. We must recognise that we have a systemic problem and we need to articulate the vision of where we need to go, and also a very concrete path for how to get there. I am not sure whether the urgency of this is fully understood in all the capitals.

The Commission has always maintained that a combination of immediate measures with medium and long-term steps is part of the comprehensive response we need to overcome the crisis. This was precisely the multi-track approach we developed further in our communication of 30 May.

The European Union has proven time and again that it is capable of taking immediate measures when necessary. Just last week, the euro area Member States, the Commission and the ECB decided unanimously to support Spain in its effort to recapitalise its banking sector. This has again proven wrong those critics who say that we do not tackle our problems. On the contrary, our ability to react quickly shows our determination to tackle them head on.

However, we also need the perspective of the medium and long term. In the medium term we must continue to implement what has been agreed, from the programme for Greece – and let me state here again that I believe Greece should stay in the euro area, assuming that it respects its commitments – to our proposals to address the more systemic issues, from setting up financial backstops, proposing initiatives for growth and reforming the financial sector to building a real economic union for the future, namely through the steps that we have been taking on economic governance – the ‘six-pack’, which this Parliament has already approved, and the ‘two-pack’ that I hope we will also endorse today. We have been making progress on all of these areas, but I believe that more should be done.

For the longer term, I will urge the European Council to take concrete commitments towards a fully developed economic and monetary union and a process that maps out the steps to take to get there. More than ever, we need a strong ambition for Europe – ambition for the structural reforms that we need now, and ambition for the deeper economic and monetary union that we need to build in the medium and longer term.

The European Council will focus on growth. I will urge it to endorse a decisive commitment towards sustainable and jobs-rich growth. This growth can only come from a combination of sound public finances, deep structural reforms and targeted investment. At national level, at the end of the second European Semester, I am encouraged that Member States have clearly taken last year’s country-specific recommendations seriously, at least more seriously than in the previous year. Great efforts have been made to implement last year’s recommendations. But more needs to be done.

To supplement national action on jobs and growth, the European level should also be playing its part, and indeed it is playing its part. On unemployment, the biggest social challenge we face, the Commission has taken a number of measures, including refocusing structural funds, our youth employment initiative and adopting a major employment package, which I presented to you here in April.

Implementation on the ground is very much in the hands of the Member States, and I will continue to urge them at the European Council to take the social emergency situation very seriously. In some of our countries we have worrying developments in terms of the rise of poverty and social exclusion.

On growth, the European Council should agree a growth initiative, building on the ideas we have put forward and which were well received at the informal European Council of 23 May. This includes a number of elements.

First, the reprogramming of structural funds, focusing them on growth and competitiveness.

Second, boosting investment at European level through increasing the lending capacity of the European Investment Bank, and project bonds – ideas I set out to in this House for the first time in my State of the Union address in September last year. Now – it was about time! – they are building momentum. Two weeks ago we agreed on our project bonds proposal to unlock up to EUR 4.6 billion in a pilot phase and I expect a clear decision on the EIB at the next European Council.

Third, we need to realise the full potential of the single market. I would like to see swift approval in the Council and the European Parliament for the measures of the Single Market Act 1, and the Commission will, moreover, present a Single Market Act 2 in the autumn. As you know, just last week we presented a communication on the governance of the single market and how to reinforce it, as well as an analysis of the implementation of the Services Directive.

I believe that if the Heads of State and Government agree to these strategic orientations set out in this growth initiative, we should go further in cementing this approach. Many of the decisions that we need in order to deliver results must be taken by the European Parliament and the Council together. That is why, today, I want to propose that we conclude an interinstitutional agreement on the growth initiative. Given the urgency of the situation, it is important to prioritise key decisions. An interinstitutional agreement would set a fast timetable and get things moving. It would also be a strong message about our partnership – the partnership between Parliament, the Council and the Commission. It would also be a strong message about our determination for growth in the European Union. Moreover, it would ensure the required democratic legitimacy and involvement of the European Parliament, without whom we cannot advance and without which the Commission does not want to advance. On these issues that are so necessary and relevant to our citizens, it is indeed unthinkable that this directly-elected body that is an expression of European democracy, could be sidelined.

(Applause)

On the matter of growth, it is highly appropriate that you singled out the European Union’s future budget to debate today. Quick adoption of the MFF would send an immediate signal that Europe is ready to invest in its future, that we are really serious about growth. It would send a strong message on our commitment to stability and responsibility, given the clear link we have proposed between the MFF and the European Semester of budgetary coordination. In other words, adoption of the MFF is a key stepping stone towards the deepening of economic and monetary union, and towards sustainable growth in Europe as a whole. However, the path ahead will not be easy. With reduced spending power at home, some Member States view the MFF as an extravagance to be minimised, and a potential source of savings to repatriate. This is a great mistake. Our budget is a budget for investment and for growth and I believe that we all agree that in current times we need to combine stability and growth.

We need to dispel the myth that the EU budget is a budget for ‘Brussels’, for the EU structures or institutions. No – the EU budget is money for our regions, our cities, our rural areas. It is money for our citizens, our students, our workers, our entrepreneurs, our scientists, our farmers, our innovators. It is money for the unemployed and those who are afraid of being unemployed. It is money for the future of Europe and for all those who want to have a future in Europe.

We have a strategy for growth – Europe 2020 – and indeed we are preparing new initiatives for growth. The important issue now is to link the MFF and the programmes under the future budget with our overall growth strategy. If we agree that for growth, targeted public investment is necessary to complement structural reforms, then this needs to be reflected in our budget.

In many of our Member States, EU funds are the biggest and most stable source of public investment. Just as an example, since 2009, cohesion policy has been equivalent to 97 % of total public investment in Hungary, 78 % in Lithuania, and over 50 % in Poland. What would the situation in these countries be without the contribution of the European budget? It has provided stability in times of crisis, but also flexibility in times of need.

These figures show that the European Union budget has a major impact for growth. At the same time, the MFF is in line with sound public finances. At around 1 % of EU GDP and less than 2.5 % of all public spending in the European Union, the EU budget is focused on priorities, and indeed its impact on deficit positions of Member States is minor. A cut of the Commission’s proposal by ‘at least EUR 100 billion’ over the seven-year period, as some Member States are proposing, would have an effect of 0.084 % of the EU GDP on public finances and deficits. This is an amount that certainly does not make or break sound public finances in Europe!

Thus the proposed financial framework for 2014-2020 is an essential piece of a medium- to long-term European growth and competitiveness agenda. The new rules governing EU spending will ensure that smart fiscal consolidation, investment funding and structural fund reforms will go together. The proposed new own resources, including the Financial Transaction Tax, will improve transparency and provide new opportunities for fiscal consolidation and growth. This is the best recipe for growth in Europe.

Can our project be improved? Certainly, and we are very open to listen to proposals. That being said, I am also concerned with some ideas that threaten to unbalance what we have proposed. Take the idea to squeeze all the ‘off-budget items’ into the budget, from ITER to GMES. I fear that this will ultimately lead to further pressure on our margin for growth-oriented investments. I fear that this will endanger the other programmes in the different headings, from competitiveness to cohesion. I can assure you: for all items outside the MFF, the European Parliament will keep its full institutional prerogatives through the normal annual budget procedure. I hope that Parliament’s resolution on the MFF will take this into account.

We are now approaching the phase when the big strategic questions will be considered. While figures matter, we first need a serious look at design, modernisation and simplification, as well as the added value of the budget. In this, the Commission shares plenty of common ground with Parliament, which will adopt a resolution tomorrow. We will continue to press for Parliament’s early involvement in the negotiations, as the outcome will have major implications for the Union’s ability to generate growth, to demonstrate solidarity and to deliver on its common Europe 2020 objectives. I know that these will not be easy negotiations, but we are defending – and will continue to defend – our proposals very robustly.

At the core of this European Council will also be a discussion on the building blocks for the future of economic and monetary union. As you know, the European Council asked its President, in close cooperation with the President of the Commission, the President of the European Central Bank and the President of the Euro Group, to prepare a report that should propose a way forward. This report will be the start, not the end, of a process – a process that will be vital for anchoring our current efforts to ensure stability and growth in the longer term and a process in which the European Parliament should be involved from the early stages.

Let me be clear: Member States must pursue the deep structural reforms that are indispensible for Europe’s competitiveness and growth immediately. The longer term vision should not be seen as a substitute for those reforms, and national leaders must leave no doubt about this. But without confidence in the irreversibility of economic and monetary union, our prospects are limited. Therefore, we need a clear and credible commitment to a vision for the deepening of the union, combined with a process which maps out the main steps towards this goal. The process should generate a progressive dynamic. It would start with steps that could and should be taken immediately, leading to medium and longer term steps which might require treaty changes. Greater solidarity and greater responsibility must go hand in hand. Each step towards further solidarity would be accompanied by a corresponding step towards greater responsibility, and vice-versa.

Such a commitment will send a clear signal that the Member States and the EU institutions consider economic and monetary union and the euro as indispensable assets for Europe’s future. The main building blocks include moving towards a banking union and a fiscal union. The timing and nature of the process will vary for each building block. Some elements will require a higher degree of political integration with, in parallel, measures to ensure increased accountability and democratic legitimacy. To this end, the whole process must have the Community method as its guiding principle to ensure ever greater coherence both on principles and on methods and instruments.

Here, a fundamental point needs to be made. The Commission believes that it is essential to pursue this process as far as possible with all Member States. We advocate further integration within the euro area. It is now evident that this is indispensible for the sustainability of our common currency, and we are happy to see that also outside the euro area, in Europe and outside Europe, there is now a consensus that we need further integration in the euro area. But under no circumstances must this be seen as an alternative to the integrity of the single market, or indeed the integrity of the Union as a whole. It must be seen as a mutually reinforcing process. Our economic relations bind us all: euro area members and non-euro members alike, our futures are linked.

This is why the treaties are clear – and I have to say this because the Commission is the guardian of the treaties – there is only one Union; there is only one European Parliament; there is only one European Commission. This is so because fragmentation is not an option. Financial stability and economic prosperity through economic and monetary union, and within it through the euro as common currency, are common goals – for those who are already in the common currency as much as for those who are preparing to join it.

We must recognise that some countries do have opt-outs. These opt-outs must be taken into appropriate account in the future architecture. But they remain the exception, not the rule. Those who wish to advance must be able to do so. But enhanced cooperation or properly circumscribed derogations can allow for this without creating a risk to the integrity of the European Union.

Let me now briefly sketch out the main building blocks. Financial integration is one area where major progress could quickly be made, even without treaty changes. Thus, the creation of a banking union appears as a natural priority. I see two major steps. First, we should accelerate the adoption of proposals already on the table. That means adopting the Commission’s proposal for a single rulebook – the capital requirements rules – and beyond that, the proposals we have made concerning deposit guarantees and bank resolution, including provisions to introduce solidarity via obligatory mutual lending between national funds.

Second, by autumn, the Commission could be ready to come forward with key proposals to introduce more integrated banking supervision and common deposit guarantee and resolution funds.

The full benefits from deepening the economic and monetary union and from creating the banking union can, however, only be reaped with the development of the fiscal union. Here, the immediate step is building on the effective coordination of fiscal and economic policies through the European Semester, including through the swift adoption of the ‘two-pack’ proposals.

Going beyond that, three further steps can be identified. First, we should further refine our financial backstops – the EFSM, the EFSF and its successor, the ESM – to strengthen our potential to intervene in support of financial stability.

Second, we need a serious discussion about the joint issuance and mutualisation of national debt in the form of stability bonds. This includes agreement on their pre-conditions, namely much more joint decision-making in all economic and budgetary matters. We will not achieve stability bonds without a greater degree of integration. In its Green Paper of November 2011, the Commission made public its ideas on how the euro area can move technically towards joint issuance of debt. A roadmap and a timetable will need to be worked out that also takes into account the need to build the necessary political and democratic momentum.

Third, other options for a deeper fiscal integration also need to be explored. Fiscal union is much more than just stability bonds. For instance, it also means more coordination in taxation policy and a much stronger European approach to budgetary matters, both at national and EU level. I have already discussed the EU budget in the context of the MFF. In the longer term, stronger solidarity mechanisms could play an even more important role.

I have already referred to the need to link the development of fiscal union with the development of political union. A deeper economic and monetary union requires deeper accountability and legitimacy. Making the technical proposals is, ironically, the easier part. But if the technical proposals are made without proper support throughout the European Union, we risk a backlash. Decisions of historic dimension need to be prepared, and the citizens need to be involved in the debate. We must work together to ensure this and we can only ensure it if the Community method remains at the heart of our move forward. I am convinced that this House, directly elected by the citizens, must and will play a crucial role in this respect: the European Parliament is the basis of European democracy.

This is one of the reasons why I deeply deplore the recent orientation taken in Council on our Schengen proposals and the European Parliament’s involvement in the relevant legislation.

(Applause)

This is the wrong signal to send at the wrong time on a core area of European construction in terms of freedom of movement. We need more, not less, parliamentary democracy in our union.

(Applause)

Allow me to finish by saying a very brief word on the G20 meeting next week. The EU representatives will be able to report on how Europe is meeting its difficulties with determination. We are not complacent about our difficulties, we will be open about them, but at the same time I hope that we will be proud to say what we are determined to achieve. For instance, the proposal we put forward last week on a common framework for banking crisis management and resolution makes Europe the first jurisdiction in the world to be delivering on all the G20 commitments to strengthen the regulation and supervision of the banking sector.

We can expect others in the world to point the finger at the European Union and the euro area as the source of all the world’s problems, including their own. It is always easier to talk about the problems of others in order to distract attention away from one’s own problems. But in the end, we all have challenges. Ultimately, these are common challenges. We need to address them together, also on the global scale.

Europe’s contribution must be far-reaching reforms. We need reforms in Europe. Europe’s contribution must also be a big step for an ever closer, ever stronger Union of stability and growth. I believe we have the right case to make and I thank you for your attention.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Joseph Daul, au nom du groupe PPE. – Messieurs les Présidents, chers collègues, il est temps que les États membres s'attaquent aux vrais problèmes et aient le courage de répondre aux vraies questions. Il est temps que le Conseil européen tranche, enfin, les 28 et 29 juin, dans le vif plutôt que de se contenter de dispositifs de secours aussitôt dépassés par les événements.

Ces vraies questions se résument, en réalité, pour le groupe du Parti populaire européen à une seule: sommes-nous prêts à faire le saut politique nécessaire pour faire fonctionner l'Union européenne et la zone euro? C'était un mot qu'on ne pouvait pas encore prononcer il y a deux ans.

Sommes-nous à la fois assez lucides et assez courageux politiquement pour défendre et organiser une souveraineté politique partagée, ou bien allons-nous, comme nous le faisons depuis maintenant deux ans, de Conseil de crise en Conseil de crise, nous laisser imposer nos lois, nos politiques, nos choix de société par les marchés financiers et les établissements bancaires?

(Applaudissements)

Nous devons prendre nos responsabilités une fois pour toutes. C'est l'Union européenne avec un modèle social et fiscal que nous voulons. Nous devons l'afficher. C'est un moment difficile et, dans les moments de crise, nous avançons et ne reculons pas.

Nous devons affronter la réalité et cesser de nous bercer d'illusions. La réalité, c'est qu'aucun pays d'Europe ne peut, à lui seul, faire face aux défis globaux, qu'ils soient économiques, sociaux, démographiques, militaires ou politiques. Nous le voyons tous les jours. Chaque État dit: "Je n'ai pas besoin de l'Europe, je n'ai pas besoin de l'Europe", et le lendemain, il appelle au secours.

Là aussi, la réalité c'est que, au cours des soixante dernières années, nous avons obtenu la paix et la prospérité et cela a été possible grâce à une méthode, la méthode communautaire, Messieurs les membres du Conseil. Je crois profondément en cette méthode, tout comme je suis convaincu que l'Europe est la solution et non le problème.

Alors, chers amis, les 28 et 29 juin, au-delà des questions aussi importantes que la gouvernance économique, la crédibilité de l'euro, les perspectives financières, mon groupe demande d'abord et avant tout aux États membres de faire un choix, un choix majeur qui déterminera le reste: voulez-vous assurer un avenir aux Européens et vous consacrer à l'essentiel, à savoir une intégration politique forte à travers la méthode communautaire?

Ou préférez-vous continuer à faire semblant d'être souverains sur le plan économique mais en constatant, au lendemain de chaque sommet, de chaque réunion des ministres des finances, que les décisions prises sont insuffisantes, trop tardives et qu'on va dans le mur? Préférez-vous, comme vous l'avez fait le 7 juin sur Schengen, vous replier sur vos frontières, sur vos arrangements intergouvernementaux?

Si vous vous prononcez pour la première option, le Parlement européen sera heureux de travailler avec vous à des solutions durables aux problèmes de nos concitoyens. Mais si le Conseil européen persiste à ne pas vouloir s'entendre sur l'essentiel, nous ne verrons pas de sitôt le bout du tunnel.

Voilà mes demandes à l'adresse du Conseil. J'en adresserai une autre: que le Président du Parlement puisse enfin débattre avec les chefs d'État et de gouvernement sur tous les sujets qui engagent l'avenir des Européens. Le Président de la Commission a sa place au Conseil, tout comme le président de la Banque centrale. Le Président démocratiquement élu ne vaut-il pas autant que le président de la Banque centrale?

(Applaudissements)

Il représente les 500 millions d'Européens. Celui qui préside la seule institution élue au suffrage universel, celui qui dirige l'institution qui légifère avec le Conseil est prié de quitter la salle après sa présentation. Quelle démocratie, quelle transparence avons-nous vis-à-vis de l'extérieur? Aucune intégration européenne ne peut être réalisée sans la légitimité démocratique qu'incarne le Parlement européen.

Je terminerai, mon cher José Manuel, en disant – je sais que tu répètes beaucoup les choses, nous, ici, on les répète aussi – qu'il faut continuer les recommandations. Il faut mettre encore de nouvelles propositions sur la table, sur l'union fiscale et sociale, et il ne faut pas avoir peur de les publier. Vas-y, tu as le Parlement avec toi. Nous sommes la force de proposition et le Conseil a besoin de nous dans la situation de crise difficile où il se trouve. Il a besoin de trouver des solutions et nous devons les mettre sur la table, encore plus que ce que nous avons fait jusqu'à présent. Tu peux compter sur nous.

Je demande aussi que tu ailles encore plus loin, en publiant tous les trois mois un tableau actualisé des mesures économiques et sociales sur le marché intérieur, prises par chacun de nos gouvernements de droite comme de gauche. Les Européens doivent savoir quel État fait des efforts pour assainir ses finances publiques, favoriser la croissance et les emplois et qu'il ne fait pas que d'en parler.

Toutes ces propositions, mon cher ami, il faut les continuer. Nous allons sortir l'Europe de la crise par le haut. Chers collègues, c'est ce que souhaite le groupe du Parti populaire européen: l'honnêteté à l'égard de nos concitoyens et surtout beaucoup de courage politique.

(Applaudissements)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE). - Herr Präsident, ich will nur sagen: Wenn eine Wahl jemanden befreit hat, dann die Niederlage von Sarkozy, die hat Joseph Daul befreit.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Joseph Daul (PPE). - Je crois que j'ai toujours eu ma liberté de langage et je l'ai gardée toute ma vie. C'est la seule chose que j'ai héritée de mon père, qui me disait: "Prends garde de ne jamais être otage". Et quand j'ai été otage, cela n'a jamais duré plus de deux jours. Je te rassure Dany.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hannes Swoboda, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich würde mir wünschen, dass alle, die dem Kollegen Daul heute applaudiert haben, dann auch beim Twopack den Beweis liefern, dass das, was Kollege Daul gesagt hat, auch die Meinung z. B. der EVP ist und dass man wirklich jene Lösungen findet, um aus der Krise herauszukommen. Kollege Daul, am Nachmittag werden wir dann sehen, wie ernst der Applaus gemeint war. Aber unseren Applaus können Sie dafür haben!

(Beifall)

Herr Präsident der Kommission, Sie haben uns ein interinstitutionelles Abkommen angeboten. Meine Fraktion ist bereit dazu. Aber ein Abkommen hat nur Sinn, wenn es Substanz hat. Wenn es sich dadurch erschöpft, dass wir sagen „Ja, wir brauchen jetzt die Vollendung des Binnenmarkts und sparen, und das wird alles Wachstum bringen“, was ja bisher auch bei den Regierungen noch immer die Mehrheitsmeinung ist, dann macht ein solches Abkommen keinen Sinn. Das Abkommen macht auch nur Sinn, wenn wir bereits bei dem Gipfel, der vor uns steht, wirklich konkrete Maßnahmen treffen. Denn soll ich den vielen Millionen von jugendlichen Arbeitslosen sagen, „Ihr habt keinen Job, aber ihr bekommt ein interinstitutionelles Abkommen!“? Das wird sie nicht sehr begeistern.

Ich will das nicht lächerlich machen, was Sie gesagt haben, ich nehme das ernst. Ich will nur darauf aufmerksam machen, was wir wirklich brauchen. Wir brauchen rasche Entscheidungen, rasche Entscheidungen in den nächsten Tagen! Wir haben ein Verschuldungsproblem, die Schulden sind im Wachsen und nicht im Sinken begriffen, weil unsere Regierungschefs noch nicht begriffen haben, worum es geht, und nicht den Mut haben, das, was Sie vorgeschlagen haben und was wir vorgeschlagen haben, anzupacken, dass wir gemeinsam das Schuldenproblem lösen.

Plötzlich redet man von einer Bankenunion. Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, erinnert Euch doch: Vor zwei Jahren haben wir das vorgeschlagen. Die Kommission war in dieser Richtung, und die Regierungsleute und die Finanzminister haben gesagt: „Nein, nein, nein, das ist viel zu viel!“, und „Diese europäische Überwachung der Banken muss reduziert werden. Wir brauchen viel mehr nationale Regelungen.“ Zwei Jahre Bedenkzeit brauchen die Regierungschefs! Die Regierungschefs brauchen heute zwei Jahre, um auf die richtigen Ideen zu kommen! Dasselbe betrifft auch andere Dinge, die Sie erwähnt haben, Herr Kommissionspräsident. Das ist die Situation heute.

Vor Kurzem haben wir eine große Konferenz mit Jugendlichen aus ganz Europa gehabt, nicht parteigebunden. Da waren sehr viele junge Menschen dabei, die haben etwas gemacht und nicht nur geschimpft, dass nichts geschieht. Sie haben ein kleines Unternehmen gegründet, sie haben Startups aufgebaut. Aber sie haben gesagt: „Und wo ist jetzt die Nachfrage, wo kann ich mein Produkt absetzen? Wer sorgt jetzt dafür, dass es Wachstum gibt? Wer investiert in die Infrastruktur?“

Daher sage ich: Ja, wir können über ein Abkommen reden, sehr ernsthaft. Aber jetzt müssen wir handeln. Ich kann wieder einmal nur den „Economist“ zitieren. Sie werden das sehen und kennen: Das Schiff ist in tiefem Wasser und die Frage besteht – der Frage kann ich mich nur anschließen:

Please can we start the engine now, Mrs Merkel?’ Yes, we have to start the engine now and not in one or two years, when it is too late.

Lassen Sie mich auch einige Worte zum Budget sagen. Das Budget ist ja ein Element der Wachstumsstrategie. Wenn jetzt viele sagen: Wachstum ja, aber Budget nein, oder wir reduzieren das Budget, wie unsinnig ist das! Denn gerade das Budget enthält in seinen vielen Elementen viel mehr als nationale Budgets, Aspekte einer Wachstumsstrategie.

Um jemanden zu zitieren, der kein Sozialist ist, sondern ein Parteikollege von Herrn Lewandowski, nämlich den Finanzminister von Polen, der in einem Gespräch zu mir gesagt hat: Da reden alle davon, dass wir jetzt mehr in Forschung und Entwicklung investieren müssen und nicht so viel in Infrastruktur und Kohäsionsfonds. Wir brauchen aber auch Mittel zum Wachstum. Wir brauchen doch auch Möglichkeiten, in all den Regionen, die nach wie vor wirtschaftlich sehr schlecht dastehen, zu investieren.

(Beifall)

Darum macht es keinen Sinn, einfach dieses Budget zu kürzen, sondern wir müssen es effizienter und sinnvoll gestalten. Aber wenn wir über mehr Wettbewerbsfähigkeit reden, wenn wir sagen, wir müssen etwas unternehmen, um uns auch global wettbewerbsfähig zu machen, dann dürfen wir das Budget nicht kürzen – das ohnedies ein geringes Budget ist, aber ein Element dieser Strategie, und auf dieses Element dürfen wir absolut nicht verzichten. Daher müssen wir gemeinsam diesen Weg gehen.

Ich begrüße es ausdrücklich – auch wenn Sie kritisiert worden sind, Herr Präsident Barroso –, dass Sie beim Gipfel der Kohäsionsländer in Bukarest waren. Die Erklärung hätte etwas stärker sein können, denn auf der einen Seite gibt es die, die nur kürzen wollen und die immer mehr kürzen wollen, und auf der anderen Seite Erklärungen. Aber es war eine gute Initiative, die gesetzt worden ist. Denn wir dürfen nicht nur auf die hören, die immer sagen, wir müssen die Mittel kürzen. Wir müssen auch auf die hören, die diese Mittel verwenden.

Überhaupt: Diese Unterscheidung Nettozahler und Nettoempfänger, als ob das eine die Guten, das andere die Armen sind, die Almosen empfangen. Die Nettoempfänger empfangen keine Almosen, sie bekommen einen guten Anteil dafür, dass sie ihre Wirtschaft steigern. Und wenn ich aus einem Nettozahlerland komme, aus Österreich, dann weiß ich genau, dass auch mein Land viel davon profitiert, dass in Ungarn, Rumänien, Polen und in vielen anderen Ländern auch die EU finanziert. Also hören wir auf mit dieser Trennung der guten Nettozahler und der schlechten Nettoempfänger.

(Beifall)

Zum Abschluss, Herr Präsident: Wir haben dem Rat gestern mit wenigen Ausnahmen in großer Einmütigkeit gesagt: So geht es nicht, wie bei Schengen entschieden worden ist. Ich hoffe, wir behalten diese Einmütigkeit in der Budgetfrage, dass wir dem Rat, aber vor allen denen, die nur blind kürzen wollen, klar sagen: So geht das nicht. Und wenn wir keine Einigung finden – ich bin dankbar für Ihre Worte, Herr Wammen –, dann gehen wir halt auf das Budget 2013 und schreiben es fort. Wir können damit leben. Ich hoffe, der Rat kann auch damit leben.

(Beifall)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Guy Verhofstadt, au nom du groupe ALDE. – Monsieur le Président, je pense que Joseph Daul a piqué mon texte parce que je n'ai plus grand-chose à dire maintenant, après son intervention. Non, vraiment, pour la première fois je n'ai presque rien à ajouter ...

(Exclamation de M. Daul : "On va fusionner les groupes")

Je ne sais pas s'il faut fusionner, on va vous plutôt vous reprendre le PPE, cela me paraît une bonne idée.

Let us be clear, the Council has just agreed on a bail-out of EUR 100 billion for the Spanish banks, and what is the consequence? Let us face it, because it is alarming: it is that the markets do not believe us. On Monday, yesterday, the spreads had gone up dramatically to more than 500 basic points, even nearly 600 basic points for Spain; nearly 500 basic points also for Italy. We have to ask what is happening. Are they mad or are we mad? Are we seeing things properly?

Well, I think we all know the answer in this House – maybe not the ECR and maybe not UKIP, but I think that everybody else can see that unless we find a structural and a global solution to the crisis we will simply continue fire-fighting as we are doing now. Because that is what we are doing, fire-fighting, and fighting one fire after the other. Greece first, then Ireland, then Portugal, then Spain, and tomorrow, you may be sure, Italy. Not setting up a systemic answer, a structural solution to the crisis and not building a real firewall that can resist.

What do we need? We know we need. Three things: a banking union with a deposit guarantee scheme, with a single supervisor – what this Parliament already asked for two years ago and was refused by the Council. This deposit guarantee scheme is a proposal on the table and yet the Council is not even able to agree on a common position on that proposal.

The second thing we know also: a fiscal union including a redemption fund – the one we will vote on today in the ‘two-pack’, so there is no need for an initiative from the Council or the Commission about that. They simply need to respond to the legislative proposal of the Parliament in the coming days and weeks.

Finally we know what we really need, which is a political union with a real economic government. So my plea to you, Mr Barroso, is to say that speeches here, speeches in the Council and recommendations from the Commission are all very well, but what we need now are legislative proposals from your side put directly on the table of the Council and Parliament on a banking union, on a fiscal union and on a political union.

There is no need to wait for an agreement between France and Germany and Italy and Spain. You have the right of initiative; you can make things happen and move forward. Put your proposals on the table on a redemption fund, and put your proposals on the table for a real banking union. Do it now, in the next weeks, because I am not sure that on 28 and 29 June our leaders in the Council will agree on a banking union and can agree on a redemption fund.

Finally, on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) and own resources, I regret one thing, which is that neither the Council nor the Commission have said one word, one phrase, on something that is the most crucial element of this multiannual financial framework which is, finally, to come back to the initial idea of the founding fathers and to make a direct link between the citizens and the European Union. There is no real democracy in Europe if you only have a parliament with no say in the resources of its institutions. In every parliament, in every country, in every democratic country in the world, the parliament has a direct say on the resources of the country, on the resources of the state. So that is what we need most now in these discussions and in this debate, and I can tell you that there will be no consent from our group to the multiannual financial framework if there are no own resources in this multiannual financial framework.

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

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Roger Helmer (EFD), blue-card question. –Mr Verhofstadt, you say that we must not keep muddling through, that we need a systemic, comprehensive, universal solution to the problems which we face. I agree. You are absolutely right. But surely it is time to recognise that the euro has failed, that the European Union has failed and that the solution is to start to dismantle both. Why is it you call for more Europe, when you are surrounded by the ruin of Europe. Why are you trying to reinforce failure?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE), blue-card answer. – I am more of the opinion of David Cameron. Two or three days ago he said something like: ‘Oh, the eurozone needs to solve its problems. We need a real union and real union of the eurozone. We need an economic union in the eurozone; we need a fiscal union in the eurozone; we need a political union in the eurozone!’ That is what David Cameron said. He is now the best of federalists – outside the eurozone, naturally! He stays outside, but he has a message to give us.

What is Barack Obama saying? ‘Oh, the Europeans have to solve their problems. They have to create a union.’ The problem is not Europe in this crisis, the problem is that there is not enough Europe – that is the real problem of the crisis today.

(Applause)

We shall only overcome that problem if we finally regain the courage to use the words and the message of Monnet and of Schuman, who worked for a real federal Europe. ‘Federal Europe’ is not a buzzword, Federal Europe is the solution.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, dans ce débat où tout le monde parle de l'Europe politique, de la souveraineté européenne, je veux revenir sur la définition de la souveraineté. Il n'y aura une souveraineté politique que s'il y a une souveraineté budgétaire de l'Europe, sinon cela ne fonctionnera pas. Je voudrais faire une petite démonstration sur le problème que nous avons maintenant, qui est très pratique. Guy Verhofstadt a raison: nous n'arriverons à la souveraineté budgétaire que si nous arrivons vraiment à obtenir des ressources propres pour l'Europe.

Qu'est-ce que cela veut dire? Cela veut simplement dire qu'aujourd'hui les États, y compris le gouvernement français, disent: "La contribution nationale, nous ne pouvons plus l'augmenter". Très bien! Acceptons la situation! C'est à eux de décider.

Mais si, comme l'a proposé la Commission, comme c'est discuté, nous avons une taxe sur les transactions financières, une taxe carbone européenne, une taxe sur la téléphonie mobile, ces trois possibilités – et je pourrais vous en donner d'autres – donneraient un paquet de 40 à 50 milliards de plus pour le budget européen.

C'est à partir de là que la discussion est devenue complètement absurde aujourd'hui, car on nous dit: "D'accord, si vous avez des ressources propres, nous redonnerons toutes ces ressources aux États", et cela dans la fameuse proposition même de la Commission "deux tiers/un tiers" sur la taxe sur les transactions financières. Autrement dit, on donne un tiers directement aux États et les deux tiers qui vont à l'Union européenne sont une somme que l'on retranche des contributions nationales.

Donc on redonne 100 % aux États. Il n'y a pas de ressource propre. C'est une ressource détournée pour les États et non pas une ressource pour l'Union européenne. Ce n'est pas comme cela qu'on peut avancer. De plus, le Conseil nous dit ensuite: "Et vous allez baisser encore le budget européen".

Chers collègues, ce débat n'est pas abstrait. C'est la base même de ce qu'on appelle la souveraineté politique de l'Europe. Si nous acceptons que les ressources propres soient des ressources pour les États et non pas des ressources pour le budget européen, où allons-nous? Nous n'avons pas à accepter ce genre de marchandage, nous n'avons pas à dire oui.

La seule possibilité pour que l'Europe puisse investir pour créer de l'emploi et soutenir les fonds de cohésion, c'est une augmentation du budget européen. Acceptons que les contributions nationales ne puissent pas la financer. Mais les ressources propres sont le moyen d'augmenter le budget européen pour justement soutenir les déficits des économies des États membres. Ce n'est pas pour le Parlement européen que nous voulons les ressources propres, c'est pour les citoyens européens.

C'est pour cela que je crois que la bagarre que l'on va engager maintenant, qui sera une bagarre sur la question "Est-ce qu'on accepte en fait que le budget reste au niveau où il est?", est une erreur. Nous devons dire que s'il n'y a pas une réelle augmentation du budget européen qui fasse que les ressources propres deviennent des ressources pour le budget et pas simplement un retour aux États, si nous n'avons pas cette force, cette capacité, alors malgré tous nos discours sur la souveraineté européenne, sur la nécessité de plus d'Europe, nous n'arriverons pas à réaliser les politiques nécessaires.

C'est notre légitimité, c'est notre crédibilité en tant qu'Européens qu'il s'agit de défendre. C'est pour cela que, s'agissant des perspectives financières, il faut dire au Conseil, il faut dire aux États: "Ne croyez pas que cette fois le Parlement va se coucher. Vous verrez que vous n'aurez pas de perspectives financières si vous ne bougez pas d'une manière conséquente. Sinon, restez chez vous! Vous dépensez trop d'argent avec vos sommets et cela ne sert à rien".

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, Europe is facing yet another in its long line of crises, only this time, in my view, it is fast becoming a crisis of the legitimacy of the EU itself.

Many of us warned that a monetary union with a light touch, which was envisaged in the Maastricht Treaty, could not work and, for a single currency to succeed, significant centralisation of power would be required – a centralisation which for many of us was totally unacceptable. That is where the EU finds itself today. It is bringing more centralisation upon itself in what is an increasingly desperate attempt to get ahead of the crisis, which so far it has completely failed to do.

When the markets are unimpressed, when the Spanish banks are lent EUR 100 billion, then there is a clear signal that the failure is continuing. This latest Spanish bailout lasted barely 24 hours before it was, as Mr Verhofstadt said, being questioned on the markets. If I can use a somewhat crude analogy, it is a little bit like wetting your pants at the North Pole. At first it feels warm and comforting but very quickly you realise just how much trouble you are in fact in.

Let me make two points. First, it would be unacceptable that the measures it is proposed we take should fall upon those who proposed originally to steer clear of this risky venture and, second, those countries who signed up to join a single currency with one set of governing rules should not now be obliged to join a single currency with a completely different set of governing rules. So those countries that are not yet in the euro should be released from their obligation to join.

Over the last 20 years, the EU has become ever more out of touch with public opinion, and that has shown in many recent elections and referendums. The people of Europe are becoming increasingly worried about centralisation, and about the remoteness of those who are gaining more power in the EU by the day. In no area is this seen more starkly than the management of the EU budget. The Commission talks about synergies, about investments, about added value, and the public just sees waste, mismanagement and fraud.

An even bigger budget is being requested. The public just wonders why it is that for 17 years in succession the budget has been implemented with significantly high levels of illegal or irregular payments. People here are complaining that the concept of value for money is somehow getting in the way of European solidarity. The public just wonders how on earth one can justify wanting even more money when the money already being spent is spent so badly.

To win back public legitimacy and regain trust the EU needs to take reform seriously, it needs to respond to the needs of the people and not impose ideas upon them. Make no mistake, when we are facing so many different crises on so many fronts, we are very fast running out of time.

(Applause from the ECR Group)

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

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Der Präsident. − Bevor ich das Wort weitergebe, habe ich eine sehr erfreuliche Mitteilung: Herr Kommissar Lewandowski hat heute Geburtstag. Ich möchte ihm herzlich dazu gratulieren.

(Beifall)

Herr Lewandowski, ein schöneres Geschenk zum Geburtstag als diese Debatte kann man sich doch nun wirklich nicht wünschen!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Graham Watson (ALDE), blue-card question. – Mr President, Mr Callanan is among those who urge the European Union to get its act together. But does he not accept that if the European Union is going to be a success as a monetary union – without the UK, as seems to be the case – then it will need to do things which will have an impact on the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is illogical to call for the European Union to sort out the problems which it faces and yet to say that it may do nothing that will in anyway impinge upon the single market.

Does Mr Callanan not accept that if the European Union is to do this it will need an adequate budget to do so?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Martin Callanan (ECR), blue-card answer. –I accept that, for a single currency to work, there has to be a whole series of different measures. There have to be significant fiscal transfers from the richer states to the poorer states.

It is fine for me to say that as somebody who is quite happily outside the single currency. If I were a German taxpayer, I might have one or two concerns about it.

As for this issue of the budget – that somehow a euro spent at European level somehow magically appears from this magical money tree without any impact on national budgets – I just say one thing. It is surely illogical for the Commission – for Mr Lewandowski and Mr Barroso – to be saying to Member States: ‘you have to impose austerity, you have to reduce your budget, you have to get your fiscal balances under control – oh, but by the way, we want more of your cash taken to a European level to spend on your behalf because we know how to spend it better than you do.’

Member States are not sitting there with large piles of cash. They are all running fiscal deficits. What the Commission is saying to them is: ‘We want you to add to your fiscal deficit in order to give us more money because somehow our spending lots of money at a European level will solve the crisis.’ Frankly, only a Liberal Democrat could believe that would be the solution to the crisis.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, another one bites the dust. Country No 4, Spain, gets bailed out, and we all of course know that it will not be the last.

However, I wondered over the weekend whether perhaps I was missing something, because the Spanish Prime Minister Mr Rajoy said that this bail-out shows what a success the eurozone has been. I thought, well, having listened to him over the previous couple of weeks telling us there would not be a bail-out, I have the feeling, after all his twists and turns, that he is just about the most incompetent leader in the whole of Europe – and that is saying something because there is pretty stiff competition! Indeed every single prediction of yours, Mr Barroso, has been wrong, and dear old Herman Van Rompuy, well, he has done a runner has he not? The last time he was here he told us we had turned the corner and, that the euro crisis was over; he has not bothered to come back and see us since.

I remember being here 10 years ago and listening to the launch of the Lisbon Agenda. We were told that with the euro, by 2010, we would have full employment and, indeed, that Europe would be the competitive and dynamic powerhouse of the world. By any objective criteria, the euro has failed and, in fact, there is a looming impending disaster.

This deal makes things worse, not better. EUR 100 billion is being put up for the Spanish banking system and 20 % of that money has to come from Italy. Under the deal the Italians have to lend to the Spanish banks at 3 %, but to get that money they have to borrow on the markets at 7 %. It is genius, is it not! It really is brilliant.

So what we are doing with this package is actually driving countries like Italy towards needing to be bailed out themselves. In addition to that, we have put a further 10 % on Spanish national debt and I will tell you – and any banking analyst will tell you – that EUR 100 billion will not solve the Spanish problem; it would need to be more like EUR 400 billion.

With Greece teetering on the edge of euro withdrawal, the real elephant in the room is that once Greece leaves, the European Central Bank, is bust. It is gone. It has EUR 444 billion worth of exposure to the bailed-out countries and to rectify that there will need to be a cash call on Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Italy! You could not make it up, could you? It is total and utter failure. This ship – the Euro Titanic – has now hit the iceberg and, sadly, there simply are not enough lifeboats.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gabriele Zimmer, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Meine Herren Präsidenten, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich teile nicht die Untergangsszenarien, die uns jetzt eben hier vorexerziert worden sind. Aber ich möchte schon deutlich sagen, dass eine Fiskalunion, die auf dem Twopack beruht, aus meiner Sicht die vorweggenommene Bankrotterklärung der alten europäischen Idee ist. Wir laufen als Parlament den Ereignissen wieder einmal hinterher. Das ist meine Sorge.

Wir werden Ende Juni einen Gipfel haben, der wird vorbereitet, der wird stattfinden, es werden die Familienfotos geschossen, und es wird so getan, als würde alles mit einigen wenigen Änderungen so weiterlaufen wie bisher. Dabei sind wir doch aber mittendrin in den Veränderungen! Uns werden immer noch die alten Ammenmärchen von der schönen alten EU erzählt. Nur scheinbar – und darauf möchte ich vor allem hinweisen – widersprechen sich die Initiativen, die auf eine Installierung supranationaler Strukturpolitiken hinauslaufen und auf die sich im Zuge der Krise verstärkende Renationalisierung von Politiken. Das sind zwei Seiten der gleichen Medaille, nämlich die Fiskal- und Bankenunion zur Fortsetzung der EU als ein neoliberales Projekt auf einer neuen Stufe. Und das geht eben einher – und zwar auf beiden Seiten – mit einem massiven Sozialabbau, einschneidenden Kürzungen der öffentlichen Ausgaben und auch verschärften Sanktionsmechanismen. Es liegt in der Logik dieser Denkweise, dass dabei die Parlamente und vor allem das Europaparlament an die Seite gedrückt werden.

Deshalb unterstütze ich sehr die Proteste gegen die Herauslösung, die Renationalisierung von Elementen aus dem Schengener Abkommen. Deshalb bin ich sehr dafür, dass wir uns als Parlament ganz deutlich zum mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen äußern und uns nicht an die Seite drücken lassen. Die Gemeinschaftsmethode darf nicht abgelöst werden durch die Unionsmethode. Das kann nicht sein. Wir sind als Institutionen aufeinander angewiesen, und welche Institution auch immer versucht, die andere klein zu machen, wird dazu beitragen, dass diese Idee der Europäischen Union kaputt geht. Darauf möchte ich hinweisen, mit Blick auf den mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen.

Es gehört doch auch dazu, dass wir darüber reden, dass die ursprünglich gewollte EU-Förderpolitik inzwischen umgedeutet wird. Fonds, die eigentlich dem Abbau der Diskrepanzen zwischen den Mitgliedstaaten, den Regionen dienen sollten, werden jetzt benutzt, um eine EU der mehreren Geschwindigkeiten – man kann ja gar nicht mehr nur von zwei Geschwindigkeiten reden – zu schaffen und um die Standortkonkurrenz zwischen den Regionen selbst innerhalb der Europäischen Union zu verschärfen. Wer schwach ist, soll schwach bleiben. Die Fonds gehen dorthin, wo Stärken für globale Konkurrenzfähigkeit auszubauen sind und Marktnähe gesucht wird. Deshalb sollen die makroökonomischen Konditionalitäten eingeführt werden und Fördermittel für Regionen gestrichen werden, wenn die Mitgliedstaaten die Kriterien des Stabilitäts- und Wachstumspakts nicht einhalten. Es ist absurd und grausam, wenn Sie Menschen, die in diesen Regionen leben, gleich mehrfach bestrafen. Sie wissen ganz genau, wovon ich in diesem Sinne rede.

Stattdessen brauchen wir ein nachhaltiges Wachstum, das auf die Stärkung des Öffentlichen und auch auf die öffentliche Verantwortung setzt. Deshalb meine ich, Sie setzen falsche Prioritäten und falsche Bedingungen. Das erschwert den Diskurs um ein anderes Europa. Weshalb erpressen Sie die Wählerinnen und Wähler in Griechenland? Weshalb diffamieren Sie all jene ernsthaften Initiativen und Alternativen, die nicht nur von links kommen, sondern auch von Wissenschaftlern aus mehreren europäischen Ländern, die sagen, wir brauchen die Öffnung eines Fensters, das es uns erlaubt, Zeit zu gewinnen, und das es uns erlaubt, die beiden dringenden Anliegen des griechischen Volkes miteinander zu verbinden: Sie wollen im Euro bleiben, aber sie wollen auch Bedingungen haben, die ihnen das Überleben und Leben ermöglichen. Und dafür müssen wir uns als Europäisches Parlament auch stark machen!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Lucas Hartong (NI). - Voorzitter, vandaag bespreken we de EU-meerjarenbegroting na 2013. De EU wil meer geld gaan uitgeven, maar het is er gewoonweg niet. De EU wil eigen inkomsten - lees belastingen. Voor het geval u het heeft gemist: er is een crisis gaande die onze burgers zwaar treft.

Laat dus glashelder zijn: de PPV is tegen eigen EU-middelen en eist, met andere lidstaten, een drastische verlaging van de EU-meerjarenbegroting met ten minste 100 miljard. Wie verder nadenkt, komt tot de conclusie dat de democratie niet híer gewaarborgd wordt, maar thuis in de lidstaten, waar dat hoort. Gelukkig heeft elk van de lidstaten veto bij het al dan niet goedkeuren van de meerjarenbegroting.

Als het aan christen-democraten, socialisten en liberalen ligt, dan slaapt iedereen lekker verder, terwijl het belang van de Nederlandse soevereiniteit wordt verkwanseld. Wij geloven echter nog wél in de natiestaat, die bepaalt of en hoeveel geld er wordt uitgegeven buiten de nationale grenzen.

(Spreker is bereid een "blauwe kaart"-vraag te beantwoorden (artikel 149, lid 8, van het Reglement))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  László Surján (PPE), blue-card question. – I should like to ask Mr Hartong whether he has read the Lisbon Treaty, under which own resources are not a wish, but an obligation.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Lucas Hartong (NI), "blauwe kaart"-antwoord. – Collega, bedankt voor deze vraag. Het antwoord is dan ook heel eenvoudig. De Nederlandse bevolking heeft met een overgrote meerderheid het Verdrag van Lissabon destijds afgekeurd. Wij wilden dat niet, willen dat nog steeds niet en accepteren dat ook niet. Helaas is de huidige actualiteit dat hier in Europa wordt beslist over de hoofden van de Nederlandse burgers heen, en dat willen wij niet langer.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Der Präsident. − Herr Kollege Hartong, bedauerlicherweise muss ich Sie darauf hinweisen, dass die Niederländer die Verfassung abgelehnt haben. Den Lissabon-Vertrag haben sie ratifiziert. Vielleicht schauen Sie noch einmal nach.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Herbert Reul (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Vor ungefähr einem Jahr hat das Parlament hier in großer Einigkeit die Sixpacks beschlossen. Da waren wir weit vorn mit hoher Gemeinsamkeit. Wir waren uns einig, dass Voraussetzung für die Lösung der Probleme eine energische, realistische Sparsamkeit ist. Wir sind jetzt auf dem Weg, Twopacks zu verabschieden. Und jetzt in diesen Tagen klappt das plötzlich nicht mehr mit der Gemeinsamkeit. Der Kompromiss im Ausschuss für Wirtschaft und Währung ist gescheitert, weil einige Fraktionen da plötzlich nicht mehr mitmachen. Plötzlich gelten hier Töne wie „Wir müssen nur mehr Geld ausgeben und alle Probleme sind gelöst.“ Dabei weiß jeder, dass das Unsinn ist. Woher soll das Geld denn eigentlich kommen? Es wird doch auch Grenzen der Zumutbarkeit geben für andere Teile der Bürgerschaft in Europa, denen man eben auch nur begrenzt mehr Ausgaben zumuten kann. Oder gilt das, was Kollege Cohn-Bendit gesagt hat: Dann müssen wir eben Steuern erheben, dann müssen wir sehen, dass die Bürger wieder zur Kasse gebeten werden. Die alte Antwort, die alte Leier, die nie gezogen hat!

Nein, nein, wir müssen schon den mühsamen Weg gehen! Den mühsamen Weg, der da heißt: Sparen und sehen, wo wir das Geld, das wir haben – wir haben doch in Europa noch Geld –, klug und richtig einsetzen! Werden die Mittel, die wir haben, eigentlich an den Stellen eingesetzt und mit der Wirkung, die wir uns davon versprechen? Wo sind eigentlich die Berichte darüber, die Kontrollen, die Überlegungen, ob das, was wir tun, das Richtige ist? Qualifizierung, richtiges Geldausgeben, Anreize setzen, Vertrauen schaffen, Langfristigkeit!

Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, Wachstum kann man doch nicht kaufen, das ist doch irre! Wachstum muss man sich erarbeiten! Für Wachstum muss man Voraussetzungen schaffen, dass Menschen dieses Wachstum organisieren, und man muss aufpassen, dass man nicht auf den falschen Weg kommt!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ivailo Kalfin (S&D). - Mr President, it makes absolutely no sense to talk about growth if we do not create the instruments for growth. The European Union budget is one of the strongest instruments for providing growth in Europe.

This is not like the national budgets. This is not just another tax burden for the citizens. The EU budget is not just another item of expenditure in national budgets. It is small but it is efficient. It creates economies of scale, it creates economies of scope and it can direct investments at European level at very targeted goals.

The EU budget is currently 44 times less than national budgets in Europe. It costs every European citizen a coffee per day. That is the cost of Europe to European citizens. At the same time, it has decreased over the last 20 years by 20 % in relative terms, whereas national budgets have increased in recent years. In 2011, 23 out of 27 countries increased their national budgets. In 2012, 24 out of 27 countries increased their national budgets. So I would argue that, if anything, Europe is becoming weaker because the EU budget is becoming weaker and national budgets are becoming stronger. This is what has happened in recent years.

The European Union budget goes back to the Member States. Ninety-four percent of the EU budget goes back to the Member States. For example, I have met a Polish Minister who said that for every one euro invested in cohesion policy, nearly 70 cents go back to the old Member States, to the contributors. From the investments made in cohesion between 2000 and 2006, we have 0.7 % growth in Europe and that might reach 4 % later on. So when we speak about the EU budget, this is not a budget which is spent badly.

By the way, Mr Callanan, the European Court of Auditors said that the UK is one of the examples with the highest error rate in spending EU money. This is not a reason to decrease the EU budget. You have to fix the systems in the United Kingdom. When we speak about own resources, this means that we have to decrease national contributions. That would help the consolidation of the national budgets so we would very much insist on what …

(The President cut off the speaker)

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

 
  
MPphoto
 

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), blue-card question. – I do not see how you can possibly say that the EU budget is efficient, when the EU budget is a byword for corruption, waste and fraud.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ivailo Kalfin (S&D), blue-card answer. – I have already mentioned that the Court of Auditors says that the error rate – or the fraud, in other words – occurs in several countries, including the UK. However, this is not the fault of the EU budget, it is the fault of the national systems.

And if that is indeed the image of the EU budget in the UK, then it is a pity.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE). - Hr. formand! Jeg vil som medlem af Parlamentets forhandlingsdelegation for den mellemfristede budgetramme gerne starte med at takke det danske formandskab og europaminister Nicolai Wammen og hans team for et godt, åbent og tillidsfuldt samarbejde. I har lyttet til os, og vi har fået at vide, hvad der var på vej.

Det er en stor pakke. Det drejer sig jo ikke kun om den økonomiske ramme, men også om op mod 60 forskellige lovforslag, der fastlægger den fremtidige landbrugspolitik, reglerne for strukturfonde, for forskningsprogrammer, uddannelsesprogrammer, for transportinvesteringer og investeringer i energi. Det er således et kæmpe kompleks, der skal vedtages nu, og jeg synes, at I har håndteret det godt.

Det er sagt mange gange i dag, at budgettet er vigtigt som instrument til at sikre vækst og job, og det er vigtigt, at vi har denne flerårige ramme, så man kan planlægge investeringer og skabe tryghed omkring den fælles landbrugspolitik. Men, men: 2020, som er det år, rammen rækker frem til, er langt væk, og der skal være fleksibilitet, for der kan ske nye ting inden år 2020. Vi trænger til fleksibilitet både i form af reserver og i form af at kunne flytte rundt på midlerne, hvis vi vil prioritere anderledes i fremtiden.

Lad mig nævne som et eksempel, at et halvt år efter, at man sidste gang vedtog sådan en budgetramme, lukkede russerne for gassen til Bulgarien, hvorefter man fandt ud af, at vi måtte have en EU-energipolitik. Der var imidlertid ingen penge til at understøtte sådan en energipolitik. Vi fandt en løsning ved at finde uforbrugte midler på landbrugsbudgettet, men det er ikke sikkert, at vi kan det i fremtiden. Der er altså behov for fleksibilitet, også i fremtiden.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE). - Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Präsidenten! Wir müssen drei Dinge leisten in der Europäischen Union: unsere Haushalte konsolidieren, Strukturreformen einleiten und ganz gezielte Wachstumsimpulse setzen – aus psychologischen Gründen, um den Menschen, den europäischen Bürgern, neue Hoffnung zu geben, aber auch, um unsere gemeinsamen Probleme zu überwinden.

Herr Wammen hat seine Rede heute Morgen damit angefangen, dass er gesagt hat: „Wir brauchen Wachstum, und wir brauchen Arbeitsplätze.“ Ja, und gleichzeitig gehört Dänemark zu dem Club der Nettozahlerländer, die den europäischen Haushalt kürzen wollen. Wie dumm, wie kurzsichtig, wie wenig europäisch! Der MFR ist wirklich eines dieser Wachstumsinstrumente, die wir dringend brauchen. Wir müssen unsere gemeinsamen Ziele durchsetzen: Steuern eintreiben, und zwar die Finanztransaktionssteuer, weil sie ein gerechtes Instrument ist. Wir müssen das jetzt endlich durchsetzen!

Es ist eine Frage der Gerechtigkeit, dass die Banken sich an der Finanzierung der Krise endlich mitbeteiligen müssen. Das kann nicht einfach nur Aufgabe der Steuerzahler sein, die Krise darf nicht auf sie abgewälzt. Was für ein guter Vorschlag von Kommissar Lewandowski, endlich zu begreifen, dass man jetzt mit der Finanztransaktionssteuer vorankommen muss! Man muss sie zu zwei Dritteln als Eigenmittel für den europäischen Haushalt nutzen. Die Mitgliedstaaten haben einen Vorteil davon: Sie müssen weniger Geld an den europäischen Haushalt überweisen, und trotzdem haben sie noch einen Anreiz. Sie sparen dann nämlich eigene Mittel, und wir können unsere grenzüberschreitenden Politiken gemeinsam finanzieren.

Darum möchte ich nochmals dafür werben: Das ist kein linksradikaler Vorschlag, Frau Merkel! Herr Lewandowski gehört zu Ihrer eigenen Parteienfamilie, und – was so wichtig ist – wir können diesen Vorschlag 2012 schon umsetzen. Wir hätten, wenn alle mitmachen würden, schon im Jahr 2014 über 47 Milliarden Euro zusätzliche Einnahmen.

Meine Damen und Herren, liebe Frau Merkel, liebe andere Ratschefs! Wie kann man so dumm sein, nicht verstehen zu wollen, dass der europäische Haushalt das demokratische Element ist, um mit Beteiligung des Europäischen Parlaments diese Wachstumsimpulse für Europa zu leisten. Wir sollten gemeinsam den Mut aufbringen, zwischen dem Parlament hier und dem Rat endlich diese vernünftige Politik zu machen!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jan Zahradil (ECR). - Pane předsedající, je to opravdu smutný pocit sedět v orgánu, jehož většina ztratila smysl pro realitu tak moc, jako se to přihodilo Evropskému parlamentu. A navíc si ta většina ještě myslí, že stále reprezentuje evropské občany. To, co tady říká pan Verhofstadt, to, co tady říká pan Cohn-Bendit, to nejsou naneštěstí žádné osamělé výkřiky, toto přesvědčení zřejmě sdílí většina Evropského parlamentu. Tady se skutečně většina domnívá, že je možné vybudovat nějaký jednotný centralizovaný federální státní útvar místo Evropské unie. A požadavky na zavedení vlastních zdrojů evropského rozpočtu, ty bohužel patří do argumentační výbavy tohoto federalistického proudu. Vlastní zdroje evropského rozpočtu samozřejmě umožní Evropskému parlamentu a Evropské komisi rozpočet nafukovat. Oslabí spojení mezi členskými státy, tedy základními kameny evropské integrace, a evropskou úrovní. A umožní Evropské komisi a Evropskému parlamentu členské státy dále obcházet. Právě proto je tento princip nepřijatelný. Já doufám, že Evropská rada a ty vlády, které ještě nepozbyly zdravý rozum, řeknou tomuto plánu jasné a rázné ne.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marta Andreasen (EFD). - Mr President, an astronomical amount of taxpayers’ money has been given to Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain by the EU since 2010: EUR 285 billion. You heard me correctly – EUR 285 billion!

What has happened to this money? The EU’s failure to keep tabs on funding means that nobody can know for sure. Now, more money is wanted to waste on promoting deeper European integration.

The Lisbon Agenda was a disaster. Can anyone here say that Europe is the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world? Only if they are an ostrich.

Now the EU wants to pour billions more into the 2020 plan. The new own resources being proposed, namely the financial transaction tax, mean that this money will be even more unaccountable. This House, in approving this framework, is voting for a continuation of the last ten wasteful years. I shudder at that thought.

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

 
  
  

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΣΤΑΜΚΟΣ
Αντιπρόεδρος

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ana Gomes (S&D), blue-card question. – Mr President, does Mrs Andreasen accept that she is totally wrong when she says that money has been given to Portugal, Greece, Ireland and the other countries bailed out. This money has not been given; this money has been lent. Even Mr Klaus Regling, the Head of the European Stabilisation Fund, has been saying that this money has been gaining interest for the countries which are lending, and outrageous interest!

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marta Andreasen (EFD), blue-card answer. – Mr President, Mrs Gomes is wrong. She is talking about something different. The EUR 285 billion is the EU budget that was paid into these Member States. This money is not to be returned and it does not earn any interest.

Mrs Gomes, you are confused. I am not talking about the bailout. I am talking about the EU budget that was supposed to grow the economies of the countries concerned and did not grow those economies.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου (GUE/NGL). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, οικονομική ένωση μπορεί να υπάρξει μόνον εάν οι πολίτες της Ευρώπης, ανεξάρτητα από το από ποια χώρα προέρχονται, αισθάνονται ότι το κράτος τους μετέχει ισότιμα σε αυτή την ένωση. Ισότιμη συμμετοχή σημαίνει δίκαιη ανακατανομή του ευρωπαϊκού εθνικού εισοδήματος. Ισότιμη συμμετοχή σημαίνει ότι ο Γερμανός πολίτης και ο Μαλτέζος πολίτης συμμετέχουν ισότιμα στην εκλογή των πολιτειακών αρχόντων της Ένωσης.

Για τα χρέη των κρατών: εάν αυτά τα χρέη έχουν δημιουργηθεί γιατί το σύστημα παρήγαγε χρέη σε ένα κράτος, την ώρα που για τους ίδιους λόγους παρήγαγε κέρδη για ένα άλλο κράτος, δεν υπάρχει άλλη λύση από τη διαγραφή αυτών των χρεών. Και επιτέλους η Ευρωπαϊκή Κεντρική Τράπεζα να δανείζει κράτη και όχι τράπεζες! Οι ανάγκες και οι στόχοι της Ένωσης δεν είναι δυνατόν να αντιμετωπιστούν με οικονομίες που αποψιλώνουν την ευημερία των πολιτών.

Για τον τρόπο χρηματοδότησης της Ένωσης: οι διαδοχικές ρυθμίσεις του συστήματος έχουν ευνοήσει τις πλέον εύπορες χώρες μέλη, γιατί ορισμένες τέτοιες χώρες των οποίων η συνεισφορά στα έσοδα του κοινοτικού προϋπολογισμού φαίνεται ότι κυμαίνεται σε ποσοστά άνω του 10% στην πραγματικότητα καταβάλλουν ποσοστό μικρότερο του 1% του κατ’ κεφαλήν ακαθάριστου εθνικού τους εισοδήματος. Ένα σύστημα χρηματοδότησης του προϋπολογισμού βασισμένο στους παραδοσιακούς ίδιους πόρους σε συνδυασμό με την κατάργηση των διαρθρώσεων και εκπτώσεων εκτιμάται ως το πλέον σύμφορο, καθώς προσεγγίζει τις αρχές της δικαιοσύνης και της αλληλεγγύης.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). - Herr Präsident! Die Stimmung ist bei unzähligen Proeuropäern wie mir die eines verängstigten Entsetzens über das, was sich derzeit in Europa ereignet. Es ist immerhin erfreulich, dass jetzt viel klarer ausgesprochen wird, womit wir es zu tun haben, und dass auch vor Italien die Augen nicht verschlossen werden.

Sie wissen selbst, dass Sie in einer Reihe von Fallen stecken, nicht nur in der der Schulden und des Wachstums, sondern auch in der des Vertrauens und in der Machtfalle, geschätzte Kommission – und das ist auch an den Rat adressiert. Sie haben es bisher leider verabsäumt, tatsächlich die zentrale Frage der Entfernung der Finanzwirtschaft von der Realwirtschaft anzugehen. Alles, was wir hier beschlossen haben, wird in Expertenmeinungen immer wieder bilanziert als „weiterhin ist dem Schattenbankwesen keine ernsthafte Grenze gesetzt, weiterhin haben wir es mit systemischen Risiken zu tun, weiterhin ist die Frage des too big to fail nicht entsprechend adressiert“, und über die Ratingagenturen braucht man kaum ein Wort zu verlieren.

Ich kann Sie, wenn Sie jetzt auf den Ratsgipfel hinarbeiten, nur dazu auffordern und Ihnen raten, in Europa wieder dahingehend Glaubwürdigkeit herzustellen, dass Sie ernsthaft diese Machtfrage zwischen der Real- und der Finanzwirtschaft stellen. Auf den Punkt gebracht heißt das, dass Sie endlich glaubwürdig vor den Europäerinnen und Europäern daran arbeiten, dass die Banken in die Schranken gewiesen werden und nicht immer die Bürger die Lasten zu tragen haben.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alain Lamassoure (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, je voudrais d'abord saluer l'excellente coopération entre la délégation du Parlement et la Présidence danoise sur le cadre budgétaire et j'en remercie personnellement le ministre Wammen.

La négociation du prochain cadre va commencer sans que l'Europe soit sortie de la crise de la dette. Contrairement à ce qu'on pense dans certaines capitales, le budget européen n'est pas un problème de plus mais, au contraire, il contient une partie des solutions.

Car que demande-t-on partout? La discipline budgétaire? Vive le budget européen! C'est le seul au monde à avoir toujours respecté la règle d'or et, depuis dix ans, il a moins augmenté que tous les budgets nationaux.

On demande d'alléger les contributions nationales? Vive la taxe sur les transactions financières qu'il faut affecter au budget européen pour soulager d'autant les budgets nationaux!

On cherche désespérément des investissements d'avenir? Vive le budget européen! Il nous permet d'atteindre la masse critique sur des recherches scientifiques, sur des réseaux, sur des sources d'énergie renouvelables qu'aucun pays n'atteindrait seul. Un euro bien dépensé à Bruxelles permet d'économiser plusieurs euros au niveau national.

Enfin, dans certaines capitales, on demande même une étape supplémentaire de l'Europe politique. Vive le budget européen! La crédibilité des professions de foi européennes, qu'on entend ici et là, sera mesurée à la position que prendront les uns et les autres sur le financement des politiques de l'Union.

 
  
  

PRESIDE: ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vicepresidente

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Göran Färm (S&D). - Mr President, the economic crisis is one of the reasons why a broad majority in this Parliament defends the EU budget. We are convinced that the budget is necessary to finance strategic investments in the internal market and its infrastructure, crucially needed in order to boost jobs, sustainable growth and competitiveness. I therefore very much welcome the broad agreement on my report on project bonds.

In this situation we must avoid deep splits between institutions and Member States, particularly between richer net payer countries and the poorer ones. In this situation we must build bridges, not dig trenches.

Let me focus on the negotiations on the financial framework. They are complicated, as several different procedures are involved. Codecision on sector programmes, consent on the MFF as such – meaning a veto for the European Parliament – a right for Parliament to be heard on own resources, and on top of that an interinstitutional agreement.

This is not easy, so let us speak clearly. This Parliament, elected to represent the citizens, will not accept that Member States’ leaders take decisions in areas subject to codecision such as Structural Funds, research, agricultural infrastructure, etc., without a full codecision procedure. That procedure can be finalised only when we have an agreement on the financial envelopes.

Two, the positions on the MFF agreed by the European Council must be negotiated between Parliament and the General Affairs Council in order to get our consent. A fait accompli will not be accepted.

Three, Parliament and Council should have fully-fledged negotiations on all MFF-related aspects and programmes before deciding on figures and finalising the MFF package.

To conclude, I agree with Mr Wammen: nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but that includes MFF ceilings and legislative programmes as well as own resources. I am quite convinced that we will be able to find a reasonable solution as we know how important this is for the future of Europe. We simply cannot afford to fail.

(Applause)

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

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Kollege Färm, Sie kommen aus einem Land, das den Euro abgelehnt hat, doch wohl mit der zentralen Begründung, dass man sich die Flexibilität der Abwertung gerade auch aus sozialpolitischen Instrumentsgründen erhalten will. Im Lichte der Erfahrungen, die Sie jetzt in Schweden gemacht haben, würden Sie da den Griechen empfehlen, ebenfalls die Eurozone zu verlassen, um genau dieses sozialpolitische Instrument von Abwertungen entsprechend aktiv betätigen zu können?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Göran Färm (S&D), blue-card answer. – No I would not, because I do not think that it is the euro that is the problem. It is the lack of policies to support the monetary union that is the problem. When we have those policies in place I would recommend my own country to join the euro as well.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Carl Haglund (ALDE). - Mr President, I want to congratulate the Danish Presidency for good progress with the negotiations.

There are many positive elements in the Presidency’s negotiating box. Let me note the fact that it has included ITER and Galileo and so forth in the MFF ceilings. This is a good idea and I am also happy about the proposals concerning RALs. Personally I am also happy that the Presidency is critically scrutinising the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund. My colleagues here might not all agree with me on this, but personally I think it is a good choice.

Allow me also to underline what my colleague Göran Färm said, namely that the Danish Presidency should not proceed with some of the programmes which are under codecision without properly involving Parliament. This is something that worries a lot of us, and it is something that could cause serious problems in the negotiations.

Finally, concerning own resources, speaking for the Liberal Group – and I am its coordinator in the Committee on Budgets – we have some key things we need to be included in order to vote in favour of this, and own resources is one of them. I hope this will be noted.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE). - Monsieur le Président, ce débat sur le cadre financier pluriannuel 2014-2020 est un débat politique fondamental par lequel l'Europe, qui connaît la crise, fait le choix politique de se projeter dans l'avenir.

Pour nous, quatre priorités sont fixées. Premièrement, la mise en place de la taxe sur les transactions financières. Depuis de nombreuses années, notre groupe défend l'instauration de cette taxe aux effets régulateurs sur les mécanismes financiers spéculatifs qui sont en grande partie responsables de la crise actuelle. Cette taxe apportera des ressources nouvelles sans pénaliser ni les équilibres économiques, ni les équilibres sociaux.

Deuxième priorité permise par la création de cette taxe: des ressources propres conséquentes pour l'Union européenne en substitution des contributions des États membres. Ce sera un bond en avant pour les institutions européennes, qui ne seront plus l'otage de tel ou tel pays contributeur net. L'UE pourra engager ses propres ressources en toute liberté.

Troisième priorité: assurer un budget suffisant au minimum au niveau de la délibération de notre Parlement sur le rapport de sa commission SURE. La création de la taxe sur les transactions financières aurait dû nous permettre d'aller plus loin. Mais à tout le moins, nous devons éviter tout retour en arrière. Moins de budget, ce serait moins d'Europe, alors que c'est plus d'Europe qu'il nous faut aujourd'hui.

Enfin, quatrième priorité: mieux concentrer nos moyens budgétaires sur un objectif central, celui de mener à bien la conversion écologique de l'Europe pour son agriculture, pour son industrie, pour ses transports, pour son efficacité énergétique, et tant d'autres domaines. Face à la crise, l'Union européenne a le devoir d'aller de l'avant.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Richard Ashworth (ECR). - Mr President, we all accept that jobs and growth are the most urgent priority for the European Union, and this multiannual financial framework, if it is used as an investment budget, presents us with a valuable opportunity to make a vital contribution to resolving the European financial crisis. So we do welcome investment in research and development in the single market and in cross-border infrastructure.

But there are three points which I have to make. First, the budget must be able to demonstrate real added value. Too many of the traditional spends in past budgets clearly have not, and we must understand that quantity of spend is no substitute for quality. Second, it must be fair: we are open to suggestions on new own resources, but I have to say that a financial transaction tax would not be acceptable, nor indeed would the abolition of rebates. Finally, this House would be mistaken to assume that we could increase the size of the budget at a time when all the rest of Europe is facing austerity, financial disciplines and hard times.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mario Borghezio (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il dibattito mi sembra svolgersi su un terreno non proprio. Il dibattito non è fra più Europa o meno Europa. L'attualità ci impone di pensare a un'Europa completamente diversa: partecipata, solidale, regionale.

Un secolo fa, un certo Luigi Sturzo, esule in Inghilterra, scrivendo sui giornali inglesi mostrava più modernità di pensiero di quella che esprime quest'Aula, che rifiuta di considerare i problemi dell'Europa dal punto di vista dei territori e delle regioni, e cioè di quel mondo produttivo laborioso che è il mondo dei nostri popoli, che è la realtà dei nostri popoli.

Porto in quest'occasione l'appello della gente del triangolo industriale produttivo agricolo Mantova-Ferrara-Modena, in cui un grande evento sismico ha ridotto in estrema difficoltà uno dei centri produttivi più importanti del sistema produttivo europeo. Eppure, al di là di qualche visita pur importante, di cui devo dare atto, del Vicepresidente Tajani e di Barroso, questioni concrete non ci sono. Non c'è un intervento centrale, basato sul territorio e che risponda alle aspettative di queste popolazioni. Quest'Europa pensa da Bruxelles come i nostri Stati centralisti!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL). - Señor Presidente, yo deseo fervientemente que en las próximas elecciones el pueblo griego impugne, rectifique, esta orientación económica que nos está llevando literalmente a la ruina.

Se intentaba crear un proyecto —el proyecto europeo— desde la base de la desregulación del mercado y se ha consentido la mayor estafa financiera de nuestra historia, con una moneda única sin tesoro público, con un Banco Central Europeo no emisor. Estamos, por tanto, ante una estafa financiera que hay que investigar. Así lo hemos planteado en el Congreso de los Diputados: una comisión que investigue a los estafadores.

Cien mil millones para rescatarlos, pero para condenar a la ciudadanía a vivir peor, a no tener buenos servicios públicos, a hacerles trabajar más años, a reducirles los salarios y a reducirles las pensiones. Este es el resultado de esta orientación económica que queremos poner en tela de juicio.

No se trata de pagar la deuda soberana en su parte especulativa, no. Los negocios que han hecho los especuladores no se les pueden pagar, y hay que rescatar a los ciudadanos en Europa y al proyecto europeo, y no a los estafadores de la banca.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, paying for growth is not like paying for a product. You might pay your money without receiving what you have paid for. In the present MFF, 44 % of the EU budget is being spent on sustainable growth. That will go up to 48 %. Is it really being spent effectively? Does the EU really know how to spend Member States’ money better than they do?

The EU’s embracing of globalism and neoliberal economics, of open markets and maximised competition will defeat any strategy for growth. As Sir James Goldsmith said a decade ago, the only way the West would compete with the emergent economies in a free market would be by our wage levels equalling theirs.

It is all very well to think our research and development will make our industries more competitive, but innovation spreads by industrial piracy by the Far East and industrial treachery by western-based multinationals. The Commission’s Europe 2020 document waxed lyrical about Europe’s talented workforces, but that presupposed that the present populations of Europe would survive and would not be replaced by immigration.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mario Mauro (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, signor Presidente del Consiglio, nelle piazze e nelle strade d'Europa siamo divisi esattamente come in questo Parlamento, con la differenza che nelle piazze e nelle strade d'Europa coloro che non credono nell'Europa aumentano di giorno in giorno. Ma non aumentano per quanto sono bravi gli euroscettici nella loro propaganda, aumentano per come sono insipienti e mancanti di consapevolezza coloro che nell'Europa dicono di credere.

Io credo che, se il Consiglio del 28 e del 29 giugno mostrerà analoga mancanza di consapevolezza, noi daremo un colpo definitivo alla credibilità di tutti coloro che scommettono sul successo del progetto europeo. Io credo che i dirigenti delle istituzioni europee e i dirigenti dei paesi membri si trovino a un bivio e debbano assumersi un'enorme responsabilità. Noi rischiamo, in pochi giorni, di dissipare un patrimonio di pace e di sviluppo che hanno caratterizzato la nostra storia. L'esito di questo modo di procedere e di intendere la propria responsabilità sarà nel tempo il conflitto tra i nostri paesi. Riterrei opportuno che tutti quanti capissimo che il 28 e il 29 giugno non sono una data come le altre. È il nostro tempo che sta scadendo e vorrei che questa consapevolezza entrasse nel cuore di ognuno di noi.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Patrizia Toia (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sebbene l'entità del nostro bilancio sia limitata, il bilancio di un anno ammonta a una cifra pari a quella che può essere bruciata in un giorno dai mercati. Il QFP è molto importante ma alla condizione che gli Stati non vedano il bilancio come una fonte di spesa da tagliare come tutta la spesa pubblica, bensì come una risorsa che può aiutare l'economia a crescere, cioè un investimento, non come un costo per i cittadini ma come il modo per produrre risultati tangibili. Le cifre infatti sono programmi, sono progetti, cose da realizzare. No, dunque, a tagli miopi, no a lotte fra paesi, perché la crescita è una chance comune per tutti i cittadini europei.

Il bilancio europeo, inoltre, non va visto come a sé stante ma come complemento dei bilanci nazionali. Occorre un nuovo approccio che rafforzi il legame tra il bilancio europeo e i bilanci nazionali. In qualche modo il nostro è il 28° bilancio degli stessi paesi europei. Solo così si può creare quella massa globale che può sviluppare efficaci politiche. Quello che chiediamo è un approccio più coordinato. Il semestre europeo può servire anche a questo.

Infine, per quanto riguarda il ruolo del Parlamento – lo dico al Consiglio – noi non accetteremo né fatti compiuti né "prendere o lasciare", ma vogliamo un confronto preventivo prima della proposta formale di approvazione. Attraverso di noi si esprimono i cittadini, quei cittadini allarmati per il futuro dell'Europa, e noi vogliamo, in quanto loro rappresentanti, concorrere alle scelte.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sylvie Goulard (ALDE). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, Monsieur le Président en exercice du Conseil, je voulais simplement vous inviter à ne pas être schizophrènes à la fin de ce mois.

Je suis très préoccupée de voir que, quand il s'agit de gouvernance économique, on a maintenant un débat qui est juste, je crois, en vue de savoir comment on peut créer une croissance qui rende la discipline soutenable, durable, qui permette effectivement d'avoir des bilans équilibrés et de réduire la dette.

Quand il s'agit des budgets, alors là, on a l'attitude la moins créative et la plus bornée qui soit, qui consiste à considérer que tout l'argent dépensé au niveau européen serait une mauvais chose, qu'il conviendrait de réduire. On ne se préoccupe pas non plus – comme l'a dit Guy Verhofstadt –, ou pas assez, d'avoir des ressources propres qui permettent à cette Union d'agir, et ce selon des préoccupations qui sont partagées par tous.

C'est un enjeu de démocratie, non seulement en ce qui concerne la procédure mais aussi parce que, à huis clos, quand les États membres ont des droits de veto, les décisions ne sont pas conformes à l'intérêt général.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Lajos Bokros (ECR). - Mr President, the new French President said that we need not only austerity but also growth. That is common sense. Nobody wanted to have just austerity without growth.

On a professional level, however, it is clear that governments have much less direct leverage on growth. Austerity is a direct result of restrictive fiscal policies, but there is no such a thing as a growth policy. Government action can have only a very indirect and stochastic impact on growth.

In a market economy, most productive investments are undertaken by the private sector. It is only the private sector which can create sustainable jobs leading to increased output and tax revenues. The government can only facilitate this process by creating a business-friendly environment and investing in physical and human infrastructure.

Budgets are important tools to support private sector activity. The MFF is considered as such. It can contribute to growth only if it concentrates resources on investments and initiatives to improve competitiveness and productivity. The MFF should envisage more spending on research and development, education and infrastructure, and cut back significantly on current subsidies, including on agriculture.

As I always emphasise, EU budgets are capital budgets and should not pretend to be similar to national budgets. They have to remain small and finance the future.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Angelika Werthmann (NI). - Herr Präsident! Es ist wohl unausgesprochen klar, dass gemäß den EU-Verträgen im neuen MFR 2014-2020 die Frage der Eigenmittel geklärt werden muss. Zum Beispiel ergibt sich durch die Einnahmen aus der Finanztransaktionssteuer für die Mitgliedstaaten die Möglichkeit, ihre Beiträge an den EU-Haushalt um eben diesen Betrag zu reduzieren. Dieses Vorgehen würde den ewigen Disput zwischen Nettozahlern und Nettoempfängern deutlich beruhigen. Es muss auch klar sein, dass das Parlament drei Grundpositionen verteidigt: mehr haushaltspolitischer Spielraum, sprich Flexibilität, die Reform des Eigenmittelsystems und ein stabiler Haushalt, der es ermöglicht, die politischen Ziele der EU zu finanzieren.

Zum Abschluss noch ein Wort an den Rat: Lassen Sie endlich vielen Worten doch bitte Taten folgen! Denken Sie an unsere Bürger. Wir brauchen dringend Investitionen in Bildung und in den Arbeitsmarkt.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Reimer Böge (PPE). - Mr President, I would like to confirm at the very beginning that the cooperation with the Danish Presidency on the multiannual financial framework (MFF) has developed quite well, and I insist that the good experience in this sort of pilot project will finally lead to real negotiations prior to our getting a proposal on the MFF regulation and on a new inter-institutional agreement.

The resolution we will vote on today includes our key messages towards the meeting of the European Council at the end of June. Our basis for negotiations remains the Garriga report from the Temporary Committee on Policy Challenges (SURE). We say very clearly that we need adequate financial resources in the EU budget which are linked to better spending; we insist on the Community method; we say very clearly that we are not ready to agree on expenditure without a proper agreement on future own resources; we insist on the unity of the budget as an iron principle; and, of course, we are asking for sufficient overall flexibility.

Here, despite some positive elements in the negotiation boxes on the unity of the budget – although the details are yet to be negotiated and this must also include the additional means which are outsourced at this stage – we are talking about EUR 24.5 billion – the negotiation box on flexibility is still quite empty, and it has to be filled to come to a good solution. And, of course, we have to follow the rules in the consent procedure and to respect the codecision procedure of the 65 multiannual programmes.

I would like to say as well that the position of the President of the Commission is in some ways understandable, but on the other hand there is a huge risk concerning giving up the Community method and going back to national contributions in special instruments. This is a real danger in the long-term and is working against the Community method.

I would like to say as well that we should not only talk about better spending in the budget. Concerning budget consolidation, it is also important that the Commission stop any proposal for EU legislation which means additional bureaucratic burdens and costs for Member States, for regions and local communities, and the legislator has to do likewise.

Finally, Mr President, I hope that the Commission will support Parliament’s position this time more than it did last time, in 2006.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jutta Haug (S&D). - Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Einigkeit macht stark! So heißt es doch so schön. Also müssten wir hier alle miteinander vor Kraft kaum laufen können, denn die allermeisten hier – Parlament, Rat und Kommission – sind sich doch einig: Europa braucht Wachstum, Europa braucht Arbeitsplätze!

Wie aber setzen wir die Einigkeit in der Analyse um in Aktion? Hier kommt der europäische Haushalt ins Spiel, der gemeinsame Haushalt, der ein investiver Haushalt ohne Konsolidierungszwänge ist, weil er keine Schulden hat. Ein hinreichend ausgestatteter, mit einer innovativen Struktur und der notwendigen Flexibilität versehener europäischer Haushalt ist das gemeinsame Instrument schlechthin, um in Europa bestehende Wachstumspotenziale zu heben, neue Perspektiven zu öffnen, um den globalen Wettlauf um Talente, Technologien und Marktführerschaft zu bestehen! Der gemeinsame europäische Haushalt ist unsere gemeinsame europäische Chance, unser Mehrwert! Das ist doch nicht so schwer zu begreifen, das schafft auch der Rat!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D), sinisen kortin kysymys. – Arvoisa puhemies, kollega Böge sanoitte, että Euroopan tulisi lopettaa kaikki projektit, jotka vaativat lisää rahaa ja lisäävät byrokratiaa. Siihen voi osittain yhtyä, mutta mitä mieltä olette niistä aloitteista, jotka eivät vaadi lisää rahaa eivätkä byrokratiaa? Esimerkiksi Euroopan sosiaalidemokraattinen puolue on esittänyt, että EU-rahastojen käyttämättömistä varoista irrotettaisiin 10 miljardia nuorisotyöttömyyden torjuntaan ja tällä saataisiin lähes kaksi miljoonaa työpaikkaa nuorille, siis käyttämättömistä varoista? Mitä mieltä olette tästä aloitteesta?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Reimer Böge (PPE), blue-card answer. – Mr President, of course we have to make a very clear distinction, I was talking about legislative proposals. I stress also that within the package of the 65 multiannual programmes on cohesion and agriculture policy the Commission did not fulfil the request of its own Secretary-General asking for a reduction in the bureaucratic burden, asking for simplification. If Ministers in the agricultural sector are telling me that there is an additional bureaucratic burden of 15 to 20 %, we have to correct this. We cannot ask for budget consolidation at Member State level and, at the same time, force them to spend more on bureaucracy because we have decided on complicated EU legislation. This is a very important element, in terms of consolidation and progress and legislation.

As far as the question of unspent resources is concerned, I would like to refer back to the Policy Challenges Committee. The question of carry-overs of unspent funds and reprogramming to obtain better spending for SMEs and to combat youth unemployment are very useful elements. We support this.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). - Herr Präsident! Erst mal herzlichen Glückwunsch Ihnen, Herr Lewandowski. Aber nicht Ihnen würde ich heute alles Gute wünschen, sondern Ihrem Namensvetter Robert von Borussia Dortmund, dass er Polen hoffentlich dann doch noch ins Viertelfinale schießt. Das wäre ja wirklich mal etwas Erfreuliches.

Wir haben hier gerade einige Sachen über den Rat und die Zukunft Europas gehört, über die auf diesem Rat entschieden werden soll, über die diskutiert werden soll. Und ich glaube, da ist ganz wichtig, wenn man zuhört, was der Kollege Bokros hier gesagt hat. Bei allem, was wir über den mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen, über den Haushalt diskutieren – entscheidend ist: Wird der Privatsektor wieder investieren, wird der Privatsektor wieder Vertrauen in die europäische Wirtschaft fassen, in die Aussichten? Das ist das Entscheidende. Die öffentlichen Haushalte können bestenfalls Anregungen geben. Das muss man gelegentlich bei den Sozialdemokraten noch erklären. Man kann Wachstum nicht kaufen, man kann Wachstum nur ermöglichen.

Deswegen ist das Entscheidende, dass die Strukturreformen, die der Kommissionspräsident Barroso angesprochen hat, auch kommen müssen. Das zweite wirklich Entscheidende ist der Schuldentilgungspakt, ein klarer, wirksamer, an klare Bedingungen geknüpfter Schuldentilgungspakt, der die Haushalte in den Ländern entlastet, die es zurzeit bei aller Anstrengung – zum Beispiel Italien – einfach nicht schaffen, aus den Zwängen ihrer Refinanzierung herauszukommen. Wir brauchen also einen klaren und wirksamen Schuldentilgungspakt.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, Monsieur le Président en exercice, enfin un Conseil européen sur la croissance et je regrette que, en décembre 2011, lorsque les chefs d'État et de gouvernement ont arrêté le traité sur la stabilité et la gouvernance économique, le président du Conseil européen n'ait pas convoqué un Conseil spécifique à la croissance. Mais enfin, tout arrive!

Je pense d'ailleurs qu'il faudrait que nous fassions un appel solennel à ce que les vingt-cinq États ratifient ce traité sur la stabilité et sur la gouvernance économique, qui est un message de confiance, de solidarité, à la fois vis-à-vis des marchés et vis-à-vis des peuples, et je fais un appel à ce que les forces politiques en France puissent sans délai honorer la signature de la République française.

Alors nous avons parlé de croissance, je crois qu'il faut que nous parlions également de compétitivité. Compétitivité de notre continent: oui, il faut un grand plan d'infrastructure. Ce n'est pas dix ou vingt milliards qu'il nous faut, c'est entre 1 000 et 1 500 milliards d'investissements. Et dans les ressources propres, nous manquons d'imagination. Pourquoi ne pas mettre en place des contributions obligatoires pour le numérique, les réseaux d'énergie, les routes, le ferroviaire, l'eau? Je repropose l'idée d'effectuer un audit sur la dépense publique, de mutualiser les dépenses militaires, diplomatiques et sur la recherche.

Enfin, sur le plan institutionnel, j'ai été heureux que le président Daul reprenne l'idée que le Président du Parlement européen soit invité au Conseil européen. Mais, Monsieur le Président, il faut que le président du Conseil européen, lui, vienne avoir des relations avec notre Parlement. Depuis que la Présidence stable a été instaurée, nous n'avons plus de relations avec les chefs d'État et de gouvernement. C'est ce dialogue politique au plus haut niveau dont nous avons besoin avec les chefs d'État et de gouvernement et avec M. Van Rompuy, qui est trop absent de notre assemblée.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Άννυ Ποδηματά (S&D). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, μιλάμε για την ανάπτυξη στην Ευρώπη αλλά δεν υπάρχει χρόνος για άλλα λόγια και υποσχέσεις. Χρειαζόμαστε επειγόντως αποφάσεις και πράξεις, και μάλιστα ευρωπαϊκές, γιατί δεν θα μπορέσουμε να βγούμε από την κρίση, όπως η ίδια η εξέλιξή της υποδεικνύει, χωρίς ισχυρή, στοχευμένη και συνεκτική ευρωπαϊκή απάντηση.

Ο Πρόεδρος της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής είπε στην παρέμβασή του ότι η Ελλάδα πρέπει να παραμείνει στο ευρώ και πρέπει να τηρήσει τις δεσμεύσεις της. Συμφωνώ απολύτως και απαντώ ότι η Ελλάδα θέλει να μείνει στο ευρώ και θα τηρήσει τις δεσμεύσεις της για εξυγίανση των δημόσιων οικονομικών, για βαθιές διαρθρωτικές αλλαγές στην οικονομία και το κράτος. Αλλά εάν αυτός είναι ο κοινός μας στόχος, για να είμαστε επιτυχείς, πρέπει να απορρίψουμε από κοινού και τις δογματικές προσεγγίσεις που γονατίζουν την οικονομία και την κοινωνία και βεβαίως τις λαϊκιστικές προσεγγίσεις που υπόσχονται ψευδεπίγραφα εύκολες λύσεις και αμφισβητούν την ουσία των κανόνων που διέπουν την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Η Ελλάδα αλλά και ολόκληρη η Ευρώπη πρέπει να απομονώσουμε τον δογματισμό και τον λαϊκισμό, γιατί είναι ο μόνος τρόπος να προχωρήσουμε από κοινού μπροστά.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jean-Luc Dehaene (PPE). - Voorzitter, als lid van het onderhandelingsteam voor het MFK wil ik op mijn beurt het Deense voorzitterschap danken voor de goede samenwerking en dit vertaalt zich onder meer ook in de negotiating box, waar de band tussen de uitgaven en de eigen inkomsten werd behouden, zoals het Parlement het uitdrukkelijk wenste, en dit ook tot een voorwaarde maakt bij de eindoplossing.

Het is ook goed dat die negotiating box nu op de Europese Raad komt, waar groei, maar ook het Europees Semester en dus de budgettaire sanering op het niveau van de lidstaten aan de orde is. Want het voorstel dat ter tafel ligt laat toe, dankzij de eigen middelen, om de bijdragen van de lidstaten te verminderen en dus ruimte te geven in hun eigen begroting en met de eigen middelen voor de Europese Unie aan een groeibegroting, hetgeen essentieel is voor de Europese begroting is.

Het is dus het moment om hier de basisprincipes vast te stellen die én de groei én de budgettaire orthodoxie verzekeren. De begroting kan daar essentieel toe bijdragen. Ik hoop dat de Europese Raad ook het moment zal zijn om naar de euro en de eurozone een structureel signaal af te geven. We hebben inderdaad nood aan een bankunie, aan een politieke unie en wij moeten structurele maatregelen nemen, willen we geloofwaardig zijn.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Catherine Trautmann (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, il faut donner des preuves concrètes à nos concitoyens de notre capacité à résoudre la crise, et d'abord par une croissance par l'investissement.

Pouvez-vous justifier qu'en cette période où l'emploi n'est plus assuré, le FEM censé soutenir les travailleurs licenciés victimes de la mondialisation soit supprimé, alors même que nous devons réinventer une politique industrielle pour l'Europe? La solidarité, la précarité touchent une population nouvelle de jeunes, de salariés au chômage, de femmes, de retraités. Et ceux-là même qui n'ont pas su gérer cette crise choisiraient de supprimer le programme européen d'aide alimentaire? Je vous demande, Monsieur le Président, de le maintenir au-delà de 2013 sans supprimer d'autres programmes essentiels.

Enfin, la cohésion. Les régions ne doivent pas être tenues pour responsables de la mauvaise gestion des États. Nous refusons le renforcement de la conditionnalité macroéconomique car, en période de crise, il faut savoir ajuster les politiques de soutien là où la croissance économique est territoriale, et là où on peut localiser l'emploi. Nous nous mobilisons donc, aux côtés des syndicats et des ONG qui se battent pour la solidarité, ainsi que des régions qui doivent jouer un rôle déterminant dans la vitalité des territoires pour plus de croissance, d'emploi et de justice sociale.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jacek Saryusz-Wolski (PPE). - Mr President, I am not going to speak about competitiveness, growth and fiscal discipline. I want to go beyond economics because on that nearly everything has been said.

I want to speak on the cost of shrinking Europe and the cost of there being a half Europe on the horizon, and on the collateral damage being done to the Union itself and its future and its unity.

Five points. One: we witness the birth of two levels of solidarity for those inside and those outside the eurozone – compare Spain and Hungary – with a shrinking budget for the EU27 and generous handouts for eurozone Member States only. Eventually, proposals for a separate parallel growth budget of up to 1 % of GDP for the eurozone only, which will be equipped with a separate parallel eurozone Parliament along with a eurozone summit and administrative Councils.

Two: we witness two standards of treatment and macro-economic conditionality of Member States, different for big and small countries, and once again different for eurozone Member States and non-eurozone Member States.

Three: we witness a two-speed Europe not just expanding but becoming more and more acknowledged and approved, irrespective of the wishes of President Barroso. This threatens the very integrity and unity of the Union.

Four: we witness the mounting erosion of the Community method with intergovernmentalism and national egoisms resurging.

Five: we witness the political weakening of the EU on the international scene and we risk a security vacuum and geostrategic threats if Greece or anybody else falls out.

How does one measure the collateral political damage? What is the cost of a shrinking Europe and the cost of Europe? How many billion euros is it worth?

How does one find a solution for all of Europe and not half of Europe?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). - Señor Presidente, el pasado fin de semana tuvimos unas noticias diferentes sobre un mismo problema. Una noticia mala: el Gobierno español necesitó solicitar ayuda para rescatar una parte de su sistema financiero. Y una buena: gracias a nuestra pertenencia a la Unión y al euro, España y su sistema financiero pueden disponer de esa ayuda en un futuro inmediato.

Rescate bancario sí, pero que no cause más daños en los derechos sociales y las condiciones de vida de los ciudadanos; rescate bancario sí, pero que sirva para sacar del naufragio a toda una generación de jóvenes; rescate bancario sí, pero con control parlamentario sobre su desarrollo y sus efectos. Pero con esto no resolvemos el problema del crecimiento. Para crecer, necesitamos un presupuesto europeo fuerte, necesitamos un fondo de redención de deuda, necesitamos eurobonos, más implicación del Banco Europeo de Inversiones, más actividad del Banco Central Europeo. En definitiva, más Europa, Tratado fiscal, unión bancaria, Tesoro europeo.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). - Suntem în anul 2012, nu în anul 2005. Procedura de adoptare a bugetului s-a modificat. Toate politicile orizontale se adoptă prin procedura de codecizie. Spun asta în primul rând pentru Preşedinţia daneză, care se pare că nu a citit Tratatul de la Lisabona.

Domnule Preşedinte, aţi spus că aţi avut o colaborare foarte bună cu Parlamentul. Vă rog să probaţi acest lucru şi să retrageţi din propunerea pentru (neinteligibil) de negociere toate elementele care trebuie decise prin codecizie între Parlament şi Consiliu. Cred că eforturile dumneavoastră trebuiau îndreptate către un acord între statele membre privind, în primul rând, resursele proprii şi apoi cuantumul bugetului, nu către elemente care vor fi decise prin codecizie.

Discutăm despre creştere economică şi locuri de muncă într-o perioadă de criză. Bugetul european constituie unul dintre mijloacele care pot contribui la această creştere. 95% din bugetul european este dirijat către investiţii şi creează creştere economică şi locuri de muncă, în toate statele membre, contributoare şi beneficiare. Viitorul buget trebuie să se ridice cel puţin la nivelul actual şi să fie direcţionat către creştere economică şi locuri de muncă. Acest lucru se poate face doar prin politicile orizontale.

Cred că Parlamentul trebuie să preia iniţiativa şi să înceapă negocierile cu Consiliul pe toate politicile, pentru a pune pe masa Consiliului European o propunere concretă, care să cuprindă chiar şi cifrele, propunerile financiare.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Constanze Angela Krehl (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Wir reden heute Morgen sehr viel über gezieltes Wachstum in der Europäischen Union. Die Kohäsionspolitik ist ein europäisches Investitionsprogramm, das wir für Wachstum zur Verfügung haben. Deswegen brauchen wir in dem zukünftigen Budget mindestens genauso viel Geld, wie wir es bisher zur Verfügung haben. Die friends of cohesion sind nicht gegen better spending des Geldes. Ich bin mir aber nicht sicher, ob im Rat die Freunde des better spending wirklich eine gute Kohäsionspolitik wollen, die wir aber brauchen, um aus der Krise herauszukommen.

Einen zweiten Punkt möchte ich ansprechen: In der negotiation box, die auch schon des Öfteren hier besprochen worden ist, sind im Bereich der Kohäsionspolitik im Grunde genommen 90 % aller Punkte im Mitentscheidungsverfahren mit dem Europäischen Parlament. Bitte akzeptieren Sie, dass das Parlament diesmal erstmalig in allen Bereichen der Kohäsionspolitik im Mitentscheidungsverfahren steht. Wir sind Mitte Juli fertig mit den Verhandlungen im Ausschuss. Dann haben wir ein Mandat und können verhandeln. Ich hoffe, dass der Rat dazu dann auch bereit ist.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jaime Mayor Oreja (PPE). - Señor Presidente, la gravedad de la situación, sin duda, hace que el próximo Consejo Europeo, que se celebrará los días 28 y 29, deba ser percibido por los europeos de un modo diferente, como un punto de arranque en el esfuerzo de una nueva arquitectura de la Unión Europea. Por eso, no solamente puede ser el enunciado frío de una serie de medidas y de iniciativas que la gente no entiende, sino que hay que saber encontrar en este Consejo los símbolos suficientes, los signos inequívocos, de que se abre una nueva etapa en la Unión Europea.

Es preciso que se determine la existencia de un proyecto, de un calendario, de unas prioridades y, sobre todo, de un plan en el que tan importantes sean las medidas a corto plazo como las medidas a medio y largo plazo.

Todos conocemos los ámbitos de actuación en esta materia. El Presidente del Gobierno español, Mariano Rajoy, acaba de enviar al Presidente del Consejo y al Presidente de la Comisión un plan de actuación en cinco medidas. Pero, por eso, en lo que queremos poner el acento es en la necesidad de una nueva arquitectura europea que sea capaz de terminar con la inestabilidad y las turbulencias que en estos momentos vivimos.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Glenis Willmott (S&D). - Mr President, in this time of deep economic crisis we need to use every opportunity to change direction.

The MFF gives us the chance to completely reassess how the EU spends its money and how we prioritise spending for creating jobs and growth. We need a balanced strategy, not one relying entirely on austerity, because it is clear to us all that this approach is just not working. Our challenge, though, is not just to find more money, but to use what we have more efficiently and more effectively, focusing on job creation to ensure that we tackle the huge problem of unemployment throughout the EU.

Let us take the chance to shape our approach and seize this opportunity not just to protect the status quo, but to ensure we do whatever is needed to give hope to our citizens, particularly our young people, who sadly have very few prospects in sight.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Γεώργιος Παπαστάμκος (PPE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η Ένωση βρίσκεται αντιμέτωπη με κρίσιμες προκλήσεις: οικονομική, δημογραφική, κοινωνική, περιβαλλοντική. Τα κράτη μέλη δέχονται πρωτοφανείς εξωτερικές μεταναστευτικές πιέσεις. Η θέση της Ένωσης στο πλαίσιο της παγκόσμιας οικονομίας δοκιμάζεται. Λύση είναι η περισσότερη Ευρώπη, δηλαδή η ενδυνάμωση του Κοινού: των κοινών ευρωπαϊκών πολιτικών, με προφανή ευρωπαϊκή προστιθέμενη αξία. Προβάλλουν ως επιτακτική ανάγκη η ευρωπαϊκή οικονομική διακυβέρνηση, η οικονομική και κοινωνική ένωση. Το πολυετές δημοσιονομικό πλαίσιο οφείλει να αποτελέσει το ισχυρό και αποτελεσματικό εργαλείο για την ανάκαμψη της ευρωπαϊκής οικονομίας, τη βιώσιμη ανάπτυξη, τη δημιουργία θέσεων εργασίας, την τόνωση των επενδύσεων, την προώθηση της έρευνας και της καινοτομίας, την επίτευξη της οικονομικής, κοινωνικής και εδαφικής συνοχής. Απαιτείται αλληλουχία μεταξύ των στόχων και των ευρωπαϊκών χρηματοδοτικών μέσων, πλαισίωση της στρατηγικής "Ευρώπη 2020" με ένα ισχυρό πολυετές δημοσιονομικό πλαίσιο. Επί παραδείγματι, η περαιτέρω συμβολή του γεωργικού τομέα στην παραγωγή δημοσίων αγαθών υπέρ των πολιτών της Ένωσης προϋποθέτει έναν ισχυρό προϋπολογισμό για την ΚΑΠ. Φιλόδοξοι στόχοι απαιτούν τα αναγκαία χρηματοδοτικά μέσα.

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

 
  
MPphoto
 

  László Surján (PPE), kékkártyás kérdés. – Tisztelt Papastamkos úr! Tele van a sajtó, és itt, a vitában is állandóan elhangzott, hogy Görögország milyen komoly támogatást kapott az Európai Uniótól. Mi történt ezzel a támogatással? Hogy sikerült fölhasználni eddig? Hogy állunk? Van-e értelme további pénzeket önteni egy-egy bajba jutott országba?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Γεώργιος Παπαστάμκος (PPE), απάντηση “γαλάζια κάρτα”. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, αληθές είναι ότι η Ελλάδα δεν έκανε χρήση των διαθέσιμων ευρωπαϊκών πόρων. Αυτό είναι μια θλιβερή πραγματικότητα για τη χώρα μου. Η Ελλάδα χρειάζεται ένα συνολικό προγραμματικό σχέδιο αναπτυξιακής φυγής προς τα εμπρός. Χρειάζεται ρηξικέλευθες τομές θεσμικού, οργανωτικού και διαρθρωτικού χαρακτήρα. Χρειάζεται ένα φιλόδοξο, ρεαλιστικό και δημοκρατικό σχέδιο ανασυγκρότησης της χώρας χωρίς αμφιταλαντεύσεις, στηριζόμενο στη μέγιστη δυνατή κοινωνική και πολιτική συμφωνία. Η Ελλάδα έχει ανάγκη πάνω από όλα από πολιτική ηγετική κατεύθυνση και από αποφασιστική δράση, η οποία έλλειψε από το ελληνικό σύστημα διακυβέρνησης. Αυτό είναι το πρόταγμα των εκλογών της 17ης Ιουνίου· Ένα ισχυρό, ευρωπαϊκό, μεταρρυθμιστικό μέτωπο.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). - Mr President, I am also among those who hope that the Council, at the end of June, will make a decision on an ambitious and very bold action on growth for Europe. Our duty in Parliament is to see that this new multiannual budget invests in new sources of growth, but also in restarting the EU-wide competitiveness machinery and relaunching convergence forces.

There is a lot of catching up to do in Europe, because the EU machinery for convergence in the areas of the economy, trade and finance has clearly slowed down. This is dangerous, because divergence can become a force for break-up. Without a doubt, the EU budget must focus strongly on genuine investment policies and competitiveness for all.

This leads me to the reformed cohesion policy and its founding tools. We must see that they target the most effective sources of growth. We must ensure that the well established pro-catching up capabilities of cohesion policy work for all of Europe and we must also ensure that this policy-powerful convergence machinery works towards reducing competitiveness gaps between south, north and east.

Let me conclude by emphasising the need for us here in this House to stick to Parliament’s commitment to give the EU the budget level it needs.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Giovanni La Via (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, negli ultimi anni abbiamo sempre più parlato nelle istituzioni europee di regole finalizzate al controllo della spesa degli Stati membri, cosa sicuramente giusta ma oggi non più sufficiente nel contesto economico che viviamo.

L'economia europea nel suo complesso e quella di alcuni paesi membri rallentano, motivo per il quale dobbiamo sempre più prestare attenzione alla crescita, alla competitività e allo sviluppo. Nel prossimo Consiglio i paesi membri dovranno adottare scelte coraggiose e ambiziose per affrontare insieme il percorso dello sviluppo. In molti paesi l'Europa viene ormai vista come il problema, mentre invece con scelte forti e coraggiose dobbiamo rendere evidente che l'Europa è la soluzione. Pertanto, i temi relativi agli eurobond, ai project bond, al rafforzamento dei progetti e della programmazione per le piccole e medie imprese devono essere i temi trattati. Non possiamo più rinviare il problema. L'Europa è e deve essere la soluzione a tutti i problemi della crisi.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). - Senhor Presidente, queria aqui afirmar claramente que, para nós, é fundamental o Conselho que vai ter lugar no final de junho e que aquilo que é essencial é que se procure uma solução europeia para esta crise. Do nosso ponto de vista, o problema, até agora, é que temos tratado cada uma das questões que vão surgindo isoladamente e individualmente. Chegou o momento de termos uma solução global para a Europa, uma solução que passa, como aliás aqui o Presidente Daul deixou claro, por mais integração, por mais cooperação, por maior aproximação das políticas europeias e por revalorização do método comunitário. É fundamental que ao lado da estabilidade esteja o crescimento mas que nós não abandonemos as preocupações de estabilidade. Contamos por isso com uma resposta global europeia e não com uma resposta dividida para cada Estado ou para cada região que está em dificuldades.

 
  
 

Intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra (catch the eye)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Mr President, firstly I think that we need to draw a line under bailouts. If any other countries need a bailout, they should come out now and say so. This endless speculation about who is going to be next – they will, they will not – has to stop; it has to stop at the next summit.

Secondly, we need a jobs and growth strategy that can be implemented immediately at the next summit, not some Hy-Brasil at the end of the rainbow. For that we need real leadership, not self-serving, nationalistic interests. The Danish Presidency – whom I compliment – mentioned some of the things that we can do immediately, such as the Energy Directive which, if implemented, would create 400 000 jobs, save energy and help combat climate change. We should also help SMEs.

Finally, I want to say that I agree completely with President Barroso that we need own resources. I would ask our leaders to show statesmanship in allowing us to have own resources and put an end to this endless speculation about the multiannual financial framework.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). - Az évek óta húzódó megszorításokért az európai polgárok – így Magyarországon is – az Uniót teszik felelőssé, ezért rendkívül fontos, hogy egy erős kohéziós politika álljon rendelkezésre a jövőben, mert amennyiben munkahelyteremtéssel, beruházásokkal a kohéziós politika keretében eredményeket látnának a polgárok, ez erősítené az Unió iránti bizalmat. Nagy problémának tartom a kohéziós politika keretében, hogy hazám a támogatási források 1/5-ét elveszítheti, ezért nagyon fontos a „capping”-nél, a plafonnál nemcsak meghatározni a felső határt, hanem meg kellene határozni az alsó határt is, hogy mi az, amit elveszíthet egy tagállam, mert ez egy 20-30%-os veszteség, ami Magyarország számára nehezen elviselhető lenne.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Od wielu miesięcy toczy się spór na temat polityki spójności i wieloletnich ram finansowych na lata 2014-2020. Ta dyskusja staje się coraz mniej zrozumiała dla Europejczyków. Wielu szefów rządów krajów członkowskich może być zmęczonych kryzysem, ale czy aż tak, że nie dostrzegają, iż to właśnie budżet europejski jest jednym z głównych instrumentów praw wzrostowych? To budżet europejski wymusza na krajach członkowskich asygnowanie środków własnych na inwestycje. 1 euro funduszy strukturalnych wymusza od 2 do 5 euro środków własnych, publicznych i prywatnych na inwestycje w krajach członkowskich.

A przykład polityki spójności jest dowodem na to, iż tradycyjny spór pomiędzy płatnikami netto a krajami korzystającymi w większym stopniu ze środków unijnych nie ma racji bytu. Ostatnio przeprowadzone badania jasno pokazują, iż z każdego euro zainwestowanego w krajach Unii Europejskiej ze środków na politykę spójności w dużej części wraca to do Europy Zachodniej w formie zwiększonej konsumpcji, eksportu czy popytu na nowoczesne technologie i usługi. Wszelkie próby zmniejszania unijnego budżetu dostarczą więc tylko jedynie pozornych oszczędności, a w konsekwencji przyczynią się do spadku konkurencyjności całej Unii Europejskiej. Mam nadzieję, że Parlament Europejski i Komisja Europejska będą do końca bronić polityki spójności i wielkości unijnego budżetu.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). - Señor Presidente, el próximo Consejo deberá decidir sobre la asistencia financiera solicitada por el Gobierno de España para el rescate de una parte de su sistema financiero. Es una decisión inevitable, a la vista de la imposibilidad de financiarse a casi un 7 % de interés, con un bono a 500 puntos de diferencial con respecto al bono alemán.

Pero ello nos recuerda que hay que cambiar de rumbo y cambiar de rumbo significa decir que la unión política no se limita a la supervisión bancaria, sino que requiere una revisión del calendario de revisión del déficit, la mutualización de la deuda y un presupuesto con recursos propios para financiar inversiones estratégicas que estimulen el crecimiento y generen empleo.

Significa también evitar la salida desordenada de Grecia del euro, y esa es una cuestión que debemos resolver, no ya en las próximas semanas, sino en los próximos días. Pero también significa cambiar una imagen de Europa cada vez más identificada con esos llamados «hombres de negro», que amenazan con sanciones, que van armados con un palo, pero sin ninguna zanahoria, sin ningún estímulo al crecimiento, sin ninguna esperanza para la gente joven.

Es imprescindible cambiar no solamente esa Europa, sino esa idea de Europa, en una carrera contrarreloj en la que el tiempo corre en nuestra contra.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). - Voorzitter, op 1 juni jl. kreeg de heer Van Rompuy, die hier overigens ontbreekt, een eredoctoraat bij de universiteit van Leuven. In zijn oratie stelde de heer Van Rompuy dat Europa de Rubicon over moet steken. Europa op weg naar één monetaire unie.

Van Rompuy deed een verregaande uitspraak, want wat gebeurde er toen Julius Ceasar de Rubicon doorwaadde? Hij pleegde een staatsgreep, hij werd enkele jaren daarna vermoord en vervolgens kampte Rome vijftien jaar met een burgeroorlog. De jonge doctor had geen slechtere vergelijking kunnen maken.

Door deze aanpak zal de schuldenberg in Europa, die al duizenden miljarden bedraagt, verder groeien. Deze teerling dus niet! Het is tijd voor een studie naar een Europa van twee snelheden. Dan kunnen de zuidelijke landen de euro behouden en kunnen de landen rondom Duitsland de euromark invoeren. Dát biedt perspectief.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Isabelle Durant (Verts/ALE). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, Monsieur le Ministre, évidemment qu'il nous faut un CFP ambitieux, un budget solide et des ressources propres mais j'apprends que vous vous apprêtez à réintroduire dans le budget des montants qui, jusqu'ici, étaient hors budget. Soit! Pourquoi pas? C'est même plutôt une bonne idée.

Seulement, si vous ne relevez pas les plafonds au prorata de ce que vous avez réintroduit dans le budget, c'est une double coupe à laquelle on peut s'attendre, parce que le Conseil, aujourd'hui, Monsieur le Ministre, ne peut pas dire quelles sont ses priorités négatives. Le rapport SURE les lui a demandées, il n'arrive pas à les dire.

Je nous mets donc en garde ici: on ne peut pas, aujourd'hui, avec le rapport SURE que nous avons voté, vouloir à la fois une stratégie 2020, les nouvelles compétences du traité de Lisbonne et un budget inférieur avec une double coupe. Sinon il en sera de la stratégie 2020 comme de la stratégie de Lisbonne: un échec cuisant.

Personnellement, je n'ai pas du tout envie d'assumer un échec cuisant de la stratégie 2020. Je nous mets donc en garde contre cet aspect. C'est très important.

 
  
 

(Fin de las intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra (catch the eye))

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, as a former Member of this House, I know what it means to speak when voting time is coming. Therefore, I will make only two short points.

Firstly, a general one. We are all under the shadow of a crisis but it should not overshadow the basic truths nor justify some unfounded points I could hear on the margins of this very good debate in Parliament. The European Union, which still holds a 20 % share of world trade – with the share of Japan and the United States clearly declining – does not deserve the metaphor of a Titanic.

We do face problems. They are not national. Therefore a national answer is not enough. We should transform the emerging mantra of growth and jobs into reality by a more systemic response to banking and fiscal union, which is emerging, including through today’s votes in Parliament.

My second short point concerns the multiannual framework, which is part of the solution, not part of the problem. I can illustrate this empirically with a credible paper from the UK Treasury indicating where taxpayers’ money is going. The UK middle-income taxpayer contributes GBP 28 to the European Union, which is the same as for the fire service. National debt interest servicing is GBP 363 rather than GBP 28. This is the problem.

The European budget is not the answer to the problem, but could be part of the solution, via investment to act as a carrot via the Structural Funds – nobody denies this and it was also part of the anti-crisis resistance in my country of origin – with the stick of conditionality enforcing structural reforms. This part of the answer concerns own resources. Mr Zahradil was wrong. This is not about expanding the budget but about changing the proposal, fully respecting the fiscal autonomy and the sovereignty of the national parliaments.

This is the design for the future: more Europe under the Lisbon Treaty with the same amount of money. I am happy to see Parliament’s resolution going in the same direction. Jutta Haug is right. Einigkeit macht stark.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nicolai Wammen, formand for Rådet. − Hr. formand! Ærede medlemmer! Hr. kommissær! Jeg vil lade mig inspirere af kommissær Lewandowski, som i dag har fødselsdag, til at gøre det ganske kort. Jeg vil gerne takke for en rigtig god debat med Europa-Parlamentet, hvor det står helt klart, at vi i fællesskab frem mod stats- og regeringschefsmødet sidst i denne måned skal gøre alt, hvad der er muligt for at skabe vækst- og jobinitiativer, der kan samle Parlamentet, som kan samle Kommissionen, og som kan samle medlemslandene. Der er kommet meget god inspiration fra medlemmerne af dette hus i dag.

Hvad angår den flerårige finansielle ramme, så vil jeg gerne endnu en gang takke for det gode samarbejde, vi har. Jeg vil i særlig grad gerne takke hr. Lamassoure, fru Jensen, hr. Kalfin, hr. Färm, hr. Haglund, hr. Böge, hr. Dehaene og hr. Kelly for deres meget venlige bemærkninger om samarbejdet med det danske formandskab og om vigtigheden af, at vi i fællesskab finder de rette løsninger, når det gælder det fremtidige budget. På den baggrund vil det danske formandskab fortsætte det tætte samarbejde med Parlamentet og takke for de mange gode input, vi har fået indtil nu, og se frem til mange gode løsninger i fællesskab i fremtiden.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  El Presidente. − Para cerrar el debate se han presentado 3 propuestas de resolución1 de conformidad con el apartado 2 del artículo 110 del Reglamento.

Se cierra el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar inmediatamente.

Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 149 del Reglamento)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Liam Aylward (ALDE), i scríbhinn. – A Uachtaráin, sna laethanta deacra eacnamaíochta atá ann anois, is éasca dúinn a thuiscint an mhoill atá ann maidir le buiséad an Chreata Airgeadais Ilbhliantúil a phlé agus a thabhairt chun críche.

Tá sé deacair, áfach, glacadh leis an méadú atá á chur le ranníocaíochtaí na mBallstát do bhuiséad an AE nuair atá iallach ar thíortha an Aontais a mbuiséid féin a ghearradh agus bearta déine a chur i bhfeidhm. Tá sé intuigthe freisin go bhfuiltear ag smaoineamh ar chiorruithe a dhéanamh ar bhuiséad an Chomhbheartais Talmhaíochta (CBT), toisc gurb ar an CBT a chaitear mórchuid de bhuiséad an AE. Ina ainneoin sin, níor cheart do cheannairí na hEorpa laghduithe suntasacha a dhéanamh ar an CBT.

Faoin CBT, faigheann cáiníocóirí na hEorpa luach a gcuid airgid, go háirithe leis na rudaí seo a leanas: slándáil an tsoláthair bhia, bia atá ar chaighdeán ard agus ar phraghas réasúnta a chloíonn le hardchaighdeáin chomhshaoil, bainistíocht inbhuanaithe ar acmhainní nádúrtha agus bearta um athrú aeráide.

Tá dúshlán mór romhainn: uisce, fuinneamh, talamh curaíochta ag dul i nganntanas agus, faoin mbliain 2050, naoi mbilliún duine le cothú. Chuige sin, is botún a bheadh ann buiséad an CBT a laghdú agus cumas iomaíochta agus táirgíochta fheirmeoirí na hEorpa a lagú.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. – Šiandien Europa yra nusiteikusi keisti kryptį ir pasiryžusi priimti sudėtingus, tačiau būtinus sprendimus, kurie iki šiol buvo priimami per lėtai ir neryžtingai. Rinkai netenkant investuotojų pasitikėjimo ir naujoms valstybėms narėms rikiuojantis eilėje prie finansinės pagalbos vis dar abejojama tokių sprendimų kaip skolų išpirkimo fondo ar euro obligacijų būtinumu. Sveikinu Komisiją už pateiktus pasiūlymus dėl bankų sąjungos ir ryžtą ieškoti pusiausvyros tarp biudžetinės drausmės bei ilgalaikio augimo ir darbo vietų kūrimo. Tačiau pasigendu esminio įsipareigojimo – aktyviau kovoti su sukčiavimu valstybėse narėse. Susiklosčiusi situacija yra nepateisinama, kadangi Komisija nežino realaus sukčiavimo mąsto, nes valstybės narės nepateikia reikiamų duomenų. Kova su sukčiavimu privalo būti stiprinama, o Komisija turi prisiimti atsakomybę už neteisėtą lėšų panaudojimą bei jų susigrąžinimą į ES biudžetą. Kalbėdami apie ekonomikos atsigavimą neturime pamiršti, kad būtina saugoti savo rinkas nuo pernelyg didelės trečiųjų šalių įtakos. ES rinkos atvirumu naudojasi trečiųjų šalių ūkio subjektai, o mūsų ūkio subjektai tose valstybėse veikia sudėtingesnėmis sąlygomis nei vietiniai. Taip mes sumažinome savo konkurencingumą bei susiaurinome darbo ir verslo rinką savo pačių piliečiams. Manau, kad kova su sukčiavimu bei rinkos apsauga turi tapti vienu iš kertinių būsimų iniciatyvų ir strategijų pagrindu, kas ilguoju laikotarpiu leistų užtikrinti stabilesnį ir greitesnį ekonomikos atsigavimą.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  George Becali (NI), în scris. – Mulţumesc, domnule preşedinte, sunt destul de impresionat, dar şi îngrijorat de dezbaterea noastră de azi. Sunt îngrijorat că fiecare, la noi acasă, cu toate reformele şi toate măsurile de austeritate adoptate, vedem cu ochii noştri că suntem într-o situaţie socială aproape fără precedent. Da, avem nevoie de creştere care să genereze milioane de locuri de muncă pe care tinerii Europei şi nu doar ei le aşteaptă în toate colţurile Uniunii noastre. Tinerii aceştia vor crede cu adevărat că noi ne facem datoria, că bugetul Uniunii nu este un buget pentru Bruxelles, când vor găsi un loc de muncă pentru care s-au pregătit şi care să le permită să-şi înceapă viaţa. Situaţia în care suntem de prea multă vreme presupune urgenţă maximă. Mă voi limita la acest aspect, este esenţial ca Europa să nu rămână un proiect frumos, dar gol, fără legătură cu viaţa unei generaţii care vrea să ducă mai departe ideea. Vă mulţumesc, Doamne ajută!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ivo Belet (PPE), schriftelijk. – Voorzitter, we gaan de crisis in Europa niet oplossen door een exit van Griekenland uit de eurozone. Een dergelijk scenario zal enkel leiden tot sociaal-economische rampspoed en zwaar verlies van welvaart, voor alle Europeanen. Een vertrek van Griekenland uit de euro zou bovendien een smadelijke nederlaag betekenen voor het Europese integratieproject. Kortom, het is geen optie. De enige uitweg uit deze crisis is de weg voorwaarts. Alleen door de Europese samenwerking te verdiepen, kunnen we sterker uit deze crisis komen.

Er is daarom dringend nood aan een gemeenschappelijk beheer van (een deel van) de schulden van de lidstaten in een Europees schuldaflossingsfonds. Anders geformuleerd: economische groei en gezonde financiën, dat zijn twee zijden van dezelfde euromunt. '3 maanden hebben we nog', zegt Christine Lagarde van het IMF, 'om de euro te redden'. Ik neem aan dat zij weet waarover ze praat. 3 maanden is meer dan tijd genoeg om te doen wat moet. Het is puur een kwestie van politieke moed. Het Europees Parlement zet hier vandaag een aantal duidelijke bakens uit. De staatshoofden en regeringsleiders moeten op de top van 28 juni 2012 hun verantwoordelijkheid opnemen en doorzetten.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), písemně. – Nový víceletý finanční rámec (VFR) je nástroj, který by se měl používat od roku 2014 a trvat 7 let. Předpokládaný rozpočet je zhruba ve výši 1000 miliard EUR. Ve srovnání s VFR 2007–2013 má nový VFR několik vítaných změn. Je prorůstově orientován a má za cíl podpořit evropskou ekonomiku. Finanční nástroje v rámci nového VFR mohou také podpořit další spolufinancování od soukromých a veřejných investorů. Velice vítám orientaci nového VFR na růst, rozvoj a na udržitelnost životního prostředí. Důležité je také vznik nových, zelených pracovních míst. Rovněž vítám zachování evropských fondů, zejména Sociálního fondu a Fondu soudržnosti, které přispívají nejen ke strategickému a dlouhodobému rozvoji členských států, ale i ke krátkodobé, rychlé a cílené podpoře řešení důsledků krize. Jsem přesvědčena, že při správném nastavení finančních nástrojů přispěje VFR 2014–2020 ke zodpovědnému růstu ekonomiky Evropské unie.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – As one country goes bust, calling to be rescued by the others, more and more economies are dragged deeper into the mire as they add repercussive economic impacts and bail outs onto the burden of national deficits. The Commission’s programme for more money to be sent to the centre, bound by tighter regulation, with the impetus of closer economic union, forces cash flow to be circulated around the Eurozone pulling member states into a maelstrom of economic destitution and political control. It is the concept of more Europe that has exacerbated, if not created, the entire crisis. If the EU’s reactions have been, as both President Barosso and Prime Minister Rajoy of Spain proclaimed, successful, then the crisis would surely be over. Yet the EU’s actions have been successful in forcing the European project along at a pace by furthering state capitalism. In the USSR, highly centralised government and economic policy inflicted poverty on millions of voiceless citizens. The echoes are chillingly familiar. The only difference is that the EU has not used tanks to subsume countries by force, but masterminded the use of subversive bureaucracy alongside the prolongation of the economic crisis.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. – Mais do que membros do Parlamento Europeu, somos cidadãos de diferentes Estados-Membros que ambicionam uma Europa melhor. A resposta europeia aos desafios do nosso tempo só se tornará eficaz se for ancorada num orçamento robusto, que garanta o financiamento adequado dos objetivos políticos da União, num orçamento flexível, racional e dinâmico na aplicação das verbas distribuídas pelas várias rubricas e num acordo político sobre a reforma dos recursos próprios. Trata-se de um orçamento que não vai custar mais aos contribuintes, mas que é ambicioso e inovador. Acredito que só um orçamento mais simples e flexível irá ter impacto na vida dos europeus. Em particular, sublinho a importância do papel da ciência e inovação que contribuirão para a competitividade da indústria europeia, nomeadamente, das PME.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Frédéric Daerden (S&D), par écrit. – Le budget européen est d'une importance capitale en tant que puissant outil d'investissement, vecteur de cohésion et de solidarité entre États, budget toujours à l'équilibre, source d'économie pour les budgets nationaux par la mutualisation des dépenses.

Il faut un budget largement financé par des ressources propres. La TTF et la réforme de la TVA doivent permettre d'accroître le budget européen, de diminuer les contributions des États et de donner à l'Europe une souveraineté budgétaire. Les orientations définies par l'ancienne commission SURE doivent être suivies, notamment l'augmentation d'au moins 5 % et la création des régions en transition pour les fonds structurels. La "boîte de négociation" du Conseil ne peut pas diminuer la capacité de négociation du Parlement européen. Il doit pouvoir jouer son rôle de colégislateur prévu dans les traités. Je serai particulièrement attentif à la présence dans ce document des régions en transition (pour assurer la cohésion sur l'ensemble du territoire européen), du FEM (pour aider les salariés licenciés à retrouver un emploi) et du PEAD.

J'espère que le gouvernement belge défendra ces thèses au sein du Conseil car il s'agit de définir le contexte budgétaire de l'Union pour les 7 ans et donc d'un moment clé pour le projet européen.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – As orientações que emergem das instituições europeias, relativamente ao rumo do processo de integração, traduzem uma equação simples. Por um lado, querem aprofundar tudo aquilo que tem vindo a conduzir à divergência entre Estados-Membros: a livre concorrência no mercado interno; o pacto de estabilidade, agora reforçado; a liberalização do comércio internacional; as políticas comuns feitas à medida de apenas alguns. Por outro lado, querem enfraquecer os instrumentos susceptíveis de poder mitigar ou, desejavelmente, mesmo superar as desigualdades - no que o orçamento comunitário tem um papel central. O resultado só pode ser um: mais divergência, mais desigualdades entre Estados-Membros, menos coesão. É uma vergonha o que se passa no Conselho. Os maiores beneficiários do mercado interno e das políticas comuns querem agora reduzir ainda mais as suas contribuições para o orçamento comunitário, forçando uma compressão do próximo Quadro Financeiro Plurianual 2014-2020. Querem reduzir o orçamento e querem reduzir as verbas para a coesão. E querem ainda ir buscar uma parte maior dessas verbas da coesão. É o que resulta das propostas de condicionalidade, das "regiões de transição" ou da alteração dos coeficientes de ponderação associados à coesão. Para os outros, para as economias mais débeis, são cada vez maiores os prejuízos desta integração e cada vez menores os seus benefícios.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE), írásban. – Az elmúlt időszakban diktált gyors tempó rossz előjeleket mutat. Tegnap a schengeni megállapodás átírásáról, és az Európai Parlament teljes körű kihagyásáról vitáztunk, ma pedig arról beszélünk, hogy valamiféle bankunió készülődik, amelyre utaló törekvések és igények igaz, hogy megjelentek az európai narratívában, de annak se a pontos gyakorlati leképezését, hatását, sőt az azzal járó következményeket sem ismerjük. Örülök, hogy a mai tanácsi és bizottsági nyilatkozatot már a visszafogottság jellemezte, mert a felfokozott hangulat mellett kétséges, hogy európai csúcsot sikerre lehet-e vinni. Mégis, tisztelettel arra kérném az Európai Tanács tagjait, hogy jól gondolják át az eddig tett erőfeszítéseiket, és csak akkor köteleződjenek el az integráció egy magasabb fokán, ha az nyitottsággal és felkészültséggel is párosul egész Európa szerte, és főleg, ha az, az európai bankrendszer hosszú távú működőképességének biztosítása mellett, legalább 500 millió állampolgár valódi érdekét is szolgálja.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Zita Gurmai (S&D), in writing. – As pointed out in the Parliament's Motion for a Resolution, a better and more efficient use of the EU funds must be safeguarded, while ensuring that the EU budget is drafted in a transparent way. We also need sufficient budgetary flexibility in order to ensure that budgetary means are properly aligned with evolving circumstances and priorities. Moreover, the EU budget should be a strong investment budget. We won't be able to exit this crisis and restore sustainable growth and employment without an ambitious budget that gives Europe the means to achieve the targets set in the 2020 strategy. It should also guarantee fairness in distributing the resources and sustainability. Therefore, it is important to ensure that Cohesion Policy continues to receive adequate funding. Moreover, I am also worried by this new tendency within the European Commission to reduce funding for Citizenship programs. The decrease of funding also concerns gender-related issues, which is a very negative development in the light of the need to combat discrimination and promote equal opportunities policies. I strongly believe that fairness and sustainability of budgetary programming may only be achieved by means of introducing gender budgeting in the EU budget procedure.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Edit Herczog (S&D), írásban. – A versenyképességi fejezet és annak kutatás-fejlesztési sorai az egyik legfontosabb eszközei az uniós költségvetésnek. Ne terhelje ezeket a sorokat a Tanács a nagy infrastruktúra-beruházások költségeivel! Szeretném kedves képviselőtársaimat emlékeztetni arra, hogy a KGST-ről annak utolsó időszakában az a metafora terjedt, hogy tizenkét sovány tehén feji egymást. Ma az Európai Tanácsnak nem lehet ugyanez a sorsa, a 12 sárga csillagnak a kiválóság és a haladás fényében kellene csillognia. Önálló lábakon álló és növekedéspárti uniós költségvetésre van szükségünk, amelyben az ITER-t (Európai Fúziós Reaktor) és a GMES-t (Európai Műholdas Megfigyelőrendszer) a hétéves pénzügyi kereten kívülről kellene finanszírozni. Azonban ha a Tanács ennek ellenkezőjéről dönt, akkor annak a pénzügyi feltételeit is rendelje mellé, és ne a K+F soroktól vonja el ismételten a forrásokat! Úgy vélem, hogy a Tanácsra bízni a pénzek kifizetésének felügyeletét olyan, mint kecskére bízni a káposztát. Ugyanis a Miniszterek Tanácsának múlt heti döntése megmutatta, hogy a pénzügyminiszterek egyetlen szűk körben meghozott és szűklátókörű döntéssel képesek – akár a fejlesztési miniszterek tudta nélkül – megkurtítani a folyó évi kutatási kifizetések összegét. Ezért ismételten kijelentem: A Tanács nem veszélyeztetheti Európa versenyképességét!

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Cătălin Sorin Ivan (S&D), în scris. Negocierea viitorului cadru financiar multianual este un proces complex şi sensibil, ce va pune bazele acţiunii economice şi politice a Uniunii pentru următorii şapte ani. Şapte ani care sperăm să fie şapte ani de creştere şi redresare economică. De aceea, avem nevoie de un buget de investiţii cât mai puternic şi solidar pentru toate statele membre. Politica regională, politica agricolă comună, politica de cercetare, Erasmus, susţinerea IMM-urilor, aceste politici au devenit astăzi pilierele de bază ale economiei europene şi sunt, de fapt, adevăratele motoare ale pieţii unice. Însă, pentru realizarea lor, avem nevoie de un buget care să facă faţă provocărilor viitoare: globalizarea, schimbările climatice şi cele demografice, transformarea economiei către una bazată pe noi tehnologii. Negocierea este arta compromisului, însa, când vine vorba de viitorul cadru financiar, Parlamentul European şi-a definit o serie de criterii minime faţă de care nu o să cedăm: • Menţinerea bugetului măcar la nivelul 2013 • O cotă mai ridicată de resurse proprii • Şi ca Parlamentul European să fie recunoscut ca un adevărat partener de negociere. Ştim cu toţii că avem nevoie de acest buget şi sunt convins că până la urmă o să găsim o cale de mijloc.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), rakstiski. – ES budžets veido salīdzinoši nelielu apjomu — tikai 2 % -- no ES kopējiem publiskajiem izdevumiem. Tāpēc tam ir jāveicina ES kopīgi izvirzīto politikas mērķu sasniegšanu. Tos nebūs iespējams sasniegt bez atbilstoša finansējuma no stabila Eiropas budžeta. Tāpēc es atbalstu prasību - kura ir noteikta arī Eiropas līgumā - nodrošināt atbilstošus ieņēmumus, kas gūti no patiesiem pašas Eiropas resursiem. Pirms mēs apstiprinām daudzgadu budžetu, mums ir jāpanāk politiska vienošanās par pašu resursu sistēmas reformu, kas nodrošinātu tā pārredzamību, godīgumu un ilgtspējību. Savukārt, nosakot Eiropas daudzgadu budžeta izdevumus, mums ir stingri jāievēro solidaritātes, līdzsvarotas teritoriālas attīstības un godīgas konkurences principi. Tas īpaši attiecas uz kopējo lauksaimniecības politiku, kurā godīgu konkurenci deformējošas subsīdijas ir visskaidrāk redzamas.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE), na piśmie. – Wyzwania, które stoją w tej chwili przed Europą, wymagają zagwarantowania sprawnych, efektywnych i skutecznych instrumentów, dzięki którym będziemy w stanie stawić tym wyzwaniom czoła. Trudne czasy wymagają podejmowania trudnych i zdecydowanych decyzji – nie możemy cały czas być rozdarci pomiędzy ambicjami a oszczędnościami. Chciałbym podkreślić, że budżet unijny powinien być budżetem inwestycyjnym. Odpowiedni poziom inwestycji, w szczególności w oparciu o politykę spójności, pozwoli na pokonanie kryzysu oraz zapewni Europie wzrost, konkurencyjność i odpowiednio wysoki poziom zatrudnienia. Jestem przekonany, że strategiczny, transparentny, zrównoważony budżet pozwoli na realizację wyżej wymienionych zamierzeń. Oparcie unijnego budżetu w dużej mierze o zasoby własne, w szczególności o podatek od transakcji finansowych, oraz odejście od rabatów i mechanizmów korekcyjnych pozwolą na stopniowe zmniejszanie obciążenia budżetów krajowych przy jednoczesnym zwiększeniu przejrzystości i sprawiedliwości unijnego budżetu.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Marine Le Pen (NI), par écrit. – Le conseil européen des 28 et 29 juin va entériner les recommandations annuelles de la Commission européenne à l'encontre de la France afin d'assainir son endettement public et retrouver, soi-disant, sa compétitivité.

Ces recommandations deviendront contraignantes après l'adoption des législations en cours, notamment celles de la gouvernance économique de l'Union. Parmi ces recommandations figurent notamment la poursuite et l'aggravation de la libéralisation des services publics, la fin des professions réglementées, la flexibilisation du marché du travail et la possibilité de licencier plus facilement, cela s'appelle le démantèlement du code du travail.

S'y ajoute la fin de la limitation des implantations de grandes surfaces, la remise en cause de la TVA à taux réduit, l'augmentation des taxes sur la consommation ou encore la création de nouvelles taxes vertes. Voilà quelques mesures parmi d'autres imposées par Bruxelles pour assurer la viabilité de la zone euro.

Le pire c'est que bien évidemment François Hollande et son ministre des finances approuveront sans restriction, trahissant quelques semaines après la présidentielle les promesses électorales. Les Français apprécieront !

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), în scris. – În calitate de reprezentanţi ai cetăţenilor europeni, suntem datori să asiguram un buget bine finanţat, transparent şi echitabil, care să fie concentrat asupra rezultatelor. Tocmai din acest motiv, consider că Uniunea Europeană are nevoie, mai mult ca niciodată, de investiţii în domeniile sale prioritare. Consider că o direcţionare a cheltuielilor către politicile care s-au dovedit un adevărat succes, cum este cazul politicii de coeziune, poate oferi în continuare o valoare adăugată reală, stimulând creşterea economică şi competitivitatea globală a Uniunii Europene.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sławomir Witold Nitras (PPE), na piśmie. W czerwcu odbędzie się szczyt Rady Europejskiej, którego głównym tematem ponownie będzie kryzys w strefie euro. Uzdrowienie sytuacji gospodarczej wymaga rozwiązań skutecznych w wymiarze makroekonomicznym i zarazem wykonalnych z punktu widzenia uwarunkowań politycznych. Wielowymiarowość kryzysu finansowego oraz brak stanowczej odpowiedzi politycznej w jego początkowej fazie sprawiły, że w tej chwili nie ma już z tej trudnej sytuacji łatwego i bezbolesnego wyjścia. Strefa euro w dalszym ciągu pilnie wymaga reform. Część z nich już została przeprowadzona – należy tutaj wskazać przede wszystkim na „sześciopak” i „dwupak”, nad którym trwają obecnie prace. Regulacje te stanowią jednak odpowiedź tylko na część problemów instytucjonalnych, a poza tym ich efekty zmaterializują się dopiero w długim terminie.

Tymczasem intensyfikacja przebiegu kryzysu finansowego wymaga działań o natychmiastowym skutku, ponieważ kryzys zaufania oraz presja rynkowa poważnie nadwyrężają dzisiaj zdolność państw członkowskich do refinansowania swojego zadłużenia. Nadchodzący szczyt to świetna okazja do podjęcia odważnych decyzji. W pierwszej kolejności należy sięgnąć po rozwiązania, które nie wymagają zmian traktatowych tj. uelastycznienie procesu dostosowania fiskalnego oraz wzmocnienie „zapory ogniowej” dla ochrony systemów finansowych państw peryferyjnych. Kolejnym etapem powinna być reforma instytucjonalna strefy euro, tj. stworzenie wspólnego systemu rekapitalizacji i restrukturyzacji dla banków, wspólnego systemu ochrony depozytów oraz opracowanie planu przynajmniej częściowej mutualizacji zadłużenia publicznego.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), kirjallinen. EU:n vuosittaisten budjettien laadintaa raamittava rahoituskehys vuosille 2014–2020 on yksi kuluvan vuoden suurimmista poliittisista taistoista neuvoston ja parlamentin välillä. On hyvä, että parlamentti painottaa erityisesti tulevan budjetin suurempaa joustavuutta, selkeyttä ja avoimuutta sekä ottaa kantaa niin kutsuttuihin omiin varoihin: järjestelmän uudistamiseen niin, että varoja kerättäisiin suoraan EU:n omaan budjettiin ja samalla jäsenvaltioiden maksamia osuuksia olisi mahdollista vastaavasti pienentää. Uudistettua budjettia tarvitaan osana yhtenäisempää rahapolitiikkaa. Ajatuksena yhtenäisempi rahapolitiikka ei ole lainkaan niin uusi, kuin joskus otsikoita lukemalla voisi ajatella: Euroopan raha- ja talousliiton ajatuksen ollessa vasta idullaan asetettiin brittiekonomisti Donald McDougallin johtama työryhmä pohtimaan yhteisvaluutan vaatimia raameja. Niin kutsutussa McDougallin raportissa todetaan, että yleisesti ottaen yhteistä valuuttaa käyttävät alueet takaavat valuuttansa keskus- tai liittovaltiohallinnon budjetilla, joka rahoitetaan suureksi osaksi tuon keskushallinnon keräämillä erinäisillä veroilla. Raportissa todetaan, että riippuen integraation tasosta yhteisen budjetin osuus tulisi olla 2.5 – 7 prosenttia koko unionin yhteenlasketusta bruttokansantuotteesta. Unionin tämän hetkinen budjetti vastaa vähän reilua prosenttia; esimerkiksi Yhdysvaltain liittovaltion budjetti on reilut 20 %. Vaikka talousvaikeuksien kanssa taistelevien jäsenmaiden korviin vaatimukset yhteisen budjetin kasvattamisesta kuulostavat ymmärrettävästi lähestulkoon mahdottomilta, peräänkuuluttaisin maiden hallituksilta avointa ja luovaa suhtautumista yhteiseen EU-budjettiin. Yhtenäisten politiikkojen toteuttaminen vaatii riittävät keinot. Sitoutuminen yhteisiin päämääriin tarkoittaa, että niihin on valmis lupaamaan myös tarvittavat resurssit.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Γεώργιος Σταυρακάκης (S&D), γραπτώς. – Κατανοούμε τους δημοσιονομικούς περιορισμούς των κρατών μελών, επιμένουμε ότι ο μακροπρόθεσμος προϋπολογισμός της ΕΕ αποτελεί ένα στρατηγικό εργαλείο για επενδύσεις, την τόνωση της ανάπτυξης και της ανταγωνιστικότητας και, φυσικά, για τη δημιουργία θέσεων εργασίας σε ολόκληρη την Ευρώπη. Όσον αφορά την Πολιτική Συνοχής, και εδώ το μήνυμα είναι ξεκάθαρο: Η πολιτική αυτή είναι η μόνη πανευρωπαϊκή αναπτυξιακή πολιτική και, ως τέτοια, θα πρέπει να εξακολουθήσει να είναι διαθέσιμη σε όλες τις περιφέρειες της Ευρώπης. Η Πολιτική Συνοχής αποτελεί το κύριο μέρος της απάντησης στην κρίση, καθώς συμβάλλει αποφασιστικά στην ανάπτυξη και τη δημιουργία θέσεων απασχόλησης. Η Πολιτική Συνοχής αξίζει και δικαιούται επαρκείς πόρους. Η πρόταση της Επιτροπής ΔΕΝ είναι το ελάχιστο για εμάς για την Πολιτική Συνοχής. Εάν θέλουμε να επιτύχουμε την ανάπτυξη, καθώς η Πολιτική Συνοχής αποτελεί μια αναπτυξιακή πολιτική, εάν θέλουμε να βρούμε αποτελεσματικές απαντήσεις στην κρίση, ΤΟΤΕ χρειαζόμαστε τους πόρους για να το επιτύχουμε. Για την Πολιτική Συνοχής, το ελάχιστο είναι το τρέχον επίπεδο χρηματοδότησης, όπως αποφασίστηκε ξεκάθαρα στην έκθεση SURE. Δεν υποστηρίζουμε αύξηση του προϋπολογισμού στην Πολιτική Συνοχής αλλά διατηρώντας το τρέχον επίπεδο του προϋπολογισμού και με τη σύγχρονη, θεματικά στοχευμένη, και προσανατολισμένη στα αποτελέσματα Πολιτική Συνοχής, θα πετύχουμε πολύ περισσότερα.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  László Surján (PPE), írásban. – Most először készülünk egy pénzügyi kerettervet alkotni úgy, hogy az nem szabad megegyezés, hanem alkotmányos kötelezettség. Mozgáskörünk szűkült, a kerettervre mi csak igent vagy nemet mondhatunk. A magyar, a lengyel és a dán elnökségnek hála, folyamatos kapcsolatban vagyunk a Tanáccsal, nehogy a Parlament „nem”-je felborítson egy nehezen kialakult megegyezést, hiszen van néhány vörös vonal, ami a Parlament szerint nem léphető át.

Ilyen vörös vonal a kohéziós politika kérdése. Mivel az Unió régiói között a fejlettségbeli eltérések nagyobbak, mint valaha, a Parlament hatékony és eredményes kohéziót követel. A kohéziós politikára fordított uniós források nem csökkenhetnek, legalább a 2007–2013-as időszak szintjét meg kell őrizni. Ez nehéz feladat, hiszen már az Európai Bizottság javaslata is a teljes keret majd 5%-os csökkentésével számol és a tagállamok csak a GDP-jük 2,5%-át hívhatnák le. Ráadásul a 2,5%-os maximum kiszámításának nem a jövőbeni gazdasági növekedés képezi az alapját, hanem a 2008–2010 közötti időszak, amely alatt Magyarország a szocialista kormányok irányításával súlyos gazdasági visszaesést szenvedett el.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. O Quadro Financeiro Plurianual da União Europeia para o período 2014-2020 cresce 49 mil milhões de Euros (5,04%), face ao QFP de 2007-2013. Será assim de 1.025 mil milhões de Euros, sendo a Política de Coesão a área com o maior envelope financeiro, superando pela primeira vez a Política Agrícola Comum. Alguns aspectos são aceites pelo Parlamento Europeu e pelo Comité das Regiões, como é o caso das Regiões Intermédias, o aumento da dotação dos projectos de cooperação territorial, a criação do Quadro Estratégico Comum e o Fundo de Coesão se manter no apoio aos países com um RNB inferior a 90% do RNB da UE. Importa salientar que apenas na reunião do Conselho Europeu de junho é que será discutido pela primeira vez o Quadro Financeiro Plurianual 2014-2020 e os novos regulamentos da Política de Coesão. Considero fundamental que o valor da Política de Coesão seja mantido igual ao do anterior período de programação (2007-2013) e que as Regiões Ultraperiféricas tenham um envelope financeiro na dotação específica adicional adequado para fazer face aos seus constrangimentos naturais.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. – Consiliul European din 28-29 iunie va aborda probleme de politică economică, cadrul financiar multianual, precum şi guvernanţa sistemului Schengen şi azilul. În definirea şi punerea în aplicare a politicilor şi acţiunilor sale, Uniunea trebuie să ţină seama de cerinţele privind promovarea unui nivel ridicat al ocupării forţei de muncă, garantarea unei protecţii sociale corespunzătoare, combaterea excluziunii sociale, precum şi de cerinţele privind un nivel ridicat de educaţie, de formare profesională şi de protecţie a sănătăţii umane. Consider că Uniunea are nevoie de o agendă comună privind creşterea economică şi crearea de locuri de muncă, cu un accent deosebit pe ocuparea forţei de muncă tinere. Solicităm şefilor de state şi de guverne să definească şi să adopte această agendă. În acest context, cadrul financiar multianual constituie un instrument eficient care contribuie la realizarea creşterii economice în UE. În ceea ce priveşte guvernanţa sistemului Schengen, solicităm utilizarea procesului de codecizie şi implicarea Parlamentului European în toate deciziile ce ţin de libera circulaţie a persoanelor, una dintre cele mai mari realizări ale UE. De asemenea, susţinem aderarea României şi a Bulgariei la spaţiul Schengen, având în vedere că atât Comisia, cât şi Parlamentul European au recunoscut, în repetate rânduri, că cele două state îndeplinesc criteriile tehnice necesare.

 
  
  

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. ROBERTA ANGELILLI
Vicepresidente

 
Aviso jurídico - Política de privacidad