Posėdžio stenograma

Trečiadienis, 2012 m. rugsėjo 12 d. - Strasbūras

1. Posėdžio pradžia

VORSITZ: MARTIN SCHULZ
Präsident

(Die Sitzung wird um 9.05 Uhr eröffnet.)

2. Deleguotieji aktai (Darbo tvarkos taisyklių 87a straipsnis) (žr. protokola)

3. Įgyvendinimo priemonės (Darbo tvarkos taisyklių 88 straipsnis) (žr. protokola)

4. Sąjungos padėtis (diskusijos)

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Erklärung des Präsidenten der Kommission zur Lage der Union (2012/2586(RSP)).

Bevor wir in die Beratungen eintreten, ist es sicherlich angemessen darauf hinzuweisen, dass der heutige Tag für Europa ein entscheidender Tag sein kann und auch sein wird. Es ist nicht übertrieben, wenn ich Ihnen sage, dass die weltweite Öffentlichkeit heute auf die Europäische Union schaut. Sie schaut sicher heute Morgen nach Deutschland, wo ein deutsches Verfassungsorgan eine bedeutende Entscheidung für uns alle zu fällen hat. Sie schaut ganz sicher auf die Wahlen in den Niederlanden, wo unsere Mitbürgerinnen und Mitbürger heute Morgen ihr neues Parlament wählen mit – ich glaube, Sie teilen meine Auffassung – weit reichenden Auswirkungen für die Europäische Union in Gänze. Und die weltweite Öffentlichkeit schaut heute Morgen auf dieses Parlament, wo der Präsident der Europäischen Kommission seinen Bericht zur Lage der Union abgeben wird.

Bevor er das tut, eine Bemerkung als Präsident dieser Abgeordnetenkammer: Die Entwicklungen der letzten Monate waren besorgniserregend, vor allen Dingen, was die Tendenz zur Entparlamentarisierung Europas angeht. Ich will an dieser Stelle und bevor Herr Barroso seine Rede hält, deutlich darauf hinweisen: Wer den Parlamentarismus als zu langsam bezeichnet, wer sagt, Parlamente sind hinderlich beim Aufbau neuer notwendiger Strukturen, wer glaubt, man könne europäische Organe mit europäischen Kompetenzen entwickeln, ohne das Europäische Parlament einzubeziehen, der wird – da bin ich sicher – auf den energischen Widerstand dieses Parlaments treffen.

(Beifall)

Deshalb werden wir auch heute Morgen in der Rede von Herrn Barroso Vorschläge zur Schaffung eines neuen Instruments in Europa, der Bankenunion hören. Eines ist völlig klar: Egal, was in Europa an neuen Strukturen aufgebaut wird, der Euro ist die Währung der Union. Das Parlament ist das Parlament der Union. In dieser Logik ist das Parlament des Euro das Europaparlament.

(Beifall)

Jeder, der sich etwas anderes vorstellt, wird auf den machtvollen Widerstand des Europaparlaments stoßen. Ich sage der machtvolle Widerstand, weil das Europaparlament eine mächtige Institution ist.

(Beifall)

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, President of the Council, honourable Members, it is an honour to stand before you today to deliver this third State of the Union address, although at a time when the European Union continues to be in crisis – a financial and economic crisis, a social crisis, but also a political crisis, a crisis of confidence. At its root, the crisis results from irresponsible practices in the financial sector, unsustainable public debt, and also a lack of competitiveness in some Member States. On top of that, the euro faces structural problems of its own. Its architecture has not been up to the job. Imbalances have built up.

This is now being corrected but it is a painful and difficult effort. Citizens are frustrated. They are anxious. They feel their way of life is at risk. The sense of fairness and equity between Member States is sometimes being eroded. Without equity between Member States, how can there be equity between European citizens?

Over the last four years, we have made bold decisions to tackle the systemic crisis. But despite all these efforts, our responses have not yet convinced citizens, markets or our international partners. Why? Because, time and again, we have allowed doubts to spread – doubts over whether some countries are really ready to reform and regain competitiveness, doubts over whether other countries are really willing to stand by each other so that the euro and the European project are irreversible.

On too many occasions, we have seen a vicious spiral. First, very important decisions for our future are taken at European summits. But then, the next day, we see some of those very same people who took those decisions undermining them, saying either that they go too far or that they do not go far enough. Then we get a problem of credibility and a problem of confidence.

It is not acceptable to present these European meetings as if they were boxing events, claiming a knockout victory over a rival. We cannot belong to the same union and behave as if we do not. We cannot put at risk nine good decisions with one action or statement that raises doubts about all we have achieved.

This reveals the essence of Europe’s political crisis of confidence. If Europe’s political actors do not abide by the rules and the decisions they have set themselves, how can they possibly convince others that they are determined to solve this crisis together?

A crisis of confidence is a political crisis. The good thing is that in a democracy there is no political problem for which we cannot find a political solution. That is why, here today, I want to debate with you the fundamental political questions – where we are now and how we must move forward. I want to focus on the political direction and the vision that will inspire our policy decisions.

Of course I will not list all these individual decisions. You are receiving the letter I addressed to the President of the European Parliament, and that sets out the Commission’s immediate priorities. We will discuss them with you before adopting the Commission work programme later in the autumn.

My message to you today is this: Europe needs a new direction. And that direction cannot be based on old ideas. Europe needs a new way of thinking.

When we speak about the crisis – and we are all speaking about the crisis – have we really drawn all the consequences for our action? When we speak about globalisation – and we all speak a lot about globalisation – have we really considered its impact on the role of each of our Member States?

The starting point for new thinking for Europe is to really draw all the consequences of the challenges that we are facing and that are fundamentally changing our world. The starting point is to stop trying to answer the questions of the future with the tools of the past.

Since the start of the crisis, we have seen time and again that interconnected global markets are quicker and therefore more powerful than fragmented national political systems. This undermines the trust of citizens in political decision-making and it is fuelling populism and extremism in Europe and elsewhere.

The reality is that, in an interconnected world, Europe’s Member States on their own are no longer able to effectively steer the course of events.

(Applause)

But, at the same time, they have not yet equipped their Union – our Union –with the instruments needed to cope with this new reality. We are now in a transition, in a defining moment. This moment requires decision and leadership.

Yes, globalisation demands more European unity. More unity demands more integration. More integration demands more democracy – European democracy. In Europe, this means, first and foremost, accepting that we are all in the same boat. It means recognising the commonality of our European interests. It means embracing the interdependence of our destinies and it means demanding a true sense of common responsibility and solidarity because, when you are on a boat in the middle of the storm, absolute loyalty is the minimum you demand from your fellow crew members.

This is the only way we will keep up with the pace of change. It is the only way we will get the scale and efficiency we need to be a global player. It is the only way to safeguard our values – because it is also a matter of values – in our changing world.

In the 20th century, a country of just 10 or 15 million people could be a global power. In the 21st century, even the biggest European countries run the risk of irrelevance between global giants such as the US or China. History is accelerating. It took 155 years for Britain to double its GDP per capita, 50 years for the United States, and just 15 years for China. But, if you look at some of our new Member States, the economic transformation going on is no less impressive.

Europe has all the assets it takes – in fact much more so than previous generations faced with similar or even greater challenges. But we need to act accordingly and mobilise all these resources together. It is time to match ambitions, decisions, and actions. It is time to put a stop to piecemeal responses and muddling through. It is time to learn the lessons from history and write a better future for our Europe.

What I demand, and what I present to you today, is a decisive deal for Europe – a decisive deal to project our values, our freedom and our prosperity into the future of a globalised world; a deal that combines the need to keep our social market economies on the one hand and the need to reform them on the other; a deal that will stabilise the EMU, boost sustainable growth, and restore competitiveness; a deal that will establish a contract of confidence between our countries, between Member States and the European institutions, between the social partners, and between the citizens and the European Union.

The decisive deal for Europe means that we must leave no doubt about the integrity of the Union or the irreversibility of the euro. The more vulnerable countries must leave no doubts about their willingness to reform and about their sense of responsibility. The stronger countries must leave no doubts about their willingness to stick together and about their sense of solidarity.

(Applause)

We must all leave no doubts that we are determined to reform and to reform together.

The idea that we can grow without reform or that we can prosper alone is simply false. We must recognise that we are in this together and we must resolve this together. This decisive deal requires the completion of a deep and genuine economic union, based on a political union.

Let me start with Europe’s economy. Firstly, we need growth, sustainable growth. Growth is the lifeblood of the European social market model. It creates jobs and supports our standard of living. But we can only maintain growth if we are more competitive. At the national level it means undertaking structural reforms that have been postponed for decades – modernising public administration, reducing wasteful expenditure, tackling vested interests and privileges, reforming the labour market to balance security with flexibility and ensuring the sustainability of social systems.

At the European level, we need to be more decisive about breaking down barriers, whether physical, economic or digital. We need to complete the single market. We need to reduce our energy dependence and tap the renewable energy potential. Promoting competitiveness in sectors such as energy, transport or telecoms could open up fresh competition, promote innovation and drive down prices for consumers and businesses.

The Commission will shortly present a Single Market Act II. To enable the single market to prosper, the Commission will continue to be firm and intransigent in the defence of its competition and trade rules. Let me tell you frankly that, if this is left to the Member States, they will not resist pressure from big corporations or large external powers.

We need to create a European labour market and make it as easy for people to work in another country as it is at home. We need to explore green growth and be much more efficient in the use of resources. We have to be much more ambitious about education, research, innovation and science.

Europe is a world leader in key sectors such as aeronautics, automotives, pharmaceuticals and engineering, with global market shares above a third. Industrial productivity increased by 35% over the last decade, despite the economic slowdown. Today some 74 million jobs depend on manufacturing. Every year start-up firms in the EU create over 4 million jobs. We need to build on this by investing in our new industrial policy and creating a business environment that encourages entrepreneurship and supports small businesses.

This means making the taxation environment simpler for businesses and more attractive for investors. Better tax coordination would benefit all Member States. We also need a pro-active trade policy by opening up new markets. This is the potential of Europe’s economy. This is the goldmine that is yet to be fully explored. Fully implementing the Growth Compact agreed at the June European Council can take us a long way.

And we could go further with a realistic yet ambitious European Union budget dedicated to investment, growth and reform. Let us be clear: the European budget is the instrument for investment in Europe and growth in Europe. The Commission and this Parliament, indeed all pro-European forces – because most Member States support our proposal – must now stand together in support of the right multiannual financial framework that will take us to 2020. It will place little burden on Member States, especially with our proposed new own-resources system but it would give a great boost to their economies, their regions, their researchers, their students, their young people who seek employment, and their SMEs.

It is a budget for growth. It is a budget for economic, social and territorial cohesion between Member States and within Member States. It is a budget that will help complete the single market by bridging gaps in our energy, transport and telecoms infrastructure through the Connecting Europe Facility. It is a budget for a modern, growth-oriented agriculture capable of combining food security with sustainable rural development. It is a budget that will promote a research-intensive and innovative Europe through Horizon 2020 because we need this European scale for research.

Now we come, as a test of credibility, to many of our Member States. I want to see if the same Member States that were always speaking about the need for growth and investment for growth will now support the budget for growth at European level.

(Applause)

This budget is also the tool to support Europe 2020, our strategy for growth, which we need now more than ever before. Europe 2020 is indeed the way to modernise and preserve the European social market economy.

Our agenda of structural reform requires a major adjustment effort. It will only work if it is fair and equitable because inequality is not sustainable. In some parts of Europe we are seeing a real social emergency with rising poverty and massive levels of unemployment, especially among our young people. That is why we must strengthen social cohesion. It is a feature that distinguishes European society from alternative models.

Some say that because of the crisis the European social model is dead. I do not agree. Yes, we need to reform our economies and modernise our social protection systems, but an effective social protection system that helps those in need is not an obstacle to prosperity. It is indeed an indispensable element of it. Indeed, it is precisely those European countries with the most effective social protection systems and with the most developed social partnerships, that are among the most successful and competitive economies in the world.

Fairness and equity mean giving a chance to our young people. We are already doing a lot. Before the end of the year the Commission will launch a Youth Package that will establish a youth guarantee scheme and equality framework to facilitate vocational training.

Fairness and equity also mean creating better and fairer taxation systems. Stopping tax fraud and tax evasion could put extra billions into the public purse across Europe. This is why the Commission will fight for an agreement on the revised Savings Tax Directive and on mandates to negotiate stronger savings tax agreements with third countries. Their completion would be a major source of legitimate tax revenues.

The Commission will continue to fight for a fair and ambitious Financial Transaction Tax that will ensure that taxpayers benefit from the financial sector, not just that the financial sector benefits from taxpayers. Now that it is clear that agreement on this can only happen through enhanced cooperation, the Commission will do all it can to move this forward rapidly and effectively with those Member States that are willing. This is about fairness. Fairness is an essential condition for making the necessary economic reforms socially and politically acceptable and, above all, because fairness is a question of social justice.

In the face of the crisis, important decisions have been taken. Across the European Union, reform and consolidation measures are being implemented. Joint financial backstops are being put in place, and the European institutions have consistently shown that they stand by the euro. The Commission is very aware that in the Member States implementing the most intense reforms, there is hardship and there are – sometimes very painful – difficult adjustments, but it is only through these reforms that we can come to a better future. They were long overdue. Going back to the status quo ante is simply impossible. The Commission will continue to do all it can to support those Member States and to help them boost growth and employment, for instance through the re-programming of structural funds.

Allow me to say a word on Greece. I truly believe that we have a chance this autumn to come to the turning point. If Greece banishes all doubts about its commitment to reform – but also if all the other countries banish all doubts about their determination to keep Greece in the euro area – we can do it. I believe that if Greece stands by its commitments it should stay in the euro area as a member of the European family.

(Applause)

Securing the stability of the euro area is our most urgent challenge. This is the joint responsibility of the Member States and the Community Institutions. The ECB cannot, and will not, finance governments. But, when monetary policy channels are not working properly, the Commission believes that it is within the mandate of the ECB to take the necessary actions, for instance in the secondary markets of sovereign debt.

(Applause)

Indeed, the ECB has not only the right but also the duty to restore the integrity of monetary policy. It is of course for the ECB, as an independent institution, to determine what actions to carry out and under what conditions. But all actors – and I really mean all actors – should respect the ECB’s independence.

I have spoken about the economic policy measures that we must implement as a matter of urgency. This is indispensable. But it is not sufficient. We must go further. We must complete the economic and monetary union. We must create a banking union and a fiscal union and the corresponding institutional and political mechanisms.

Today, the Commission is presenting legislative proposals for a single European supervisory mechanism for the euro zone. This is a stepping stone to banking union. The crisis has shown that, while banks became transnational, rules and oversight remained national. When things went wrong, it was the taxpayers who had to pick up the bill.

Over the past four years the EU has overhauled the rulebook for banks, leading the world in implementing the G20 commitments. But mere coordination is no longer adequate – we need to move to common supervisory decisions, namely within the euro area. The single supervisory mechanism proposed today will create a reinforced architecture, with a core role for the European Central Bank, and appropriate articulation with the European Banking Authority, which will restore confidence in the supervision of the banks in the euro area.

It will be a supervision for all euro area banks. Supervision must be able to look everywhere because systemic risks can be anywhere, not just in so-called systemically relevant banks. Of course, this is in a system that fully engages the national supervisors.

The package comprises two legal texts – one on the ECB and the other on the EBA – which go together. It is clear that Parliament will have a crucial role to play in the adoption of the new mechanism, and after that in its democratic oversight.

This is a crucial first step towards the banking union I proposed before this House in June. Getting the European supervisor in place is the top priority for now because it is the precondition for the better management of banking crises, from banking resolution to deposit insurance.

In parallel the Commission will continue to work on the reform of the banking sector, to make sure it plays its role in the responsible financing of the real economy. That means improving long-term financing for SMEs and other companies. It means rules on reference indices, so that we do not again see the manipulation of bank interest rates affecting companies and mortgage holders alike. It means legislation to ensure that banks give a fair deal to consumers and another look at the structure of banking activities to eliminate inherent risks.

In all of this, the role of this Parliament is essential. The Commission endeavours to work in close partnership with you.

But there is a second element of a deeper economic union. It is the move towards a fiscal union. The case for it is clear: the economic decisions of one Member State impact on the others, so we need stronger economic policy coordination. We need a stronger and more binding framework for the national decision-making for key economic policies, as the only way to prevent imbalances. While much has been done here – for instance through the six pack and through the country-specific recommendations – further steps are crucial to combine specific conditions with specific incentives and to really make the economic and monetary union sustainable.

To deliver lasting results, we need to develop a fully equipped Community economic governance, together with a genuine, credible Community fiscal capacity. We do not need separate institutions or to create new institutions for that, quite the contrary. For this to be effective and quick, the best way is to work with and through the existing institutions: the European Commission as the independent European authority, overseen by the European Parliament as the parliamentary representation at European level. It is in such a framework that, over time, steps for genuine mutualisation of debt redemption and debt issuance can take their place.

So economic reform coupled with a genuine economic and monetary union are the engines to get our boat moving forward.

The Commission will publish a blueprint for deepening the economic and monetary union, already this autumn. This blueprint will be presented to this House because these questions must be discussed with and by the representatives of the people. At the same time, it will inform the debate at the December European Council that will be prepared by the report that the President of the European Council, I myself and the Presidents of the European Central Bank and the Euro Group have been asked to present.

Our blueprint will identify the tools and instruments and present options for legal drafting that will give effect to them, from policy coordination to fiscal capacity to debt redemption. Where necessary – as in the case of jointly and severally guaranteed public debt – it will identify the Treaty changes necessary because some of these changes require modifications in the Treaty. It will present a blueprint for what we need to accomplish, not only in the next few weeks and months but also in the next years.

Ultimately, the credibility and sustainability of economic and monetary union – the credibility of our currency, the euro – depends on the institutions and the political construct behind it. This is why the economic and monetary union raises the question of a political union and the European democracy that must underpin it.

If we want economic and monetary union to succeed, we need to combine ambition and proper sequencing. We need to take concrete steps now, but with a political union as the horizon. I would like to see the development of a European public space, where European issues are discussed and debated from a European standpoint. We cannot continue trying to solve European problems just with national solutions.

This debate has to take place in our societies and among our citizens. But today I would also like to make an appeal to European thinkers, to men and women of culture, to join this debate on the future of Europe. We need them. I also make this appeal to you. This is the house of European democracy. We must strengthen the role of the European Parliament at European level. We need to promote genuine complementarity and cooperation between the European and national parliaments.

This also cannot be done without strengthened European political parties. Indeed, we very often have a real disconnect between political parties in the capitals and the European political parties here in Strasbourg. This is why we have to recognise that the political debate is cast all too often as if it were just between national parties. Even in the European elections we do not see the name of the European political parties in the ballot box. We see a national discussion between national parties. This is why we need a better statute for European political parties. I am proud to announce that the Commission has adopted a proposal for this today.

An important means to deepen the pan-European political debate would be the presentation by European political parties of their candidate for the post of Commission President at the European Parliament elections in 2014. This can be done without a Treaty change and would be a decisive step to make the possibility of a European choice offered by these elections even clearer. I call on the political parties to commit to this step and thus to further Europeanise the European elections.

(Applause)

A true political European Union means we must concentrate European action on the real issues that matter and must be dealt with at European level. Let us be frank about this. Not everything can be a priority at the same time. We need to be more selective and here some self-criticism will probably apply.

Proper integration is about taking a fresh look at where the most appropriate level of action is. Subsidiarity is an essential democratic concept and should be practised. A political union also means that we must strengthen the foundations on which our Union is built: respect for our fundamental values, for the rule of law and democracy.

In recent months we have seen threats to the legal and democratic fabric in some of our European states. The European Parliament and the Commission were the first to raise the alarm and played the decisive role in seeing these worrying developments brought into check. But these situations also revealed the limits of our institutional arrangements. We need a better developed set of instruments – not just the alternative between the ‘soft power’ of political persuasion and the ‘nuclear option’ of Article 7 of the Treaty.

Our commitment to upholding the rule of law is also behind our intention to establish a European Public Prosecutor’s Office, as foreseen by the treaties. We will make a proposal soon.

A political union also means doing more to fulfil our global role. Sharing sovereignty in Europe means being more sovereign in a global world. In today’s world, size matters and values make the difference. That is why Europe’s message must be one of freedom, of democracy, of the rule of law and of solidarity. In short, our values, the European values.

More than ever our citizens and the new world order need an active and influential Europe, not just for us here in Europe. It is important for the rest of the world that we succeed. A Europe that stands by its values and a Europe that stands up for its belief that human rights are not a luxury for the developed world but should be seen as universal values.

The appalling situation in Syria reminds us that we cannot afford to be bystanders. A new and democratic Syria must emerge. We have a joint responsibility to make this happen and to work with those in the global order who also need to give their cooperation towards that goal.

The world also needs an EU that keeps its leadership of development and humanitarian assistance, that stands by open economies and fights protectionism and that leads the fight against climate change. The world needs a Europe that is capable of deploying military missions to help stabilise the situation in crisis areas. We need to launch a comprehensive review of European capabilities and begin truly collective defence planning. Yes, we need to enforce our Common Foreign and Security Policy and to have a common approach to defence matters because together we have the power and the scale to shape the world into a fairer, rules-based and human-rights-abiding place.

A deep and genuine economic and monetary union, a political union with a coherent foreign and defence policy, means ultimately that the present European Union must evolve. Let us not be afraid of the word: we will need to move towards a federation of nation states. This is our political horizon. This is what must guide our work in the years to come.

Today, I call for a federation of nation states. Not a superstate. A democratic federation of nation states that can tackle our common problems, through the sharing of sovereignty in such a way that each country and its citizens are better equipped to control their own destiny. This is about union with the Member States, not against the Member States. In the age of globalisation pooled sovereignty means more power, not less.

I said a federation of nation states on purpose because I think that, in these turbulent times, in these times of uncertainty, it would be a real mistake to leave the defence of the nation just to the nationalists and populists. I believe in a Europe where people are proud of their nations but also proud to be European and proud of our European values.

Creating this federation of nation states will ultimately require a new Treaty.

I do not say this lightly. We are all aware how difficult Treaty change has become. It has to be well prepared. Discussions on Treaty change must not distract or delay us from doing what can and must already be done today.

A deep and genuine economic and monetary union can be started under the current treaties, but can only be completed with changes in the treaties. So let us start it now but let us have the horizon for this future present in our decisions of today.

We must not begin with Treaty change. We must identify the policies we need and the instruments to implement them. Only then can we decide on the tools that we lack and the ways to remedy this.

Then there must be a broad debate all over Europe. A debate that must take place before a convention and an IGC are called. A debate of a truly European dimension. The times of European integration by implicit consent of citizens are over. Europe cannot be technocratic, bureaucratic or even diplomatic. Europe has to be ever more democratic and the role of the European Parliament for this is essential.

That is why the European elections in 2014 can be so decisive. Before the next European Parliament elections in 2014, the Commission will present its outline for the shape of the future European Union. We will put forward explicit ideas for Treaty change in time for a true European debate. We will set out the objectives to be pursued, the way in which the institutions that can make the European Union more open and democratic, the powers and instruments to make it more effective, and the model to make it a union for the peoples of Europe. I believe we need a real debate and in democracy the best way to debate is to debate our future and our goals in the elections at European level.

This is not just a debate for the euro area in its present membership. Let me be very clear. In Europe we need no more walls dividing us because the European Union is stronger as a whole in keeping the integrity of its single market, its membership and in its institutions. No one will be forced to come along and no one will be forced to stay out but the speed will not be dictated by the slowest or the most reluctant.

This is why our proposals will be based on the existing Union and its institutions – on the Community method. Let us be clear – there is only one European Union, one European Commission, one European Parliament. More democracy, more transparency, more accountability, is not created by a proliferation of institutions that would render the European Union more complicated, more difficult to read, less coherent and less capable of acting.

This is the magnitude of the decisions that we will need to make over time. That is why I believe we need a serious discussion between the citizens of Europe about the way forward – and also about the possible consequences of fragmentation, because sometimes through unintended consequences we get fragmentation that we do not want – but also about what we could achieve if leaders avoid national provincialism: what we can achieve together.

We must use the 2014 election to mobilise all pro-European forces. We must not allow the populists and the nationalists to set a negative agenda. I expect all those who call themselves Europeans to stand up and to take the initiative in this debate. Because even more dangerous than the scepticism of the anti-Europeans is the indifference or the pessimism of the pro-Europeans.

To sum up, what we need is a decisive deal to complete the EMU, based on a political commitment to a stronger European Union.

The sequence I put before you is clear. We should start by doing all we can to stabilise the euro and accelerate growth in the EU as a whole. The Commission will present all the necessary proposals – we have started today with the single supervisor – to create a banking union, in line with current treaty provisions.

Secondly, we will present our blueprint on a deep and genuine economic and monetary union, including the political instruments. This will be done this autumn. We will present here again all proposals in line with the current treaty provisions.

Thirdly, where we cannot move forward under the existing treaties, we will present explicit proposals for the necessary Treaty changes ahead of the next European parliamentary election in 2014, including elements for reinforced democracy and accountability. This is our project, a project that is step by step but with a big ambition for the future, with a federation as the horizon for Europe.

I am sure that many will say that this is too ambitious and that it is not realistic. But I want to leave you with some questions. Let me ask you – is it realistic to go on as we have been doing? Is it realistic to see what we are seeing today in many European countries? Is it realistic to see taxpayers paying banks and afterwards being forced to give banks back the houses they have paid for because they cannot pay their mortgages? Is it realistic to see more than 50% of our young people without jobs in some of our Member States? Is it realistic to go on trying to muddle through, just trying to accommodate mistakes with unconvincing responses? Is it realistic to think that we can win the confidence of markets when sometimes we show so little confidence in each other?

To me, it is this reality that is not realistic. This reality cannot go on.

The realistic way forward is the way that makes us stronger and more united. Realism is to put our ambition at the level of our challenges. Realism is to tell our youth that, yes, there is hope if we stick together. If there is a bias in our analysis, let it be a bias for hope. We should be proud to be Europeans, proud of our rich and diverse culture. In spite of our current problems, our societies are among the most human and free in the world. We do not have to apologise for our democracy or for our social market economy or for our values.

(Applause)

With high levels of social cohesion, respect for human rights and human dignity, equality between men and women, respect for our environment – these European societies, with all their problems, are among the most decent societies in human history. I think we should be proud of them.

In our countries two or three girls do not go to prison because they sing songs criticising the leader of their country. In our countries people are free and proud of that freedom and people understand what it means to live in freedom. In many of our countries, namely the most recent Member States, there is a recent memory of what was dictatorship and totalitarianism.

Previous generations have overcome much bigger challenges. Now it is for this generation to show they are up to the task. Now is the moment for all Europeans to leave business as usual behind and to embrace the business of the future. The European Union was built to guarantee peace but today this means making our Union fit to meet the challenges of globalisation.

That is why we need a new thinking for Europe, a decisive deal for Europe. That is why we need to guide ourselves by the values that are at the heart of the European Union. I believe that Europe has a soul and this soul can give us the strength and the determination to do what we must do.

You can count on the European Commission. I count on you, the European Parliament, because together, as Community institutions, we will build a better, stronger and a more united Europe, a citizens’ union for the future of Europe and also for the future of the world.

(Applause)

  Der Präsident. − Bevor ich die Aussprache eröffne, weil wir hier mit Anfragen zum Catch-the-eye-Verfahren überschwemmt werden, vielleicht noch ein Hinweis zu diesem Verfahren. Das Catch-the-eye-Verfahren heißt so, weil es spontan sein soll. Es ist keine Ersatzrednerliste. Wir werden versuchen, diejenigen, die sich gemeldet haben, einzubeziehen, allerdings nur, wenn sie im Saal sind. Das möchte ich auch deutlich sagen.

  Joseph Daul, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président du Parlement, Monsieur le Président de la Commission, chers collègues, Mesdames et Messieurs, tout d'abord, je voudrais remercier José Manuel Barroso pour son discours, sa déclaration, son analyse et son réalisme.

C'est la rentrée et, comme chaque année, nous nous retrouvons pour ce double exercice: faire le bilan des douze derniers mois et débattre de l'avenir de l'Union européenne.

Aujourd'hui, je pense que nous allons dans la bonne direction. Cela veut dire qu'il faut continuer vers plus d'intégration européenne. Il faut aussi plus de réformes concrètes.

Chers amis, cela fait maintenant trois ans que nous parlons de la crise. Nous savons que, pendant trop longtemps, nous avons vécu au-dessus de nos moyens, qu'il faut plus de discipline et un retour à l'équilibre budgétaire. C'est ainsi, et seulement ainsi, que nous parviendrons à investir pour les générations futures.

Nous connaissons les solutions pour sortir de la crise. Sur le plan économique, ce que nous avons fait ces trois dernières années, nous l'avons fait trop lentement, et cela nous a coûté des milliards. Concernant le paquet gouvernance économique, le pacte Euro+, le semestre européen, l'acte pour le marché unique, et dans certains secteurs, celui des banques, par exemple, le besoin de solutions européennes est évident. Les banques ne sont plus nationales, mais transnationales. Une banque qui fait défaut peut entraîner la faillite du système dans son ensemble. C'est pourquoi mon groupe soutient votre proposition de mettre en place un superviseur unique dans le secteur bancaire.

Chers amis, nous savons que nos solutions sont positives; nous avons des exemples qui le prouvent. Tu m'as fait penser – je ne l'ai pas indiqué sur ma feuille – qu'il y a aussi des exemples positifs. Je pense que les gouvernements les plus réformateurs d'Europe appartiennent aussi à notre famille politique. Je pense à notre ami Dombrovskis. Même si c'est un petit pays qui était dans une crise profonde, il en est sorti et il a une croissance digne de ce nom. Là aussi, à mon sens, c'est un exemple, et il y est parvenu sans compter beaucoup sur la solidarité européenne. Dans ses discours, il souligne que le seul argent à investir dont il disposait dans la crise profonde, c'était l'argent qui lui venait du budget européen. Je crois qu'il faut réfléchir à cela parce que, contrairement à certains, nous avons mesuré la gravité de la situation.

Nous savons que nos économies ne vont pas bien et que, pour guérir, il faut un traitement complet. Cela commence par un changement d'habitudes. Nous avons besoin de réformes et non de réformettes! Oui, c'est difficile, mais nous n'avons pas le choix. Pour que ces réformes aboutissent, il faut aussi favoriser la compétitivité et la croissance. Mon groupe soutient les gouvernements qui s'engagent dans cette voie.

J'aimerais également souligner un autre point. Il ne faut pas confondre solidarité européenne avec charité. C'est pour cela que je soutiens la proposition de la Banque centrale européenne d'acheter des obligations parce qu'un État qui bénéficie de cette solidarité doit se montrer responsable. Sans un programme de réformes comportant des propositions crédibles, un État ne peut pas recevoir cette aide. Cette approche est la bonne. C'est une approche européenne et, en renforçant les États en difficulté, c'est l'Europe, dans son ensemble, que nous renforçons.

Chers collègues, je le répète, vingt ans après sa mise en place, nous n'avons pas encore achevé le marché unique. Cher Président Barroso, je vous renouvelle mon appel. Il est urgent de mettre en place un plan d'action avec des délais précis pour terminer le travail commencé. Les règles du marché intérieur doivent être simples, appliquées de manière uniforme et transposées sous forme de paquet unique. Un exemple: à cause des barrières bureaucratiques, les 23 millions de PME européennes n'ont pas encore accès à tous les marchés des Vingt-sept. Je rappelle qu'un emploi créé dans chacune des 23 millions de petites et moyennes entreprises – faites le calcul –, ce n'est pas négligeable. C'est pourquoi mon groupe a appelé à une réduction des tracasseries administratives d'ici 2015. Au moins 50 % de papier en moins: que d'arbres économisés pour l'environnement! En faisant cela, nous donnons aux entreprises européennes l'occasion de créer des emplois. La Commission doit jouer pleinement son rôle et ne pas hésiter à faire respecter la législation. Publiez les listes des États qui n'ont pas encore transposé les directives et faites appliquer celles-ci. Usez de votre pouvoir! Les gouvernements nous mettent régulièrement en cause, nous, les Européens. Nous sommes la cause de tout! Alors, qu'ils prennent aussi leurs responsabilités!

Je vous demande, Monsieur le Président, de définir des domaines nouveaux, concrets, où les institutions européennes devraient intervenir. Je suis convaincu qu'à la crise que nous traversons, il y a un remède très simple: c'est plus d'Europe, encore de l'Europe et toujours de l'Europe!

Il nous faut une harmonisation fiscale et sociale. Nos politiques et nos actions communes sont des réussites. Je prendrai un exemple qui va sûrement vous surprendre: la politique agricole. C'est une vraie politique commune qui a permis de garantir la sécurité alimentaire – tu l'as rappelé – dans des périodes de fluctuations considérables. Elle a aussi sorti des régions entières de la pauvreté. Cette politique doit rester européenne. Surtout, ne faisons pas ce que beaucoup demandent aujourd'hui: renationaliser. Cela serait une catastrophe. C'est une politique européenne qui a réussi, elle doit rester européenne!

Autre exemple: le chômage, en particulier celui des jeunes. Aucun pays n'est capable à lui seul de résoudre ce problème. Même si c'est une compétence nationale, là aussi, il est temps de trouver une solution européenne. Je pense, encore une fois, à cet emploi supplémentaire dans chacune des 23 millions de PME. Tout le monde va peut-être sourire, mais ce n'est pas mon cas: 23 millions d'emplois supplémentaires avec une politique européenne pour l'emploi des jeunes, cela doit faire réfléchir.

Chers collègues, comme vous l'avez dit, Monsieur le Président, nous traversons une tempête sans précédent. Certains, en Europe et ailleurs, seraient trop heureux de voir l'euro s'écrouler. Personnellement, je n'ai pas envie de leur faire ce plaisir et toi, mon cher José Manuel, non plus. D'ailleurs, pourquoi les agences de notation préfèrent-elles attaquer l'euro, au lieu de juger le pays qu'elles connaissent le mieux et où se trouve leur siège? Elles ne font pas les mêmes analyses. Je sais pourquoi mais, d'un côté, ce n'est pas normal. Nous devons faire face à cette tempête, non pas en colmatant nos digues, mais en renforçant nos fondations. Ne répétons pas les erreurs du passé. Il est impensable de créer une union économique sans l'union politique qui l'accompagne. Il y va de notre crédibilité.

Cher Président, faisons preuve d'ambition européenne. L'Europe prend des décisions qui touchent 500 millions d'Européens. Ces décisions doivent faire l'objet d'un contrôle démocratique par la seule institution élue au suffrage universel direct. Le lieu de la légitimité démocratique est ici, au Parlement, et je remercie le président Schulz qui a remis les choses au centre. Nous sommes élus démocratiquement. Je crois donc que nous devons être reconnus démocratiquement. La proposition dite des "quatre présidents" vers une véritable Union économique et monétaire est ambitieuse – nous avons besoin aussi d'y participer au niveau du Parlement –, mais elle devrait l'être encore plus. Se concentrer uniquement sur les réformes économiques, c'est faire fausse route parce que la crise économique est devenue une crise politique, une crise de confiance – et tu l'as très bien rappelé à la fin. Maintenant, je suis d'accord sur un changement de traité à moyen et long terme, mais ce n'est pas la solution qu'il nous faut dans l'immédiat. Il nous faut simplement, parce que je suis français, un règlement intérieur qu'on applique au niveau des politiques fiscales et sociales, qu'on mettra dans le traité quand on aura le temps de réfléchir. Maintenant il faut agir!

J'ai été frappé par le dernier Eurobaromètre. Il révèle, certes, que pour une majorité d'Européens, l'Europe est une bonne chose. Mais dans de nombreux États membres, de plus en plus, nos citoyens ne se sentent pas européens. C'est notre devoir – et tu l'as dit – d'expliquer les valeurs ajoutées, mais c'est aussi le devoir de tous les dirigeants nationaux. Pour moi, un bon responsable politique, c'est comme un bon médecin. Les deux doivent expliquer, les deux doivent dire la vérité, les deux doivent convaincre, même si cela ne fait pas plaisir à entendre! Nous devons discuter des prochaines étapes de notre intégration en ayant cette réalité à l'esprit.

Mesdames et Messieurs, j'appelle à plus d'Europe, pas à plus de pouvoir pour le plaisir d'avoir du pouvoir. Nous devons construire l'Europe qui fera face aux défis du vingt-et-unième siècle. C'est pourquoi nous demandons que le budget 2014-2020 de l'Union soit doté d'un cadre financier crédible, solide et ambitieux, comme il a été préparé par la Commission et par le Parlement. Là aussi, la responsabilité politique des chefs d'État et de gouvernement est engagée et montrera à nos citoyens si nous avons envie de plus d'Europe. Le budget européen n'est pas un budget de dépenses, mais un budget d'investissement. C'est un budget tourné vers l'avenir, un budget pour la croissance.

Soyons sérieux et ambitieux. J'appelle tous les responsables à trouver une solution d'ici la fin de l'année.

Mesdames et messieurs, aujourd'hui, des juges se prononcent sur la légitimité démocratique des décisions européennes. Au Parlement, nous sommes les défenseurs d'un contrôle démocratique au niveau européen. Et nous devons aussi avoir le courage de faire appel à notre Cour de justice, à Luxembourg, si nous pensons que nos droits ne sont pas respectés. Nous devons aller beaucoup plus devant la Cour, comme le font les autres, et je suis sûr que cela aussi renforcera le Parlement.

C'est aussi pour cela que nous avons besoin d'une véritable Europe politique. Une Europe où le Parlement européen est le seul représentant direct des citoyens d'Europe. Si nous manquons ce rendez-vous, nous courons droit à l'échec. L'Union politique, c'est la légitimité, c'est plus de contrôle démocratique, c'est plus de participation des citoyens.

Voilà l'Europe en laquelle je crois. Voilà les valeurs que nous défendons au sein de notre groupe.

(Applaudissements)

  Hannes Swoboda, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Herr Präsident Barroso, Sie haben eine gute Rede gehalten, in Teilen sogar eine sehr gute Rede. In einigen Dingen würde ich allerdings weiter gehen, und ich werde auch sagen, wo wir Sozialdemokraten weiter gehen würden. Sie haben sich zum Sozialmodell Europa bekannt. Das ist gut so! Ich hätte mir gewünscht, es hätte auf der rechten Seite für dieses Sozialmodell Europa mehr Zustimmung gegeben, denn es ist extrem gefährdet.

Sie haben sich bekannt zur Rolle Europas in der Welt, zu einer starken Rolle. Auch das ist richtig! Gestern hat uns unser Kollege Robert Goebbels von einem Treffen in Asien berichtet. Der asiatische Vertreter hat seine Rede begonnen mit „we from the emerging countries and you Europeans from the submerging countries“. Das ist das Bild, das Europa heute zum Teil abgibt. Gemeinsam ist uns, dass wir Europa weiter zu den „emerging countries and regions“ zählen wollen. Wenn wir aber unsere Wirtschaftspolitik nicht ändern, wird daraus nichts werden. Wenn wir die Wirtschaftskrise nur als eine Staatsausgabenkrise sehen – Sie haben das differenzierter dargestellt, aber viele andere auf der rechten Seite sehen das so – und es daher nur um Kürzungen von Leistungen geht, dann kommen wir nicht aus der Krise heraus. Wir werden sogar in eine tiefergreifende Rezession kommen. Der portugiesische Premierminister hat es ja auch schon gesagt und deutlich gemacht: Beginnt man mit einer extremen Austeritätspolitik, muss man den Menschen immer tiefer in die Tasche greifen. Wir wollen das nicht! Wir wollen nicht, dass die Ärmsten Europas noch ärmer werden. Das ist nicht eine Politik, die wir Sozialdemokraten vertreten können.

(Beifall)

Herr Präsident, ich habe es Ihnen schon öfter gesagt: Die Troika ist leider ein Mithelfer bei dieser Rezessionspolitik. Die Troika sollte sich vielmehr um grundlegende Reformen von verkrusteten Strukturen bemühen, das ist notwendig. Aber wenn die Troika glaubt, man könne nur durch Kürzungen aus dem Schlamassel herauskommen, dann frage ich mich: Wo sind denn die Erfolge? Jede Prognose, die nach einer Maßnahmenempfehlung der Troika erstellt worden ist, musste korrigiert werden.

(Beifall)

In Spanien – der Außenminister und der Europaminister sitzen ja hier, unsere ehemaligen Kollegen, auch wenn sie jetzt miteinander plaudern –, ist die Arbeitslosigkeit von 11 auf 24 % gestiegen – ein Weltrekord für vergleichbare Länder – und die Staatsverschuldung von 40 auf 81 %. Und das soll ein Erfolg sein? Die Troika hat keinen Erfolg, weil sie falsche Rezepte hat, weil sie nicht auf Wachstum setzt, weil der Begriff „Nachfrage“ als Wachstumsstützung für sie ein unbekannter Begriff ist.

Kollege Daul, Sie haben Dombrovskis erwähnt. Hat Ihnen Herr Dombrovskis gesagt, wie viele gut ausgebildete Leute aus Lettland und aus den anderen baltischen Staaten und aus den südlichen Staaten auswandern mussten, weil sie keinen Job finden? So kann man Erfolg haben, wenn man bei hoher Arbeitslosigkeit die Betroffenen exportiert. Wohin sollen denn unsere Leute auswandern, wenn wir alle in eine Rezession kommen? Da werden Mosambik, Angola, Brasilien und andere Länder nicht groß genug sein.

(Beifall)

Seien wir ehrlich: Die Politik hat versagt! Die einzige Institution, die hier momentan in die Bresche gesprungen ist, ist die EZB. Nicht dass ich mit allen Maßnahmen glücklich bin. Aber hätten wir nicht eine EZB, dann steckten wir noch viel tiefer im Schlamassel. Und hätten wir nicht einen Mann wie Draghi, sondern einen Mann wie Weidmann an der Spitze, wäre die Katastrophe in Europa noch viel größer.

(Beifall)

Die Politik ist gefordert. Es gibt eine Alternative, die vor allem zu Investitionen führen muss. Herr Präsident Barroso, in den USA nehmen die öffentlichen Investitionen zu. In China nehmen die öffentlichen Investitionen zu. In Japan nehmen die öffentlichen Investitionen zu. Und in Europa? Was sollen wir da noch von Wettbewerbsfähigkeit reden, wenn wir nicht mehr investieren? Sie sind ja auf unserer Seite, was die Frage der Steuervermehrung und der Steuerhinterziehung betrifft. Wenn wir nur ein Viertel dessen bekämen, was uns jährlich an Steuerleistungen durch Steuerhinterziehung in Europa entgeht – durch Transfer in die Schweiz und in andere Steueroasen –, könnten wir die öffentlichen Investitionen in Europa um 40 % steigern. Das ist das Problem, das wir haben.

(Beifall)

Daher sind wir mit Ihnen einer Meinung: Damit die Finanzmärkte nicht so drastisch reagieren, brauchen wir eine stärkere Regulierung, die sich vor allem gegen den Hochfrequenzhandel richtet. Wir brauchen unbedingt Maßnahmen gegen die Steuervermeidung und Steuerflucht. Ich fordere Österreich und Luxemburg nochmals auf, der Kommission endlich ein Verhandlungsmandat für Verhandlungen mit der Schweiz zu geben. Wir brauchen auch die Finanztransaktionssteuer. Noch immer ist kein Antrag bei der Kommission eingegangen. Ich gebe Ihnen Recht, was die Bankenunion und die Überwachung der Banken betrifft, damit nicht wieder Steuergelder in diesen Bereich hineinfließen müssen. Und wir brauchen ein Budget, das auch Wachstum forciert. Wir sind auf Ihrer Seite. Ich kann Ihnen eines klar sagen: Die Fraktion der Sozialdemokratinnen und Sozialdemokraten wird keinem europäischen Budget zustimmen, das keinen Beitrag zum Wachstum leistet. Wir lehnen absolut die Versuche ab, aus populistischen Gründen dieses Budget noch weiter zu kürzen. Es ist gering genug, aber viele Regionen brauchen dieses Budget.

(Beifall)

Was uns aber besonders betroffen macht, ist die Missachtung der sozialen Frage. Es ist ja nicht nur eine Frage der armen Länder. Denn wenn man die Jugendarbeitslosigkeit sieht, wenn man sieht, wie rasant sie steigt, betrifft das ja nicht nur die peripheren Länder. Wissen die Damen und Herren hier, dass jeder fünfte Arbeitnehmer in Deutschland, im guten, reichen Deutschland, Niedriglohnempfänger ist? Wissen die Kolleginnen und Kollegen auf der Rechten, die nicht von der CDU sind, dass Frau von der Leyen, ihre Ministerin, massiv kämpfen möchte gegen die Altersarmut, allerdings von ihrer eigenen Partei dabei behindert wird, so dass sie jetzt zur SPD gehen muss und um Unterstützung bittet? Das ist die Realität: Armut, Altersarmut, Jugendarbeitslosigkeit ist etwas, was zwar in den peripheren Ländern des Südens extrem ausgeprägt ist, aber es kommt schön langsam auch in die reichen Länder wie Deutschland! Und auch Deutschland rutscht in die Rezession hinein. Ein Drittel der Deutschen befürchtet einen sozialen Abstieg. Das ist das Europa von heute! Wenn wir Europa verteidigen, dann kann es doch nicht dieses Europa sein!

Ist es nicht ein Skandal – und Sie können wahrscheinlich zustimmen, Herr Präsident, aber ich fordere Sie auf zu Aktivität –, dass im Van Rompuy-Papier zu den sozialen Fragen eigentlich nichts steht. Das, was die meisten Leute heute in Europa berührt, nämlich Arbeitslosigkeit, Armut, sozialer Abstieg, ist im Van Rompuy-Papier nicht einmal erwähnt. Und daher fordere ich ein Kapitel im Van Rompuy-Papier zu sozialen Fragen. Ich fordere namens meiner Fraktion auch einen Sozialpakt, denn die Damen und Herren auf der rechten Seite dieses Hauses sind ja sehr erpicht darauf, einen Fiskalpakt zu haben. Ich bin einverstanden! Mit Mühe und Not und nur auf Druck der neuen französischen Regierung hat es einen Wachstumspakt gegeben, schwach zwar, aber immerhin. Aber ein Sozialpakt ist Ihnen anscheinend überhaupt nicht wichtig. Wir brauchen einen Sozialpakt, um gegen die Entsolidarisierung in Europa, gegen die Jugendarbeitslosigkeit, gegen die Altersarmut zu kämpfen und für die Integration unserer ausländischen oder zugewanderten Mitbürger. Es gibt viele soziale Fragen in Europa, und daher möchte meine Fraktion jetzt endlich auch einen Sozialpakt haben, und nicht nur einen schwachen Wachstumspakt, und nicht nur einen strengen Fiskalpakt.

(Beifall)

Herr Präsident, auch der Präsident des Parlaments hat die Frage der Demokratie angeschnitten. Die Demokratie ist gefährdet durch den Missstand der vielen Finanzmärkte. Da ist die Souveränität gefährdet, die nationale Souveränität ist nicht durch Europa gefährdet. Aber sicherlich ist die Demokratie auch gefährdet, weil wir antidemokratische Tendenzen sehen. Wenn der Europäische Rat immer mehr an sich zieht – jetzt auch in den Budgetfragen –, dann frage ich mich: Wem gegenüber verantwortet der Europäische Rat sein Handeln? Auf der nationalen Ebene sind es die einzelnen Ministerpräsidenten. Und Herr Van Rompuy ist ja der große Abwesende in diesem Haus, wir sehen ihn selten und meistens nur nachher, wenn er erklärt, was oder oft was nicht geschehen ist. Das ist keine Tendenz, die wir akzeptieren können. Wir wollen eine volle Verantwortung auch des Europäischen Rats, auch vor diesem Haus. Denn die parlamentarische Demokratie auf europäischer Ebene gehört zur Demokratie, ist ihr wesentlicher Bestandteil. Und der Europäische Rat soll sich nicht Dinge und Macht anmaßen, die ihm nicht zustehen. Das ist eine Verletzung der Demokratie!

(Beifall)

Es gibt Schriftsteller, die nicht zu Unrecht heute in deutschen und österreichischen Medien den Rat als Verteidigungsburg des Nationalismus sehen. Ich verstehe Ihren Begriff der Föderation der Nationalstaaten. Aber, Herr Kommissionspräsident: Es muss schon klar sein, dass wir gemeinsam dafür kämpfen, dass die Nationalstaaten jene Kompetenzen an Europa geben, die notwendig sind, damit wir gemeinsam unsere Souveränität in der Welt von heute und von morgen verteidigen können.

Zuletzt: Wir brauchen auch einen neuen Vertrag. Aber wenn wir den Arbeitslosen von heute sagen, wir haben keinen Job für euch, und gleichzeitig über einen neuen EU-Vertrag diskutieren, dann werden sie uns bestenfalls mit Unverständnis anschauen, wenn sie nicht gar handgreiflich werden. Daher müssen wir mit Vorsicht vorgehen. Wir brauchen zuerst eine europäische Debatte. Wir haben gestern mit einigen Außenministern, die an einem Papier arbeiten, darüber diskutiert. Wir brauchen eine europäische Debatte über die Ziele dieses zukünftigen Europas. Da haben wir vieles gemeinsam. Nach den nächsten Wahlen können wir dann einen Konvent einberufen. Wenn wir wissen, wohin wir gehen wollen, kann dieser Konvent auch – ich sage es ganz deutlich – eine neue Verfassung beschließen und nicht eine Vertragsänderung. Wir brauchen endlich eine europäische Verfassung, aber erst nach der Lösung unserer aktuellen Probleme, das ist ganz entscheidend.

Und schließlich, Herr Kommissionspräsident: Ich mache Ihnen das Angebot einer engen Zusammenarbeit. Wenn wir gemeinsam für das Europa der Beschäftigung, das Europa der sozialen Kohäsion und das Europa der Demokratie kämpfen, dann können wir einen guten gemeinsamen Weg gehen. Wir haben nicht mehr viel Zeit bis zu den nächsten Wahlen. Wir müssen dieses Europa ändern, wir müssen gemeinsam kämpfen gegen die Entsolidarisierung und gegen den Nationalismus. Der Nationalismus ist etwas, was uns bedroht. Man kann stolz sein auf die Fahne, aber wenn neben der britischen Fahne nicht die europäische Fahne steht, dann ist es falsch, hier diese Fahne aufzustellen. Steht die europäische Fahne, dann kann auch die britische stehen, denn das gemeinsame Europäische ist das, was uns verbindet.

(Beifall)

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank President Barroso very much for his message, because he has recognised – and this was a change from the debates last month and last year – that we are still in the middle of a deep crisis and we have to recognise that when we discuss the State of the Union today.

But what we are seeing today is more of a deep political crisis. Everybody is talking about public finances, about interest rates, about economics. In my opinion it is not about Greece, it is not about the public finances, it is not even about economics as being the fallout of the crisis. The real nature of this crisis is a political one and that is the political incapacity today to make the jump forward to a federal union and, more precisely, the incapacity of the national elites of Europe to make this jump to a more federal union in Europe. That is the real crisis we are going through today.

I am saying that, Mr Barroso, because you have made a whole speech, but at the end of the speech you come up with a concept and that concept we cannot accept: a federation of nation states. No, no federation of nation states, that is more of the same, we have that already – that is the European Council, which is a federation of nation states where the Heads of Government and the Heads of State were trying to solve and are incapable of solving this crisis. We do not want more of the same – we do not need a nationalistic or a national future for Europe. We need a post-national future for Europe. That is what we need. What we need for Europe is not a federation of nation states: it is a federal union of European citizens. It is about citizens and it is not about nation states in the future.

  Der Präsident. − Es ist vielleicht für deine Rede von besonderer Bedeutung: Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat die Klagen abgelehnt. Der Europäische Stabilitätsmechanismus ist zulässig.

(Beifall)

  Guy Verhofstadt, au nom du groupe ALDE. – Voilà déjà une première bonne nouvelle aujourd'hui! Peut-être que M. Barroso va nous dire: oui, en fait, je vais transformer la fédération des États-nations en une union fédérale. Ainsi, nous aurons l'unanimité dans la maison aujourd'hui!

Mr President, even after the decision of the Constitutional Court – I am always a little bit critical when we talk about the Constitutional Court, as if there were no constitutional courts in other EU countries for the moment, but maybe in the future we can give them as much attention as we have given to Karlsruhe – there are still three remarks to be made.

First, it is not the European Central Bank that will solve the crisis. The European Central Bank can help; the European Bank has done the unavoidable in that for the third time already – after Trichet with SMP, after the LTRO – Draghi has bought us time again. But this is a stop-gap solution; this is not a structural solution to this crisis and it is a mistake to think in this House that, if the ECB comes in, then our problems are over. No, our problems are only over if we have the courage to create the federal union that is so desperately needed. Do not think that this new measure of Draghi can work for more than five or six months. The crisis will come back if we do not assume responsibility – that is my second remark today, dear colleagues.

We all know what the solution is. We all know – besides a number of individuals on the other side of the plenary – that we need an economic union, we need a political union, we need a fiscal union. We all know that is the solution. I find it unthinkable that we are still waiting to come forward with proposals and what are we doing, in fact? Waiting for the outcome of the German elections or something like that, because that is the political reality for the moment.

I stress that I think it is very good, Mr Barroso, that today you have introduced a proposal for a single financial supervisor, which is one of the three building blocks for a banking union. But what I do not understand is why the Commission is not also taking the initiative on the other building blocks that are needed to solve this crisis.

We desperately need a resolution mechanism for the banks. The establishment of an economic government and a treasury in Europe: we need it desperately, if we want to solve the crisis. The mutualisation of debt by the establishment of redemption funds: even the chief of the German Sparkasse last week said – and he is the former Minister of Finance in Bavaria, a good member of the CSU – that it is absolutely necessary that we have a redemption fund if we want to solve this crisis. Furthermore he, the chief of the whole Sparkasse in Germany, has asked the European Commission to take the initiative in that regard.

So my question to you, Mr Barroso, is why these two standards? If the European Council in June was asking you to come forward with a proposal for a banking union within two months – and that is a good thing – why is Mr Barnier not putting forward a proposal for a banking union? If this Parliament has already asked the Commission four times, in the Two-Pack and in the resolutions, to come forward with a redemption fund, which is a real structural solution to this crisis, why do we receive nothing at all? Why is the European Council more important than the European Parliament when you come forward with your own initiatives? Why?

(Applause)

I believe that we are in a balanced Union. You have the Council and you have Parliament. If Parliament requests that you come forward with a package of legislative proposals to end this crisis, it is your obligation and duty to do that. We are still waiting. We are still waiting for, I do not know what, perhaps the green light from Berlin or from of Paris before you take action in that regard.

That brings me finally to my third point, the proposal that we have on the table today, which is the creation, the establishment of a single financial supervisory authority by giving more powers to the European Central Bank. I have to tell you, Mr Barroso, I think it is a good idea that we have that, because we need a single supervisor. But I have some question marks on the model that we are choosing today because, let us be honest, what we are doing is mainly copying the Banque de France. In most of our countries – in Britain it is the case, in Belgium, in the Netherlands and in Germany too – you have a split between a monetary authority on the one hand and financial supervision of banks on the other. I cannot understand why we cannot merge the three institutions that we have today into what we call a financial supervisory agency or authority, so that we do not mix a financial supervision task with a monetary authority.

I see a number of possible conflicts today: euro zone banks versus non-euro zone banks; banks versus other financial institutions. I see a problem between the ECB and the EBA. The EBA is creating the roadmap and the ECB is applying the roadmap.

I also see a problem on democratic accountability, because democratic accountability is not compatible with the independence of the Bank. So my proposal to you, Mr Barroso, is to look further into that question and also to change the legal basis. My proposal and suggestion to you and Mr Barnier is not only to use Article 127 as a legal base, but also Article 114, so that we have full codecision with Parliament on such an important matter in the future.

So I conclude, Mr President, but I have a little more time as you interrupted me in the beginning of my speech – with good news, so there is no criticism from my side. I think it is absolutely necessary now, Mr Barroso, that not only do we hear a good speech from you but that you put forward a whole package of legislative proposals in the way Parliament wants. Because do not forget that your legitimacy comes from this House, from this Parliament, and it is also this House that can take it back.

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

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE), question "carton bleu". – Monsieur Verhofstadt, on entend trop souvent dire dans les capitales: "C'est la faute de l'Europe". Mais quand je vous écoute ici, au Parlement, depuis trois ans, je n'entends qu'un discours: "C'est la faute des États membres". C'est si simple! Peut-être que c'est parce que vous avez été Premier ministre d'un État membre pendant dix ans que vous connaissez les turpitudes des gouvernants nationaux, mais pensez-vous vraiment – et je suis fédéraliste depuis aussi longtemps que vous – qu'on va faire une fédération en Europe contre les États membres qui, je le rappelle quand même, ont des gouvernements qui ont été élus démocratiquement? Je pense que c'est une voie sans issue que de simplement répliquer "C'est la faute des États membres" à ceux qui disent "C'est la faute de l'Europe".

  Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE), réponse "carton bleu". – Je ne dis pas qu'il faut nier qu'il y a des États membres! Ce sont eux qui doivent exécuter les politiques! Mais la réalité est tout à fait différente. La réalité, aujourd'hui en Europe, c'est que c'est au Conseil qu'on prend les décisions. Or, on voit aujourd'hui que le Conseil est incapable de le faire: les États membres sont incapables de décider de mutualiser la dette, ils sont incapables de créer la gouvernance économique, ils sont incapables de le faire parce qu'ils sont animés par leur intérêt national. C'est nous qui représentons l'intérêt européen et non les États-nations!

(Applaudissements)

C'est en donnant de la souveraineté au niveau européen qu'on résoudra la crise. Naturellement, demain, la Belgique continuera d'exister, comme tous les autres États membres de l'Union européenne. Mais ce sera avec une vraie union fédérale. Cela ne veut pas dire avec un budget de 1 %. Cela n'a rien à voir avec un budget fédéral.

(Applaudissements)

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Messieurs les Présidents, d'abord une remarque préliminaire. Monsieur Barroso, quand vous parlez de crise, n'oubliez pas la crise écologique, les contraintes environnementales, que vous n'avez pas nommées dans la description des crises aujourd'hui. Nous sommes confrontés à une polycrise, à plusieurs crises, et la crise écologique est une des crises les plus importantes, avec la crise financière et économique et la crise démocratique. Si vous refaites votre discours, ajoutez-y cela.

Deuxièmement, Monsieur Barroso, vous avez dit: "Il nous faut une nouvelle pensée, il nous faut une nouvelle direction". Oui, mais si nous voulons prendre une nouvelle direction, nous avons besoin de quelque chose: une boussole! Dans quelle direction voulons-nous aller? C'est là où le débat entre Philippe et Guy est intéressant, parce qu'en effet, nous devons être un peu sincères. Je suis d'accord avec Guy lorsqu'il dit que le Conseil, les gouvernements, n'ont pas été capables de donner des réponses à la crise. Ils ont louvoyé. On va aider la Grèce, un peu, beaucoup, pas du tout, passionnément, à la folie... On ne savait jamais quelle était vraiment la position des gouvernements. Encore aujourd'hui, nous l'ignorons. Donc, c'est vrai qu'il y a une incapacité du Conseil. Mais Guy, il y a aussi une incapacité de ce Parlement, il y a aussi une incapacité des institutions européennes. Quand ce Parlement n'a pas été capable d'adopter l'élaboration de listes transnationales pour les prochaines élections, cela montre bien qu'il n'est pas à la hauteur du débat dont nous avons besoin.

Donc, reprenons la boussole. Je suis persuadé qu'aujourd'hui, la fédéralisation de l'Europe est une nécessité. Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous avez repris de Jacques Delors, la fédération des États-nations. Oui, il faut une Europe postnationale qui ne soit pas seulement une fédération d'États. C'est de cela dont nous avons besoin en Europe. Évidemment que les États joueront, dans un Sénat, dans une deuxième Chambre, un rôle important dans la législation européenne, mais ce qui est inacceptable aujourd'hui, c'est que nous avons un Conseil qui est exécutif et législateur en même temps. Ce n'est plus possible. Montesquieu se retourne dans sa tombe! Un législateur ne peut pas être exécutif et un exécutif ne peut pas être législateur. Nous devons dénoncer cela, sinon nous ne progresserons pas.

Vous avez parlé du budget, Monsieur Barroso. Vous avez raison, mais, allons, soyons sincères! Reprenons notre boussole pour garder le cap de la fédéralisation. Je voudrais donner une information à ceux qui ne le savent pas dans ce Parlement. Quand le budget fédéral américain a été créé en 1932, par Roosevelt, il était de 1 % du PIB américain. En 1945, il était de 7 % du PIB. En 2012, il est de 23 % du PIB. Tant que le budget européen ne représentera que 1 % du PIB européen, eh bien nous ne pourrons pas avoir de politique sociale européenne digne de ce nom. Cela ne peut pas marcher!

Cela veut dire que, dans les cinq prochaines années, le budget européen devrait évoluer de 1 % à 5 % du produit intérieur brut européen. Voilà le vrai débat qu'il faut mener avec les États-nations. Cette progression, elle doit s'effectuer par les ressources propres. Ce n'est pas par les contributions nationales, qui incarnent l'organisation des égoïsmes nationaux, que nous arriverons à construire l'Europe!

Je voudrais dire une chose très simple. Vous avez parlé, Monsieur Barroso, de flexisécurité. Évidemment, c'est juste: flexibilité du marché du travail dans des conditions de sécurité pour ceux qui travaillent. Prenez un pays comme la Grèce, où le taux de chômage est à un niveau incroyable. Vous croyez que, si on organise aujourd'hui une flexibilité du marché du travail comme on veut l'imposer, ce pays pourra payer la sécurité? Si nous voulons aujourd'hui la flexisécurité pour certains pays pauvres, que ce soit la Grèce, que ce soit l'Espagne, que ce soit l'Italie ou d'autres pays qui sont en grave crise de chômage, on ne passera que par une aide en faveur de la sécurité par, justement, le budget européen. Sinon, nous n'y arriverons pas et ils n'y arriveront pas. Si vous voulez qu'il y ait un véritable pacte social, que l'Europe ait les moyens d'aider certains États qui ne peuvent pas assurer la sécurité, comme les États-Unis peuvent le faire avec leur budget, eh bien, avec 1 %, même avec la proposition de la Commission, nous n'y arriverons pas.

Donc, la boussole aujourd'hui, la fédéralisation de l'Europe, c'est cela: un fonds d'amortissement social pour la Grèce, aujourd'hui et tout de suite. Qu'on dise enfin la vérité à la Grèce! La vérité, c'est que vous pouvez encore faire une politique d'ajustement, mais c'est fini. Soyons sincères et ouverts. Évidemment qu'il faut une rallonge dans le temps pour la Grèce, évidemment qu'il faudra remettre de l'argent pour ce pays. Une femme qui travaille à mi-temps dans un supermarché en Grèce gagne 150 euros. Ce n'est pas possible, ce n'est plus possible. Je voudrais vous dire une chose, chers collègues: l'extrême-droite grecque fait du porte-à-porte aujourd'hui en donnant 20 euros, 30 euros aux familles. Quand vous gagnez 150 euros, 20 ou 30, c'est beaucoup. L'extrême-droite fait en Grèce ce que les islamistes font dans d'autres pays. Est-ce que l'Union européenne n'est pas capable, dans cette situation de crise, de donner aussi un fonds social d'amortissement de la crise à un pays comme la Grèce pour que les citoyens grecs reviennent à l'Europe et n'aillent pas à l'extrême-droite? Voyez la fascisation de la société grecque!

Je termine. La boussole, c'est très simple: davantage de possibilités d'intervention pour l'Union européenne, un budget européen digne de ce nom, un fonds d'amortissement social de la crise pour les pays européens en crise. Avec cela et les propositions qui ont été faites par Guy et Joseph, nous arriverons à faire revenir la majorité des citoyens européens vers l'Europe.

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

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), blue-card question. – Mr Cohn-Bendit, why cannot you understand that federalism, European regulations and the wasteful, wasted European budgets are no cure for the European disease? They are the cause of the European disease.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer. – Lord Dartmouth, why cannot you understand that the time of the earls is over? They are not the solution for democracy; cannot you understand this? In 30 years’ time none of the European nation states, neither Great Britain nor Germany, will be part of the G8. Cannot you understand that this time is over?

You can write poems about it, I am sad about it, I understand that the Earl is sad about it, but it is the cruel reality of the modern world. Cannot you not understand the modern world?

(Loud applause)

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD). - Mr President, I would just point out to Mr Cohn-Bendit that I have the privilege and honour of being elected to this Chamber, just as he and the other Members have.

My lineage and background are totally irrelevant, as is most of his speech.

  Der Präsident. − Das war jetzt keine Wortmeldung zur Geschäftsordnung. Aber da die Aristokratie so verprügelt worden ist, müssen wir da großzügig sein.

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, two weeks ago I was privileged to be with Mr Daul and others from this House in Tampa, where Mitt Romney told the Republican National Convention: ‘I wish President Obama had succeeded because I want America to succeed, but his promises gave way to disappointment and division’.

I wish to say to President Barroso: my group supported you for a second term. We wanted you to succeed in shaping a positive agenda for reform of the EU. In some areas, such as international trade or the single market, your Commission has made some progress which we welcome, and we welcome your further announcements today of progress on the single market. But overall I have to say we are very disappointed. Rather than seeing European renewal, as you yet again promised last year, all we have seen is the same old tired approach: more Europe rather than better Europe.

Exactly two years ago the main initiative to emerge from your State of the Union speech was project bonds. Two years on, nothing has happened, they are merely at a pilot phase. Last year your big idea was an EU-wide financial transactions tax, and today thankfully that idea is dead in the water. This year we have a banking union, we have more Treaty change – the knee-jerk reflex of the European elite to every crisis. You told us today that we have the power to shape the world. Mr Barroso, can I suggest that first of all you concentrate on solving the problems of Europe before you worry about shaping the rest of the world?

And so far, the response to the euro zone crisis has been characterised by seeking short-term, sticking-plaster solutions and long-term institutional navel-gazing. Listening to you today it looks as though that is going to continue. Bail-outs – ECB Ponzi schemes – have enabled you to kick the infamous can even further down the road, and last week’s ECB decision to buy up bonds may be, as some Members have said, a useful stop-gap, but it is in no sense a solution. Risks have simply been transferred from one balance sheet to another.

The essential nonsense of this current approach was for me brilliantly illustrated over the summer. If you remember, Greece had to repay a EUR 5 billion loan to the ECB, so to do this they issued new short-term bonds. All of these bonds were bought by Greek banks. Those Greek banks are, of course, all technically bust. So where did they get the money from? They borrowed it from the ECB to pay the Greek state who then gave it back to the ECB again.

Mr President, this is exactly the kind of financial chicanery which caused the economic crisis in the first place, and now you want us to have another long drawn-out academic debate about more Treaty change, about a banking union. We will scrutinise your proposals very carefully to make sure that they respect the rights of those Member States that thankfully chose not to join the euro. We wish to maintain the integrity of the single market and ensure that your proposals do not damage that market.

The euro was, of course, a political project from the start. I well remember the many debates in this House we had about it, where the political symbolism was much more important than the economic reality. I bet many of you are regretting that now. Well, President, we are now in an economic crisis and it will be solved with economic solutions, by confronting some fairly stark economic truths.

It is a reality – and Members have referred to this, Mr Barroso referred to this – that some euro zone countries are less competitive than others. For them, the euro is acting like a straitjacket, preventing the currency devaluation that would give them time to put in place longer-term reforms. And to illustrate how urgent the problem is, I agree with Mr Swoboda, a new report from the ILO shows that Spain now has the highest documented unemployment rate in the world. Greece unfortunately comes second. This is misery on an epic scale in those countries, and we really should do something about it. So let us be honest about it. Let us be honest with ourselves.

The only way that the euro can be made to work with 17 members is if the people of Germany, the people of the Netherlands, the people of Finland, are prepared to transfer cash – not loans, cash – from their taxpayers’ pockets in order to bridge the competitiveness gap. Now I do not think that is ever going to happen and the people of those countries deserve our understanding of why that is not possible.

So surely the only other alternative is for some countries to leave the euro, to devalue their currencies and for us to support them as they find the right policies that will return them to sustainable public spending and growth in the long-term. The euro area needs to be restructured, and I do not say that with delight, Mr Barroso. I say it because I think it is the only realistic course of action that will deliver for people who are desperate for a solution.

The EU faces a crisis of leadership. Mr Barroso told us so himself last year in the State of the Union address, and I agree with him in that particular case. The EU does face a crisis of leadership. It needs a leadership that faces the economic reality of the euro crisis and does not keep avoiding the problem. We need new leadership that respects our nation states as building blocks of democracy which should be supported and not undermined.

We take away people’s right to control their destiny through the ballot box at our peril. Already frustrated, angry and fearful people are toying with extremist forces and the alarm bells should be ringing. On that point, and on that point alone, I agree with Mr Cohn-Bendit.

We need a new leadership which will tackle Europe’s fundamental competitiveness crisis in the wider global economy and which will pursue a new direction to relaunch growth along the lines outlined by 12 EU prime ministers in their letter in February.

In America, Governor Romney has set out a plan for how he would renew America by returning it to a land of personal ambition, enterprise and freedom. In the EU we come from the same traditions and we are at our best when government is small, when markets are free and when the people exercise control over their government.

Mr Barroso, I still hope that, as you prepare your work programme for next year, it is not too late for you to shake off the policies of the past and to champion genuine reform of the EU so that it can become relevant to today’s reality and help us to succeed in facing the difficult years ahead.

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

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR), blue-card question. – Mr Callanan, you talked about economic growth. Would you agree with me that, if we are to create the conditions for growth in Europe, we must first roll back intrusive EU employment legislation? Would you also agree therefore that the EU must not press ahead with its plans for mandatory quotas for women in company board rooms?

  Martin Callanan (ECR), blue-card answer. – I agree with you that, of course, we need more flexible labour markets. We need to give people the opportunity to work in many countries where that is denied them. I fear that what we see here is yet more intrusive EU legislation trying to interfere in areas where it has no place.

Of course I want to see more women on company boards, but I want to see them there on merit. We have many excellent women in this House who are here on merit –

(Interjection from Mr Cohn-Bendit)

We know you are not here on merit, Mr Cohn-Bendit, but many people are! – and we want to see them here on merit, not because of impossible and undeserved quotas.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, I begin today on a happy note remembering that it is 20 years ago this very week since the United Kingdom, having been signed up by the Conservative Government to the Exchange Rate Mechanism, broke out of the ERM. It was a great liberation for us and, of course, once having been bitten we did not join the euro project, thank goodness. Sadly, the same is not true for much of the rest of Europe.

I thought, through the last 18 months or so, that the economic logic of why Britain left the ERM would apply, particularly to those Mediterranean countries, and I foresaw that actually those countries would leave the euro zone, probably with Greece leaving this year. But I now have to accept that I have been wrong about that, because I had totally underestimated the complete fanaticism of you, Mr Barroso, your college of Commissioners, and the European Central Bank. You have come out fighting on all fronts. Today you announced that there is going to be a banking union, yet more centralised control, yet more regulation.

You make it clear that whilst you think the nation state should continue to exist, it must not have any democratic powers. All democracy is to be vested here under what you call the ‘Community method’ which of course means that your unelected Commission has the sole right to present that legislation, so I do not believe you when you say that and I find the tone of much of what has been said and done over the last few days really very worrying.

Mario Draghi, now known by some that believe in the euro as Super Mario, showed us his big bazooka the other day. He upped the stakes and he told us – and to me it is an odd concept – that he had unlimited money. Now, I do not think money grows on trees and I think that money is limited to what the German, Dutch and Finnish taxpayers are prepared to put in, but he has made clear his intention: he will fight to the last German taxpayer to keep the Mediterranean countries that should never have joined the euro in there. And now you have of course the Prime Minister of Italy – perhaps we ought to call him Monstrous Mario – who made it clear last week that he feared that nation state democracy could bring down the European Union and therefore we have to by-pass nation state democracy and pass all the powers here.

Your henchman Olli Rehn, who is here today, dares to tell countries when they should and should not have general elections. He is urging Spain to accept a full bailout so that they too are trapped in the euro prison. I have to accept that you now have the whip hand over the citizens of Europe and I now think that this euro crisis will go on for a whole miserable decade.

In the end, you will have to face the reality that even France and Germany cannot survive together in the same economic and monetary union and certainly with President Hollande reducing retirement ages, upping minimum wages and bringing in a hate tax for the successful, which will see all the entrepreneurs leave France, I am afraid that gap will get bigger. I wonder where the hope comes for those who believe in nation state democracy.

We have heard that the German court this morning has decided that the ESM is OK. Maybe the Finns will say they have had enough. Maybe the Germans as a country will say they are no longer going to go on feeling ashamed and guilty for what their grandparents’ generation did and will start to stand up for their own economic interest.

I do not know, but I suspect that the best hope we have actually comes from the United Kingdom, where the demand for a referendum is stronger than it has ever been, where our Conservative Prime Minister is in very deep trouble. I think today, Mr Barroso, the British people hearing you calling for the European Union to become a global power, making it absolutely clear that Member States must obey what you tell them, whether they are in the relatively wealthy north or the poorer south, I think those comments, this emerging, creeping, Euro-dictatorship is something that will repulse millions of British people. The only good news I take from today is that you have helped to bring that referendum just a little bit closer.

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

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Präsident, Herr Farage! Als ich ein junger Abgeordneter war – das ist schon eine Zeit her –, war es zumindest unterhaltsam, Ihnen ab und zu zuzuhören. Ich sage Ihnen, jetzt ist es nur mehr langweilig. Seit einem Jahrzehnt erzählen Sie, wie fürchterlich das alles hier ist, dass alles morgen untergehen wird, dass die Katastrophen über uns hereinbrechen werden. Und was passiert? Ich habe keine Angst vor morgen! Einige ältere Herren hinter Ihnen glauben Ihnen vielleicht noch, was Sie sagen. Aber das sind immer weniger. Deshalb frage ich Sie, Herr Farage: Wann überlegen Sie sich mal etwas Neues? Oder wann erzählen Sie diesen Unsinn, den Sie hier immer erzählen, einmal woanders?

  Nigel Farage (EFD), blue-card answer. – I think the point about listening is a very good one – a very good one. You should have listened when the French people voted ‘No’ to the European constitution, but you chose to ignore them. You should have listened when the Dutch by a massive majority of two to one said ‘No’ to the constitution, but you did not. You rebranded it as the Lisbon Treaty without conceding a single power; you bulldozed it through, and here this morning we hear talk of a new treaty and a new constitution. When little Ireland not once but twice dared to vote ‘No’ in a referendum on European integration, you did not listen, you bullied them to make them vote again. You are the one, Sir, who is not listening.

(Applause)

  Gabriele Zimmer, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren, Herr Barroso! Es ist Zeit, dass wir jetzt wieder zu der eigentlichen Debatte zurückkehren. Ich möchte Ihnen, Herr Barroso, sagen: Sie haben ausgeführt, wie Sie sich den Weg der Europäischen Union zur Bankenunion, zu einer politischen Union vorstellen und haben das Modell einer demokratischen Föderation von Nationalstaaten aufgeworfen. Darüber kann man sicher viel diskutieren. Aber ich glaube, der entscheidende Punkt, der bei allen Diskussionen immer wieder zugrunde liegen wird, wenn es darum geht, eine Zukunft für die Europäische Union zu entwickeln und diese gemeinsam zu gestalten, ist die Frage: Wie stehen die Menschen dazu, wie werden sie eingebunden und welchem Interesse dient letztendlich ein solches künftiges Modell? Wenn wir das beantworten, fällt es uns wahrscheinlich auch leichter, darüber zu diskutieren, welches Europa wir künftig brauchen. So wie Sie reden ja in letzter Zeit auch viele andere von grundsätzlichen Weichenstellungen, die jetzt getroffen werden müssen.

Ich möchte Ihnen aber sagen, dass aus meiner Sicht mindestens drei Prämissen hier nicht so erfüllt sind, wie sie notwendig wären, um den Weg in eine Sackgasse zu vermeiden. Und es gilt im Übrigen auch für das, was Sie heute hier gesagt haben, zumindest bei den ersten beiden. Bei Ihrer Antwort treibt Sie die Angst, Sie und auch andere Vertreter der Europäischen Institutionen und der Regierungen, vor dem drohenden Verlust an ökonomischem und politischem Einfluss in der Welt, vor dem schwindenden Anteil an der Bevölkerung und dem schwindenden Anteil an Ressourcen – kurz gesagt: an Wirtschaftskraft und Stärke.

Zweitens: Sie wollen zwar die Krise der EU bekämpfen, aber nicht die Ursachen, die dazu geführt haben. Die Interessen der Menschen, die eine funktionierende, eine solidarische, eine soziale, eine ökologische Union dringend brauchen, geraten aus dem Fokus. Wir brauchen die Diskussion jetzt, und nicht das Aufmalen eines Bildes, das vielleicht irgendwann mal gilt und nicht mehr auf ihre Lebensinteressen, auf ihre derzeitige Lebensnot zutrifft. Sie setzen auf stärker regulierende Institutionen, weil die Kapitaleliten diese brauchen. So sollen Funktionsdefizite im Wirtschaftsleben der EU, insbesondere im Euroraum, abgebaut werden.

Der dritte Punkt: Da nehme ich Sie jetzt ein Stück heraus. Sie – also die Institutionen und vor allem die Regierenden – setzen bei diesem Weg darauf, dass das mit einer gravierenden Entdemokratisierung passiert. Ich bin Ihnen in einer Frage sehr dankbar, nämlich dass Sie deutlich machen, dass das Europäische Parlament gebraucht wird, weil ohne das Europäische Parlament und die darin gewählten Abgeordneten eine Diskussion über die Neugestaltung Europas nicht möglich ist.

Viele der Kommissionsvorschläge, auch eine Bankenunion und Eurobonds, wären ja zu begrüßen, wären diese nicht darauf gerichtet, vor allem Gewinne in der globalen Konkurrenz zu erzielen. Um es klar zu sagen: Mehr Regulierung von Märkten und Banken, Beseitigung von Funktionsdefiziten in der Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion bis hin zur Bankenunion und Eurobonds: Ja. Aber nein zu diesen Zielen, nein zu der Art und Weise, nein zu den Bedingungen, die dabei gestellt werden, nein zur Entmachtung der Demokratie!

Unser Augenmerk gilt den Menschen in der Europäischen Union, insbesondere in den gebeutelten Krisenländern, vor allem aber auch jungen Menschen, alten Menschen, Arbeitslosen, vor allem aber auch Frauen – vorhin fiel der Verweis darauf, dass zum Beispiel die Frage der Frauenquote von der Kommission zurückgezogen wurde, da frage ich mich auch warum. Angesichts der Tatsache, dass die meisten Vorschläge zur Rettung aus der Krise und für die Entwicklung der kommenden Europäischen Union von Männern gemacht werden – und da macht eben eine Merkel noch lange keine Gleichstellung – und Frauen von der Krise am meisten betroffen sind, ist es für mich nicht nachvollziehbar, dass wir einen grundlegenden Wert auch im Selbstverständnis unseres Europäischen Parlaments und der EU aufgeben wollen und sang- und klanglos eine Forderung nach Gleichstellung von Frauen gerade jetzt zurückziehen und uns das hier wegnehmen lassen. Das kann ich nicht akzeptieren. Das findet auch nicht die Zustimmung meiner Fraktion.

Die sogenannten Reformen, die im Memorandum im Rahmen des ESF, des ESM, Euro-Plus-Pakt, Fiskalpakt usw. verabschiedet werden, greifen die grundlegenden sozialen Rechte der Menschen an. Ich sage Ihnen, Herr Barroso: Sie können doch hier nicht erklären, wie wichtig Ihnen die Menschen und ihre soziale Lage in der Europäischen Union sind, wenn zugleich die Kommission als Bestandteil der Troika in Griechenland wesentlich mit dafür verantwortlich ist, dass Bedingungen gestellt wurden, die sich gerade auf die soziale Lage der Schwächsten auswirken! Sie können doch als Kommission in der Troika nicht zulassen, dass Forderungen nach Verlängerung der Arbeitszeit von fünf auf sechs Tage gestellt werden, dass der Mindestlohn drastisch gesenkt wird, dass Streiks verboten werden! Das geht doch nicht! Es ist doch Ihre Aufgabe, genau diese Werte der Europäischen Union in diesen Krisenzeiten zu schützen. Sie sind doch die Hüterin der Werte und der Standards in der Europäischen Union.

Ein Beispiel für das, was wir gegenwärtig erleben, ist aus der Sicht meiner Fraktion der Fiskalpakt, dessen Konformität mit EU-Recht wir nach wie vor in Frage stellen. Dieser – wir haben den Vertrag inzwischen gutachterlich prüfen lassen – bewegt sich außerhalb des Rechtsrahmens der EU, greift aber bei der Umsetzung auf EU-Institutionen zurück, schaltet aber das Europaparlament aus. Meine Fraktion wird in den kommenden Tagen prüfen, welche Formen wir finden werden, um hier politisch dagegen zu agieren, und was wir uns hier vorbehalten.

Bei dem Weg – und das ist vorhin auch schon thematisiert worden, wie der Weg der Europäischen Union geführt werden soll – greifen die Regierenden immer mehr auf das deutsche Modell zurück. Dieses deutsche Modell ist aber nicht geeignet, um als Modell für eine künftige Europäische Union zu gelten. Das können wir in dieser Form nicht akzeptieren.

Ich bitte Sie noch einmal ausdrücklich: Formulieren Sie, und dazu sind Sie auch aufgefordert worden, Ihre Vorstellung davon noch einmal neu, wie der Weg aus dieser Krise führen soll, wohin die Europäische Union gehen soll. Nehmen Sie die soziale Fortschrittsklausel ins Visier. Nehmen Sie den Sozialpakt auf. Stoppen Sie alle Formen und jeden Druck auf Mitgliedstaaten, soziale Güter, soziale Dienstleistungen, soziale Sicherungssysteme, Rentensysteme zu privatisieren. Da liegen die Ursachen dafür, dass viele Menschen den Glauben an die Europäische Union verloren haben. Den müssen wir wiedergewinnen. Das können wir nur, wenn wir uns endlich diesen Aufgaben stellen, ein soziales, ein solidarisches, ein ökologisches und ein demokratisches Europa, eine demokratische Union, die im Übrigen auch ihre solidarische Verpflichtung als globaler Akteur wahrnimmt. Da unterscheide ich mich massiv von dem, was wir eben von der rechten Seite gehört haben.

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. GIANNI PITTELLA
Vicepresidente

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). - Herr Präsident! Als kritischer, aber glühender Pro-Europäer bin ich natürlich genauso in Sorge wie Sie hier fast alle. Wir wissen, dass die Entscheidung heute in Karlsruhe in Wirklichkeit nur dazu führt, dass wieder etwas Zeit gekauft worden ist. Wir wissen doch, dass all die Maßnahmen, die bisher getroffen worden sind – ob es entsprechende Liquiditätszuschüsse waren von Seiten der EZB, die Griechenland-Hilfe oder jetzt die neueste Entscheidung zum Ankauf von Anleihen –, eine gewaltige Umwegfinanzierung für Banken war. Es ist doch kein Zufall, dass am vergangenen Donnerstag die Bankaktien so in die Höhe geschossen sind. Es gibt dabei natürlich eine bittere Ironie, denn von diesen Bankenumverteilungen aus dem Euroraum heraus und mit dem Euro hat gerade auch die City of London profitiert. Es gibt eine Gruppe in diesem Parlament, die sich massiv wie die Apostel dieser City of London bewegt – man könnte sie auch die besten Lobbyisten nennen –, und das sind die Leute von der UKIP, die dann genauso reden, wie wir sie ständig reden hören, was sehr gefährlich für Europa ist.

Herr Barroso, Sie sprechen jetzt vom unverantwortlichen Handeln der Banken als Auslöser der Krise. Wir wissen aber auch, dass wir in der Politik versagt haben, weil wir die Banken eben nicht kontrolliert haben. Wenn Sie dann fragen, ob es realistisch ist, ob wir das Vertrauen der Märkte wieder gewinnen – das ist nicht wirklich die Frage. Die Frage ist: Warum packen Sie nicht endlich die Bankenregulierung so an, wie es Ihre Mentorin Angela Merkel vorgegeben hat? Jeder Akteur, jedes Finanzinstitut, jeder Marktplatz gehört kontrolliert. Warum ist hier überhaupt nicht mehr davon die Rede, dass das vermutlich wichtigste Finanzgesetz des 20. Jahrhunderts, nämlich der Glass-Steagall Act in den USA von 1932, sehr wohl ein taugliches Vorbild für Europa sein könnte? Wenn wir es umsetzen würden, dann kämen wir endlich weg von dieser Problematik too big to fail. Wir erleben doch, dass so viele Banken nicht nur too big to fail, zu groß zum Scheitern, sind, sondern auch viel zu groß, um sie zu managen. Da muss man nicht einmal das Wort LIBOR in den Mund nehmen. Warum trauen Sie sich nicht, entsprechend daranzugehen, und zwar effizient. Der Glass-Steagall Act hat nur 37 Seiten. Was wir bisher vorliegen haben an diffusen Versuchen, die Finanzwelt hier unter Kontrolle zu bringen, umfasst schon Tausende von Seiten. Auch das führt zu Unverständnis und verstärkt die Vertrauenskrise, von der Sie zu Recht gesprochen haben.

Wenn Sie schon daran wären, sich entsprechend an das Bankenwesen heranzumachen, dann geht es natürlich auch um die Schattenbanken, die mittlerweile weltweit fast 46 Billionen Euro an Volumen haben und damit ein Viertel des gesamten Finanzmarkts ausmachen. Und Sie von der Kommission wissen noch nicht einmal, wie viel Geld dort wo und wie verwendet wird. Wir wissen ja noch nicht einmal, welche ungedeckten Kreditausfallversicherungen auf Staatsanleihen getätigt wurden. Das ist doch ein wichtiger Grund, warum all die Maßnahmen, die jetzt getroffen werden, so getroffen werden. Da kann man eingreifen. Das kann man regulieren. Genauso wie die Ratingagenturen, die auch die Politik, die Gesetzgeber erst groß gemacht haben, und auch das Lobbyunwesen. Wie kann es denn sein, dass in Brüssel 700 Finanzlobbyisten mit einem Budget von 350 Millionen Euro tätig sein können, und wir im Wirtschafts- und Währungsausschuss fast betteln müssen, um an entsprechende Sachinformationen heranzukommen? Da stimmt das Gleichgewicht überhaupt nicht.

Wenn Sie von der Vertrauenskrise sprechen, ist das natürlich vollkommen zutreffend. Nur wenn es Ihnen nicht gelingt, den großen Moloch des Finanzmarkts tatsächlich unter Kontrolle zu bekommen, werden Sie nirgendwo in Europa Mehrheiten für das bekommen, was vermutlich ein vernünftiges Endziel ist, nämlich ein starkes Europa in der globalisierten Welt. Sie werden – und das wissen Sie auch – zumindest in Deutschland und wohl auch in meiner Heimat Österreich, um Volksabstimmungen für ein neues Projekt nicht herumkommen. Nur, wenn man diese Abstimmungen macht, muss man zuerst diese Schritte machen.

Da ist natürlich vorher schon viel Wahres gesagt worden. Aber noch einmal: Konzentrieren Sie sich und lassen Sie da nichts anderes zu als die Regulierung der Finanzmärkte. Das ist in Gesprächen mit Bürgern überall immer ein ganz zentrales Argument. Wir haben ja jetzt schon diese neue Verschwörungstheorie, dass Europa in Wirklichkeit von Goldman Sachs regiert wird, weil Herr Draghi, weil Herr Monti und weil vieles, was in Griechenland passiert ist, mit Goldman Sachs unmittelbar zu tun haben. Das sind ganz gefährliche Tendenzen. Aber wenn Sie es hinbekämen, den Finanzsektor tatsächlich unter Kontrolle zu bekommen, dann müsste man sich nicht mehr vor dem Souverän fürchten. Ich bin überzeugt davon, dass man dann auch entsprechende Volksabstimmungen gewinnen kann. Aber dann heißt das Schlagwort natürlich nicht Bankenunion, sondern Bürgerunion oder verkürzt „Bürger statt Banken“.

  Presidente. − Grazie on. Martin, la parola al Presidente Barroso.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, I did not ask for the floor. I prefer to respond at the end of the debate, after listening to all the Members of Parliament who want to take the floor.

  Presidente. − A questo punto chiedo ai presidenti dei gruppi se intendono... Allora iniziamo subito con il catch the eye. Mi raccomando di limitare gli interventi a un minuto, così diamo la parola a moltissimi colleghi. Chiedo scusa, diamo la parola al Consiglio.

  Andreas Mavroyiannis, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, first of all let me thank you for the opportunity, on behalf of the Council, to thank President Barroso for his inspired and inspiring speech, in which he offered us a clear analysis of the state of the European Union today and also signalled various initiatives that will help weave Ariadne’s thread which will guide us further on the slow, but I believe certain, road out of the crisis.

I am very proud to mention that the Council is not only represented here today by the Presidency but also by some distinguished colleagues, members of the Council on behalf of their countries, and this is in itself a very strong signal.

I would also like to welcome the opportunity to hear the reactions from the different political groups within this House. It is a privilege for all of us to be able to debate these issues and discuss the challenges which we face in Europe today. I have heard a range of views from different speakers, but I sense that – whatever their different views – the vast majority in this House are committed to making sure that from the current crisis we build a better and more solid Europe.

From the outset the founders of the European Union aspired to create an ever closer Union, a Europe which is ‘solidly united and constructed around a strong framework’. Schuman’s words remain particularly relevant to us today.

More than ever Europe needs to be united. We need to safeguard the strong institutional framework within which we work. And we must continue to ensure smooth and efficient cooperation between us. The Cyprus Presidency is committed to ensuring this, and committed in particular to working constructively, both within the Council and in osmosis with the European Council and President Van Rompuy, but also – importantly – with both the Commission and Parliament.

Ultimately all our decisions have to be about making Europe a better place for its citizens. That means defending values of equality, pluralism, freedom and justice which lie at the heart of our unique Union. That means social cohesion and solidarity. President Barroso mentioned also fairness and equity, indeed fundamental values that must be the basis for all our decisions in order to deliver a better future.

We have to use the opportunities presented by the current difficulties to realise the true potential of the EU. We must in particular seize the opportunity to take the steps which are essential if we are to build a better Europe. What does that mean in practice? I will mention just a few key examples.

We must firstly secure an agreement on the MFF, our main investment tool – not any agreement, but an agreement which shows that the Union’s resources are being invested for the benefit of its citizens and in particular for its younger generation. It must focus on innovation and competitiveness, so providing the momentum for increased growth and the creation of jobs. A prompt agreement will send a strong signal that the EU is serious about growth and that it is ready to take decisive steps to invest in its future.

President Barroso referred this morning to the report on the development of the EMU. This will be another vital step in strengthening the Union. We must seize the initiative presented by this report and take the opportunity to create a stronger and more mature economic and monetary union, making institutional changes if needed and at the appropriate moment, in order to be better able to withstand the challenges from both within and outside.

We must also establish the Common European Asylum System which will contribute to the building of a common area of protection, on the basis of solidarity and fair burden-sharing – a safe area for all citizens of the EU and fully in line with universal values.

Through warranted reforms and decisions as underlined by President Barroso, we should restore credibility and confidence. The wise words of John Kennedy more than fifty years ago are just as relevant to the EU today: ‘in a crisis, be aware of the danger – but recognise the opportunity’.

We owe it to our younger generations in particular to create a prosperous Europe, in which they can dream and aspire to fulfil those dreams. Europe has never simply been about economic growth and indicators. We must also create a place where everyone in society is included, where our environment is allowed to flourish without the threat of pollution and climate change, where agriculture is the friend of the land and where human activity, in all its expressions, is allowed to flourish. Our Union is above all a place of respect, dignity and tolerance, of values and ideals. That is something which we should be proud of and protect.

Allow me to close by thanking again President Barroso for his inspirational presentation of the State of the Union, and for his leadership and vision. He can count firmly on the support of the Council in this Herculean task lying ahead.

(Applause)

Interventi si richiesta (catch the eye)

  Mario Mauro (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, un minuto non basta per fare un commento, ma forse è sufficiente per dare un voto ed io vorrei oggi dare il voto più alto al Presidente della Commissione per il realismo e la visione che ha mostrato.

Il realismo perché riconoscere gli errori compiuti nella costruzione dell'euro non è da tutti e può aiutare in questo momento a recuperare fiducia. La visione perché la strada di un percorso federale, seppur di Stati-nazione, non è la fine del federalismo, è l'inizio.

Mi si consenta ora di fare un'osservazione all'on. Farage per la violenza con la quale ha attaccato prima Mario Draghi e poi Mario Monti. Poiché anch'io mi chiamo Mario, mi è venuto un dubbio: non è che in gioventù qualcuno di nome Mario ha portato via la ragazza all'amico Farage?

  Zita Gurmai (S&D). - Mr President, I should like to thank the President of the Commission for addressing this very professional speech to us today, in this desolate time for the European Union and the European project.

Mr Barroso, I would like to use this occasion to draw your attention to the proposal for a directive on improving gender balance in corporate boardrooms that has recently been presented by Vice-President Reding to the College. Its objective of increasing women’s representation in corporate governance to 40% by 2020 has been supported by Parliament through different resolutions.

I firmly believe that such a proposal would be a clear signal that the European Union still considers gender equality as a priority of its agenda. This would require binding legislation as well as additional supporting measures to accompany the quota system. However, in the past weeks we have heard reports of growing attempts to block such a proposal by some Member States and also the European Commission.

Ensuring gender-balanced representation in the public as well as in the private sector is not only a matter of fairness and democracy but also of economic effectiveness. Therefore I would strongly encourage you to openly reaffirm your support and, through it, the support of the Commission as a whole for such a proposal. We are very eager to discuss it within the European Parliament.

  Marianne Thyssen (PPE). - Mijnheer de voorzitter van de Commissie, u heeft vandaag een duidelijke boodschap gebracht en u heeft ons overtuigd van uw engagement om deze legislatuur nog datgene te doen wat binnen de verdragsmogelijkheden ligt, om de sinds lang gekende weeffouten uit de Economische Monetaire Unie te halen, maar ook om ons echt klaar te maken voor een geglobaliseerde informatiemaatschappij.

Europa is natuurlijk méér dan economie en geld, maar de euro is ook méér dan zomaar een munt of zomaar een symbool. Daarom moeten wij de eerstkomende tijd echt alles doen wat binnen onze mogelijkheden ligt om verantwoordelijkheid en solidariteit zo in balans te brengen, dat de euro een stevige financiële, budgettaire en sociaal-economische onderbouw krijgt en dat de democratie opnieuw haar rol kan spelen.

Dat de Commissie de daad bij het woord voegt door vandaag al de wetsvoorstellen te lanceren voor het Europees bankentoezicht, is goed, want het zijn alleen concrete resultaten die de burgers kunnen overtuigen ons opnieuw hun vertrouwen te geven.

  Graham Watson (ALDE). - Mr President, I would say to President Barroso that we welcome his advocacy of a European political space and the news that the Commission will put forward a proposal on European political parties. But for parties to be truly supranational, elections must be supranational. Mr Barroso, do you propose the direct election by universal suffrage of your successor? And if not, why not?

In the United States the world is watching a truly federal election. The only message from their politicians to us is: get your act together. Mr Barroso, you have been in office for eight years. You lament the absence of a debate between citizens on the consequences of fragmentation, but what proposals have you brought forward in those eight years to provide for such a debate?

You challenge artists and intellectuals to make their voice heard. You may be aware that 50 poets came together and published the European constitution in verse just three years ago. It depicts European citizens full of ideals but let down by their leaders. It is not just a federation of nation states that is needed, it is a federation of citizens, and we need leaders who understand that.

  John Bufton (EFD). - Mr President, this debate is titled ‘State of the Union’ and what a state the Union is in. Unemployment continues to soar. In Greece 55% of 16-24 year olds are now jobless. In Spain protests have involved people going into supermarkets and filling up trolleys without paying to redistribute food to the poor people. Demonstrations are commonplace throughout the country, with people objecting to the tough austerity and job cuts, leading the police to use rubber bullets to restore order. In 21st-century Europe this is a disgrace.

At the centre of it all is the European Union, whose draconian and tyrannical austerity measures, reckless obsession with a dangerously flawed single currency and power-crazed federal dreams are ruining people’s lives. Yet, Mr Barroso, not once have you apologised; not once have you accepted your hand in the making of this disaster. Mr Barroso, you should be ashamed.

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). - Señor Presidente, señor Presidente de la Comisión, su discurso, en muchos momentos, ha tenido algo más de reflexión que de proponente de soluciones a los problemas de hoy, pero hay dos puntos que debo reconocer y en los que quiero insistir.

El primer punto se refiere al reconocimiento de los desequilibrios internos entre los Estados y entre los ciudadanos de la Unión. Ayer, el Parlamento aprobó una Resolución sobre el Programa de Trabajo de la Comisión y se pronunció a favor de abordar de una manera simétrica los desequilibrios macroeconómicos que hay dentro de la Unión. Creo que la Comisión debe estimular a los países que en estos momentos deben tomar medidas para permitir que aquellos que tienen problemas las tomen también de una manera equilibrada y solidaria.

Y, por último, creo que hay que hacer un esfuerzo para mantener el fondo europeo de alimentos en una Unión en la que la pobreza, como usted mismo ha reconocido, sigue aumentando.

  Danuta Maria Hübner (PPE). - Mr President, I should like to ask President Barroso a question about the banking union. There is clearly a short-term dimension to it. Breaking the banking sovereign loop requires both urgency and pragmatism and reaching out for visible solutions now.

But we also need to take into account the long-term perspective on the banking union, and we must do it now. So yes, the banking union certainly must be designed in such a way that it works towards deepening the integration of the single market, because the euro area cannot be sustainable if the disintegration of the single market continues.

But there is a second long-term perspective here and an even more considerable risk for a sustainable euro area, and here I am thinking of the way the opt-in mechanism for non-euro Member States is designed. We risk putting them on a path towards separation; we risk a path towards disintegration. So my question is, as this must not be allowed: how do you want to protect us from this risk of fragmentation?

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - Mr President, President Barroso did not tackle the issue of tax dumping within the EU, which enables some Member States to get richer at the expense of others by functioning as tax havens, stacking in other capitals business profits that are siphoned off from other Member States, in order to avoid paying tax at home and therefore escaping from contributing their fair share to national incomes.

They serve the same purposes for which Switzerland, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands are used as tax havens: to protect profits of tax evasion, other criminality and corruption. That may be legal, but it is also immoral and compromises the integrity of the Economic and Monetary Union. Can we complete the EMU and the Single Market and move towards fiscal and banking union? Can we restore confidence and credibility in the EU, if it rests upon the crime-abetting foundation of the prevailing Wild West of tax dumping?

  Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Presidente Barroso, nel suo intervento sullo stato dell'Unione mi ha meravigliato il fatto che non ha citato nessun dato, nessun numero, nessuna cifra sulle aziende che chiudono, sui lavoratori che vengono licenziati, sulla perdita di competitività.

Lei ha dato una soluzione: gli Stati Uniti d'Europa. Purtroppo il corso della storia dimostra il contrario: quando gli Stati disponevano di maggiore sovranità l'Europa era più prospera. Forse la soluzione non è la sua, ma meno Europa, più prosperità.

  Άννυ Ποδηματά (S&D). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, ευχαριστώ για την εμπνευσμένη ομιλία σας. Θα ήθελα να σας παροτρύνω να την απευθύνετε στο Συμβούλιο αρχηγών κρατών και κυβερνήσεων στην επόμενη σύνοδο κορυφής γιατί νομίζω ότι εκείνους χρειάζεται να πείσετε. Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο θα είναι στο πλευρό σας στον βαθμό που θα προχωρήσετε στην κατεύθυνση που μας περιγράψατε.

Θα ήθελα να εστιάσω σε ένα σημείο, κύριε Πρόεδρε. Είπατε πολύ σωστά ότι στην Ευρώπη χρειάζονται αλλαγές και μεταρρυθμίσεις και ότι το ευρωπαϊκό κοινωνικό μοντέλο δεν πρέπει να εγκαταλειφθεί αλλά να μεταρρυθμιστεί. Αλλά, κύριε Πρόεδρε, τι εννοούμε τελικά όταν μιλάμε για μεταρρυθμίσεις; Θέτουμε ως πρώτη προτεραιότητα μεταρρυθμίσεις που υπηρετούν το δικό σας όραμα, αυτές δηλαδή που προάγουν την κοινωνική δικαιοσύνη, την ανάπτυξη, τη λειτουργία της ενιαίας αγοράς, όπως η μεταρρύθμιση των φορολογικών συστημάτων, η καταπολέμηση της φοροδιαφυγής, η απελευθέρωση των αγορών ή θέτουμε ως προτεραιότητα μεταρρυθμίσεις που υπονομεύουν το δικό σας όραμα, όπως η πλήρης απορρύθμιση της αγοράς εργασίας, η κατάργηση των συλλογικών διαπραγματεύσεων και του ρόλου των κοινωνικών εταίρων; Πρέπει να αποφασίσουμε, κύριε Πρόεδρε, τι είδους μεταρρυθμίσεις θέλουμε να υπηρετήσουμε.

  Andrew Duff (ALDE). - Mr President, I naturally greatly welcome the commitment to a federal Europe. I do not think we ought to get tied up in semantic arguments about precisely what that means.

We need to make progress, and I would request that we work to extract from the European Council meeting in December a clear and solid commitment to call a convention in the spring of 2015 that will be prepared carefully so as to discard simplistic solutions and define the mandate that will ensure success.

  Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE). - Senhor Presidente da Comissão, foi muito interessante assistir ao discurso daquele que é, neste momento, o segundo homem mais poderoso da União Europeia a seguir a Mário Draghi, e não digo isto com absolutamente nenhum prazer, é triste ver que os destinos da União estão nas mãos de uma instituição não eleita. Eu creio que o Sr. Presidente disse algumas palavras no sentido correto de construir uma democracia europeia. Independentemente da formação que ela vá ter, nós podemos fazer uma democracia europeia hoje sem mudanças de tratados e é nesse sentido que eu lhe venho propor uma coisa muito simples: um Pacto Democrático para a União Europeia, não só pedindo aos partidos europeus que apresentem os seus candidatos mas, acima de tudo, estabelecendo - a Comissão pode já pôr algum dinheiro de parte para isto - estabelecendo um sistema de debates nos 27 Estados-Membros da União Europeia. O primeiro debate deve ser num sítio muito preciso, deve ser em Atenas. Quem conseguir fazer esse debate em Atenas e depois passar por todas as 27 capitais poderá vir a ser o seu sucessor.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, je regrette l'absence des chefs d'État. Ce n'est pas contre vous, Monsieur le ministre des affaires européennes, mais nous n'avons aucun chef d'État, même pas leur représentant, le président Van Rompuy. Où est Mme Ashton, qui participe au Conseil européen?

Oui, il faut une fédération d'États-nations à long terme, Monsieur le Président de la Commission européenne, nous vous soutenons sur ce point. Mais n'oubliez pas l'Europe des résultats. D'abord, l'Europe des résultats! Il faut surveiller nos banques, les grandes infrastructures, les économies budgétaires, la diplomatie, la défense.

Je voudrais attirer votre attention sur la convergence sociale. Regardez les anciens pays communistes. Ils ne sont pas membres de l'Union depuis huit jours mais depuis huit ans! Le salaire minimum est de 200 euros. Nous devrions en avoir honte! Nous avons les bases juridiques nécessaires – les articles 154 et 155  du traité – et, par la négociation sociale, nous devrions parvenir à une augmentation des salaires.

Oui, il faut aller vers une fédération d'États-nations. Mais ne confondons pas vitesse et précipitation! Si nous faisons vingt-sept référendums, nous aurons entre vingt-cinq et vingt-six "non". Ne nous précipitons pas; nous n'irons pas vers une Europe politique sans la démocratie. Et prenons en considération la souffrance des peuples!

  Νικόλαος Σαλαβράκος (EFD). - Κύριε Barroso, ανήκω σε αυτούς που κατανοούν τις προσπάθειες που κάνει η Επιτροπή για την εξομάλυνση των εξελίξεων στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και σας συγχαίρω γι' αυτές. Δεν πρέπει μόνο να επικρίνουμε, πρέπει και να επαινούμε. Επιτρέψτε μου να αναπτύξω το συλλογισμό μου: διάβασα μια στατιστική, σύμφωνα με την οποία η σημερινή Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση αντιπροσωπεύει το 4% του παγκόσμιου πληθυσμού και κατέχει το 30% του παγκόσμιου ΑΕΠ. Μήπως σημαίνει αυτό ότι γίναμε πλούσιοι δια της σπατάλης; Διότι υπάρχει και αυτή η μέθοδος - πλούσιοι δια της σπατάλης, δια της κατανάλωσης. Όμως, με αυτήν την δημοσιονομική πειθαρχία που επιβάλλουμε τώρα, μειώνουμε το ΑΕΠ, γινόμαστε φτωχότεροι και αυξάνεται η ανεργία, επιδεινούμενη από την τεχνολογική εξέλιξη. Πρέπει εξάλλου να μας προβληματίσει το γεγονός της ισοτιμίας του ελβετικού φράγκου διότι παραπέμπει σε μεγάλη φοροδιαφυγή. Υπάρχει άμεσο σχέδιο για την ανεργία και τη φοροδιαφυγή;

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). - Senhor Presidente da Comissão, veio aqui dizer-nos que o problema é da democracia. Não posso estar mais de acordo, mas foram as instituições europeias as primeiras a dizer aos cidadãos que a democracia poderia ser dispensada, que até se poderiam dispensar eleições, que as soluções seriam mais tecnocratas do que políticas. Veio dizer-nos também que o problema é político. Não posso estar mais de acordo porque, de facto, a crise não aconteceu por obra e graça do espírito santo, aconteceu, e também não foi por causa de haver alguns banqueiros que tiveram mais olhos que barriga, mas foi porque houve uma política e quem decidiu essa política disse que esses banqueiros e especuladores poderiam ter mais olhos que barriga e sobre isso nada foi feito.

Veio também aqui dizer que, além do mais, o que estava aqui em causa era uma questão de soluções europeias. Não podia concordar mais consigo! Mas isso é contraditório. Parem de dizer aos gregos e aos portugueses que a culpa é deles, que viveram acima das possibilidades. Basta, não se aguenta mais austeridade! Solidariedade não rima com austeridade, como crescimento não rima com estas políticas absolutamente contrárias a uma construção europeia. Portanto, não há democracia, não há política, não há europeísmo sem cidadãos e só com mercados.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). - Señor Presidente, el Estado de la Unión incluye 25 millones de parados, opiniones públicas enfrentadas y un incremento de las desigualdades.

La Comisión que usted preside se arriesga, como ninguna otra antes en la historia, a dejar como legado haber tolerado el repliegue del método comunitario y el incremento de los repliegues nacionales y del método intergubernamental.

El Tratado de Lisboa hizo de este Parlamento el más poderoso de la historia, no solamente para enmendar la supervisión bancaria, sino también para recordar los problemas que plantean los derechos de la ciudadanía, la libre circulación de personas, la integración social y la cohesión territorial en la Unión Europea, además del deterioro de la confianza mutua entre los Estados miembros.

Y, por eso, creo que este Parlamento tiene la obligación de expresar el malestar frente a un diagnóstico erróneo en el manejo de la crisis, una estrategia fallida y un recetario que ha producido un daño social catastrófico. Y, por tanto, debe postular otra Europa con un incremento del presupuesto europeo y un pacto fiscal que combata el fraude, los paraísos fiscales y las inequidades dentro de los Estados miembros, y entre Estados miembros, para permitir el mantenimiento del modelo social sin derruirlo.

  Herbert Reul (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Herr Barroso, ich bin nicht damit einverstanden, dass man glaubt, die Lösung der aktuellen Fragestellung und das Gewinnen von Vertrauen in Europa nur durch neue Strukturüberlegungen, neue Institutionen – jeden Tag eine neue Idee – hinzubekommen. Wir gewinnen Vertrauen auch dadurch, dass wir beweisen, dass das, was wir gemacht haben, Wirkung hat, dass die Menschen sich in diesem Europa wohlfühlen können, dass es für Jobs und Zukunft eine sichere Chance gibt. Deshalb empfehle ich, ein Stückchen mehr darauf zu schauen, ob das, was wir machen, auch wirkungsvoll ist. Überprüfen wir die Ausführung von Richtlinien, achten wir darauf, dass Strukturreformen vor Ort umgesetzt werden!

Herr Swoboda hat eben Deutschland so negativ angesprochen und kritisch über Strukturreformen geredet. Vielleicht ein kleiner Hinweis: In Deutschland war die wirkungsvollste Strukturreform sicherlich das, was unter einer SPD-Regierung gemacht worden ist, was zu diesem wirtschaftlichen Wachstum heute geführt hat. Was tun wir denn eigentlich ganz konkret, um Wettbewerbsfähigkeit zu fördern? Kommissar Tajani hat vor ich weiß nicht wie langer Zeit einen klugen Vorschlag gemacht, dass wir alle Gesetzgebung, die wir hier machen, unter den Vorbehalt der Auswirkungen auf die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit stellen. Also bitte nicht immer nur neue Ideen, sondern mal konkret handeln und was tun!

  Catherine Trautmann (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président de la Commission, je crois que l'état de l'Union, pour nous députés, c'est l'état des Européens.

Les Européens sont taraudés par trois risques: financier, de santé et en matière d'emploi. J'aurais souhaité vous entendre sur la protection de l'épargne populaire. J'aurais souhaité plus d'ambition sur la question du réarmement industriel par l'énergie, par l'environnement, par le numérique. Puis, j'aurais souhaité, aussi, que vous fassiez preuve de lucidité. En effet, si l'on veut sortir de la crise, il faut un calendrier qui soit adapté à l'effort – celui des États membres, celui des citoyens. Sur ce plan, je voudrais dire qu'il n'y a pas de progrès démocratique sans droits sociaux et, sur le plan social, certains l'ont dit, le compte n'y est pas encore.

Nous avons besoin de garanties en matière d'emploi, en matière de non-agression du modèle social européen ainsi que de garanties sur le plan de l'effort financier et fiscal de l'ensemble de ceux qui nous élisent et qui veulent retrouver la confiance dans l'Union européenne.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, Mr Barroso, we keep hearing these terrifying, biblical predictions of what would happen in the event of a euro break-up.

We have heard the same thing over and over again. We heard it 20 years ago in my home country over the ERM. We were told that it would be inflationary and that unemployment would rise. In fact, our recovery began the day we left and carried on for 15 years before Gordon Brown came along to mess it up, but that is another story.

We had the same thing in Denmark. We were told that if they voted not to join the euro, inflation would go up, interest rates would go up. In fact, precisely the opposite happened. The Copenhagen stock exchange enjoyed its greatest 24-hour rise in history. Inflation and interest rates fell. The same thing in Sweden.

I suspect that even you in your bones know that the best option now for the peripheral countries is to default, devalue, decouple. To price their way into the markets, to start exporting their way back to growth. It would not solve everything, but it would be an alternative to this downward spiral of deflation, poverty and emigration and that is really what you are afraid of. Their economies would recover; the credibility of the Eurocrats would not.

  Philippe Lamberts (Verts/ALE). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président de la Commission, vous nous dites parfois que vous manquez de soutien de la part des Verts... Je veux simplement vous dire que le niveau d'ambition que vous avez affiché aujourd'hui est encourageant.

Il y a bien sûr des divergences d'appréciation quant à la nature de la crise que nous vivons. Et c'est vrai, vous n'avez pas suffisamment parlé de la crise écologique, parce que nous atteignons et nous dépassons les limites physiques de la planète.

Je voudrais juste vous encourager à une chose. Vous faites preuve d'un fédéralisme ambitieux sur la question de l'union bancaire. Nous vous encourageons sur ce plan et nous sommes à vos côtés. Nous voudrions voir le même enthousiasme et la même audace sur le plan du fédéralisme fiscal. Vous savez qu'en anglais, le terme "fiscal" implique souvent exclusivement le fait de regarder les dépenses. Nous voulons voir la même chose en termes d'harmonisation ou de convergence fiscale.

Vous avez pris une initiative sur la question de la taxe sur les transactions financières, c'est très bien. Il faut que les multinationales de tous les secteurs, y compris, bien sûr, le secteur financier, se mettent à payer les impôts qu'elles doivent payer. Pour cela, il nous faut une harmonisation de l'impôt des sociétés en Europe.

On vous attend sur ce terrain-là aussi. Nous serons avec vous.

  Othmar Karas (PPE). - Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissionspräsident! Wer das Ziel nicht kennt, der setzt nicht die richtigen Schritte, um es zu erreichen. Daher bin ich Ihnen sehr dankbar, dass Sie heute ein sehr klares Plädoyer für die Vereinigung der Staaten Europas abgegeben haben. Unser Ziel sind die Vereinigten Staaten von Europa, wie wir sie ordnen, ist unsere Angelegenheit.

Der zweite Teil, der mir so wichtig war, ist: Wenn wir dieses Ziel erreichen, müssen wir die Bürgerinnen und Bürger als unsere Adressaten sehen und sie zu unseren Verbündeten machen. Nur wenn wir auf dem Weg zum Ziel die Bürgerinnen und Bürger bei den kurz-, mittel- und langfristigen Maßnahmen zu unseren Verbündeten machen, können wir die Innenpolitiken europäisieren und die nötigen Mehrheiten dafür herstellen, um das Ziel erreichen zu können.

Daher ist es mir drittens auch so wichtig, dass Sie nicht von der Finanzkrise, sondern von der Vertrauens- und der Glaubwürdigkeitskrise geredet haben und gesagt haben, dass es eine politische Krise ist. Weil es eine politische Krise ist, sind wir in der Lage, sie auch zu lösen, wenn wir die Bürger an Bord holen. Gehen wir auf sie zu!

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). - Mr President, Mr Barroso said he wants radically new European politics. If so, he should start confronting the realities of real people. I would like to invite him to Hungary, my country, where he could confront the realities of the Third World in the middle of the European Union.

He could listen to farmers talking about the massive land grabbing which is going on. He could listen to labourers who work on assembly lines without any legal protection, in factories owned by foreigners, for EUR 250 a month. He could listen to teachers and actors who make EUR 400 a month and who migrate to the West, just as they do from the third world. Or he could listen to the parents of the two little children who were killed by the extremely reckless driving of an Irish citizen who was sentenced to three years imprisonment in Hungary, but the Irish refuse both to extradite him to Hungary and to enforce his sentence.

Congratulations to European integration and its successes.

VORSITZ: MARTIN SCHULZ
Präsident

  Glenis Willmott (S&D). - Mr President, Mr Barroso said that we were at a crucial point in our history with crucial decisions to make. We have to decide what sort of Europe we want. Do we want a Europe of austerity, pursuing policies which clearly are not working, or do we want a Europe that gives hope to our young people?

If we do, then we must have a credible and detailed plan to create the jobs and growth that we are so desperate for. We need clear priorities, and we need to focus our resources on those priorities. It is only by getting people back to work and paying their taxes, and thus regenerating our economies, that we will start to see economic recovery across Europe.

The decisions made affect us all, so it is vital for Europe and for our own national interests. I would say to our Conservative colleagues that we should all be at the table and not flouncing out of discussions, as has happened in the past, because the decisions that are made will shape the future for generations to come.

  Андрей Ковачев (PPE). - Г-н Барозо, поздравления за Вашата амбициозна реч. Критично важно е Европа да спечели психологическата битка „за“ и „против“ по-нататъшната европейска интеграция чрез представяне на ясната добавена стойност, която дава Европейския съюз на европейските граждани.

Позволете ми няколко думи: на нас ни трябва многогодишна финансова рамка и бюджет на Европейския съюз, небазирани на отрицателния психологически ефект от кризата, а осигуряващи нашите цели 2020, водещи до растеж, работни места и уеднаквяване, разбира се, на стандарта и условията на живот във всички региони на Европейския съюз.

На нас не ни трябва отново провал, какъвто се случи през 2010 г. с Лисабонската стратегия. Не трябва да има орязване за кохезионната политика, това трябва да го разберат страните членки и техните ръководители и да говорят едно и също в Брюксел, в Люксембург или в Страсбург и там, когато се върнат в своите столици в страните членки.

И второ, за банковия съюз и така предложения механизъм за наблюдение над банките. Той ще наблюдава банките, както в еврозоната, така и извън нея, затова смятам, че страните извън еврозоната също трябва да имат своя глас в този механизъм. Благодаря Ви и успех!

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE). - Herr Präsident! Herr Barroso, Ihre Pläne heute sprechen wirklich für Engagement, Tatkraft und den Blick in die richtige Richtung. Statt allerdings Fragen zu beantworten, müssen wir uns angesichts der dramatischen Entwicklungen jetzt der Gegenwart widmen, um eben diese Probleme für unsere Bürger und Bürgerinnen zu lösen. Da gibt es zum Beispiel bestens ausgebildete junge Leute in Spanien und Griechenland, die massenweise arbeitslos sind, oder ebenso arbeitslose ältere Menschen. Hier braucht es jetzt direkte Hilfe durch gezielte Investitionen in Bildung, Gesundheit und Umwelt und in Arbeitsplätze. Es braucht die europäischen Werte. Da unterstütze ich Sie voll und ganz.

Sie haben auch die Banken erwähnt. Die Menschen verstehen die Vorgänge nicht. Die jüngste Entscheidung der EZB kommt einem Menschen gleich, der um Luft ringt und dem man jetzt Sauerstoff gibt. Hier braucht es ebenso rascheste Entscheidungen. Lassen Sie bitte den Worten auch wirklich jetzt gleich Taten folgen!

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président de la Commission, chers membres du Conseil, hier, deux millions de personnes ont manifesté à Barcelone, en Catalogne. Ces citoyens avaient une demande à formuler: oui, plus d'Europe, une meilleure Europe, une Europe différente, mais une Europe à laquelle ils puissent participer directement, en tant qu'État et en tant que peuple.

Le message de ces citoyens est légitime, clair et démocratique. C'est à nous, institutions européennes, qu'il appartient d'y répondre, de manière tout aussi démocratique et avec courage. Je vous demande d'être à la hauteur de cet énorme défi. L'êtes-vous? Parce que le fait d'écouter les gens fait aussi partie des piliers européens et c'est ce qui donne au projet européen toute sa crédibilité. Les Catalans ont toujours été pro-européens. Ils veulent le rester, mais la situation actuelle entraîne une grande méfiance et une forte montée de l'euroscepticisme.

J'espère, mes amis, que nous pourrons aborder ce débat avec la responsabilité et la maturité que la situation mérite.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). - Mr President, firstly I want to say by way of introduction that the relationship between Ireland and the United Kingdom is now better than ever and will hopefully continue to be so. But I must respond to Mr Farage’s rather patronising reference to little Ireland being bullied into voting twice on the Lisbon Treaty. We were not bullied. It was the decision of the Irish Parliament to hold a referendum and of the Irish people to accept it. Secondly, there was a fundamental difference between Lisbon I and Lisbon II. In Lisbon II each Member State got a Commissioner. Different entirely to Lisbon I.

Now in reference to today, I would like to compliment President Barroso for his eloquent speech. He referred to the need for Treaty change to put an end to the piecemeal solutions we have as of now, but because Treaty change would take such a long time, how are we going to put an end to, or at least prevent, piecemeal solutions at this particular time?

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). - Barroso Elnök Úr! Nagyon tartalmas volt a beszéde, de attól félek, hogy annyit fog érni, mint döglött lovon a patkó – ahogy a magyar népi mondás mondja –, mert nem fog eljutni az európai polgárokhoz. Nem fog eljutni az európai polgárokhoz az Ön üzenete, míg a magyar miniszterelnök ezen a héten azt jelenti ki a Magyar Országgyűlésben, hogy az Európai Unió a probléma és nem a megoldás maga, addig ezek a tartalmas beszédek nem jutnak el az európai polgárokhoz. És nagyon nagy baj, hogy nem tudjuk az embereknek elmagyarázni, miért jó, amit az Európai Unió, a Bizottság, a Parlament az emberek érdekében tesz. Azért jó a közös bankfelügyelet, hogy a kormányok ne költekezhessenek felelőtlenül. Ez az embereknek jó!

Azért kellene demokráciafelügyelet, és erre felhívnám Reding asszony figyelmét is, hogy ne lehessen megsérteni a jogállamiságot, a demokratikus alapértékeket. Se egy jobboldali Orbán-kormány, se egy szociáldemokrata-liberális román Ponta-kormány ezt ne tehesse meg. Legyen egységes európai monitoringrendszer a demokráciáért.

  Ana Miranda (Verts/ALE). - Senhor Barroso, somos representantes dos povos europeus com legitimidade democrática para defender aqui os seus direitos, direitos que não defendem muitas vezes os Estados-Membros, como se viu ontem nas ruas de Barcelona. Senhor Barroso, sou deputada da Galiza e o estado da minha nação como muitos outros territórios europeus é de uma crise profunda. Crise que é consequência de políticas de austeridade, de cortes sociais, medidas antissociais. O exemplo do naval, do agro, da pesca, o roubo bancário, a imoral taxa de desemprego da juventude.

Para que os povos europeus continuem a acreditar na Europa, a Europa tem de estar do lado dos povos e não contra eles. Voltemos, Senhor Presidente, à Europa dos povos e à Europa social.

  Diogo Feio (PPE). - Senhor Presidente, queria começar por cumprimentar o Sr. Presidente Durão Barroso pelo discurso que aqui hoje nos fez, pelo realismo com que analisou a situação e pela coragem com que apresentou caminhos futuros. Retive especialmente que a atual crise necessita de uma solução política. É precisamente isso que os cidadãos, alguns a protestar, outros não, nos pedem e é precisamente por isso que devemos salientar que mais Europa é mais Europa para os cidadãos, para a resolução dos seus problemas e são muitas as iniciativas que a Comissão Europeia apresentou e que o Parlamento aprovou neste último ano.

Que é necessária uma melhor representação de todos os cidadãos e que nesta ideia de Europa para o futuro não podemos continuar com Estados contra os Estados. Isso é precisamente aquilo que temos tido. Temos que fazer compreender a todos que é necessária uma solução europeia e que essa solução não é contra os Estados porque os Estados fazem parte da Europa e é precisamente isso que eu queria aqui sublinhar e dizer que o Parlamento estará aqui para o apoiar Sr. Presidente.

  Jörg Leichtfried (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Herr Barroso, Sie haben von Wachstum gesprochen, das notwendig ist. Da sind wir uns einig. Aber ich möchte das noch um etwas ergänzen. Wachstum wird nicht funktionieren ohne Gerechtigkeit. Und solange es so ist, dass die großen Vermögen in der Europäischen Union immer stärker wachsen, und die, die hart arbeiten müssen, immer weniger dafür bekommen, haben wir keine Gerechtigkeit und haben natürlich auch kein Wachstum, weil wir keine Massenkaufkraft haben. Deshalb brauchen wir eine teilweise Änderung unserer Systeme. Wir brauchen ein gerechteres Steuersystem, wo Großkonzerne auch wieder Steuern zahlen. Wir brauchen auch gerechtere Gehälter, wo dieser unermessliche Reichtum, der durch die Hände derer, die arbeiten, geschaffen wird auch zu denen kommt. Und wir brauchen vor allem auch eine gerechte Marktwirtschaft, wo nicht die shareholder ausbezahlt und gleichzeitig die Mitarbeiter hinausgeworfen werden. Wenn sich das ändert, wird das ein Europa der Menschen werden. Sonst wird das nichts.

Eine Bemerkung noch: Herr Farage, Sie haben mir vorgeworfen, dass ich nicht zuhöre. Ich habe die ganze Zeit hier gesessen und habe zugehört, im Gegensatz zu Ihnen, Herr Farage.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). - Barroso Elnök Úr! Szeretném azt hinni, hogy minden úgy van, ahogy Ön elmondta a beszédében. De Önnel ellentétben én tele vagyok aggodalommal és kétséggel. Az Ön tervei, mint mindig, valóban nagyon szépek és kecsegtetőek, de félek, hogy nem életszerűek. Ön abból a feltételezésből indul ki, hogy három éve jól kezeli a válságot. Sajnos a kép ennél sokkal-sokkal árnyaltabb. Jóval időn túl vagyunk már. Próbálunk átvergődni egy gazdasági válságon, születnek megszorító csomagok, a Szerződés rendjébe nem illő tervezetek, szankciók.

Úgy látszik, az Unió jövőbeli léte, gazdasági prosperitása a bankunióban látszik megvalósulni. A valóságban egy olyan bankunióról van szó, amely tíz országot eleve kizár az érdemleges munkából. Természetesen beléphetnek ezek az országok, de semmi előnyük nem lesz belőle. Persze, ha kinn maradnak, akkor élvezik minden hátrányát. Ön a beszédében egy összekapcsolt világról beszélt, amiben nem lehet falakat felépíteni. Kérdezem elnök úrtól: mi ez, ha nem fal? Mi ez, ha nem fal, ha nem egységes szabályokról beszélünk, és nem egységes szabály szerint működik az Unió? Véleményem szerint meg kellene változtatni ezt, és egyetértek Önnel, egységes Unióról, egységes szabályokról kellene beszélni az európai polgárok érdekében.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D). - Articolul 4 din Tratatul privind Uniunea Europeană menţionează că Uniunea respectă egalitatea statelor membre în raport cu tratatele. Domnule preşedinte Barroso, spuneaţi în discursul dumneavoastră că, fără egalitate între statele membre, nu poate exista egalitate între cetăţeni. Domnule preşedinte Barroso, am apreciat numeroasele dumneavoastră luări de poziţie, prin care recunoşteaţi faptul că România îndeplineşte toate criteriile tehnice pentru aderarea la spaţiul Schengen şi susţineaţi aderarea ţării mele la spaţiul Schengen. De aceea vă solicit, domnule preşedinte Barroso, să vă delimitaţi de recentele declaraţii ale doamnei Reding, vicepreşedinta Comisiei, prin care domnia sa evoca o posibilă amânare şi o posibilă introducere de noi criterii pentru aderarea României la spaţiul Schengen.

În numele cetăţenilor români, vă solicit, domnule preşedinte Barroso, susţinerea Comisiei pentru aderarea României şi a Bulgariei la spaţiul Schengen, un pas important către contractul de încredere între instituţiile europene şi cetăţenii europeni.

  Kristiina Ojuland (ALDE). - Härra Barroso, te ütlesite oma kõnes, et Euroopa vajab uut suunda, kuid siis hakkasite rääkima sotsiaalsest turumajandusest. Vabandust, kuid sotsialistlik mõtteviis turumajanduses on minu arvates ilmselgelt eilne päev ja osaliselt selle mõtteviisi tõttu on Euroopa täna ka kriisis.

Euroopa vajab täna reaalset turumajandust, kus avaliku sektori kulud on väga selgelt tasakaalus riigi sissetulekutega. Teiseks vajab Euroopa selgelt reformi, mis tähendab seda, et ettevõtlusele ja ettevõtjatele tuleb anda selge võimalus kasvu ja töökohtade loomiseks, sest ega meie siin Euroopa Parlamendis ega teie komisjonis töökohti ei loo. Töökohti loovad ettevõtjad, kellele on vaja anda võimalused läbi seadusandluse maksude alandamise ja bürokraatia vähendamise kaudu.

Ma ei mõista, miks täna ei võiks kogu Euroopas olla ettevõtete kasum, mis reinvesteeritakse, tulumaksust vabastatud. Ning lõpetuseks – Euroopa vajab e-valitsemist. See vähendab oluliselt avaliku sektori kulusid, vähendab ametnikke, mis tähendab, et väheneb bürokraatia ja väheneb ka korruptsioon.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Presidente della Commissione, Lei ha opportunamente parlato dell'esigenza di dare un assetto diverso alle istituzioni europee, e questo perché conosce benissimo lo stato di insofferenza e di delusione che molti cittadini europei hanno maturato nel corso degli ultimi mesi.

Ritengo però che costruire un'Europa che abbia gli Stati membri partecipi di una cessione di sovranità verso le nostre istituzioni sia importante, ma non sufficiente per dare fiducia e speranza a milioni di persone, che oggi sono disoccupate, che stanno perdendo il lavoro o che vedono aumentare drammaticamente le loro difficoltà di vita.

Ignorare il tema della povertà e delle azioni di contrasto contro la stessa, oppure non prendere in seria considerazione l'esigenza di avere a breve politiche anticicliche per quanto riguarda il lavoro rischia di vanificare anche gli apprezzabili sforzi che Lei intende compiere sul versante istituzionale.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). - Mr President, the Prime Minister of Malta, Mr Gonzi, recently stated that economic and financial crises are the sons and daughters of our loss of values. In fact, the crisis is first and foremost within us – in our national selfishness and the lack of will to really cooperate and reform.

There will be no solution without profound changes in our attitudes, which means that the pace can no longer be set by the slowest. Structural reforms are the key to progress. Here lie the most dramatic disparities between the Member States. Some have conducted structural reforms, while some are lagging behind or just starting. There is often more lip service to reform than real change. May I suggest to the Commission that it starts to coordinate and monitor progress on structural reforms in the same way that it is now engaged in coordinating and monitoring national budgets?

  Edite Estrela (S&D). - Senhor Presidente Barroso, fez um bom discurso, mas os cidadãos europeus não querem apenas palavras, querem ação. Por isso gostava de saber o que é que vai fazer a Comissão em concreto para promover o crescimento económico e a criação de emprego. E quanto à harmonização fiscal, para evitar que os ricos franceses se desloquem para a Bélgica ou que os empresários portugueses se desloquem para a Holanda. E o que pensa do pacto social que foi aqui proposto por Anna Swoboda? Muitas perguntas à espera de resposta.

Como sabe, nós precisamos de mais solidariedade entre os Estados e mais solidariedade entre os cidadãos, mais equidade. Mas isso não se resolve com palavras. São necessárias medidas, medidas concretas. Foi aqui também dito que é preciso um novo rumo. Sem dúvida! Mais política, também! Mas como é que isso se concretiza, Senhor Presidente? É disso que os cidadãos esperam. Nós precisamos, de facto, de mais liderança, mais confiança, mais Europa, mais esperança e mais democracia e aí o papel do Parlamento tem de ser reforçado.

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)

Der Präsident.- Ich bedaure, dass wir nicht alle Kolleginnen und Kollegen berücksichtigen können, die im Rahmen des Catch the eye-Verfahrens das Wort ergreifen wollen.

Ich mache Ihnen folgenden Vorschlag: Herr Barroso, Sie haben eben entgegen den Vereinbarungen, die wir getroffen hatten, nach der Runde der Fraktionsvorsitzenden nicht das Wort ergriffen, was ein bisschen unsere gesamte Struktur in der Debatte verändert hat. Ich war darüber sehr erstaunt, weil wir jetzt eine andere Struktur einführen müssen. Mein Vorschlag ist: Ich gebe Ihnen jetzt das Wort, so dass Sie sowohl auf die Fraktionsvorsitzenden als auch auf die Catch-the-eye-Runde antworten können. Danach erhalten die Fraktionsvorsitzenden – so wie vereinbart – noch einmal das Wort für kurze Interventionen. Wenn Sie nach diesen Kurzinterventionen noch einmal etwas sagen wollen, gebe ich Ihnen sicher zum Abschluss noch einmal das Wort.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, I wanted first of all to listen to all the Members of this Parliament before having the possibility to respond – and I will also be more than happy to hold more specific discussions afterwards with the Group leaders – but I think it was important to hear the contributions from all the Members of Parliament who wanted to take the floor at this stage.

Let me first underline that I saw, of course, different positions in this debate – some criticisms, some comments – but I think I can see, at least from the most relevant pro-European forces, strong support for the agenda I have put forward: an agenda which combines ambition with realism.

Ambition is very important but so is the way we deliver on that ambition. Ambitions without results are simply good intentions, and sometimes I have the impression that in Europe we are full of good intentions but with not enough results. This is why we need to have this vision, the vision of a medium-term, longer-term, European Union that is a federal path – and I hope that we will not engage now in semantic discussions about how exactly to qualify it. It is a federal path and it is ambitious, but at the same time we need to respond to issues which are extremely serious and urgent now, even before we get the – in some cases necessary – revision of the current treaties.

So this is our way and this is the way the Commission will pursue with determination. This is the only realistic way to achieve progress in Europe, and those people who pretend that the status quo is enough or those people who pretend that everything will change tomorrow are not in fact serious about what has to be done for Europe.

I cannot resist recalling something that a predecessor of mine, Jacques Delors, once said in French – it was good advice :

"Méfie-toi des excités!"

‘Beware of the over-excited’. We need to have ambition but at the same time every step must be taken with our feet firmly on the ground – and not forgetting one thing: that we are accountable to the European citizens of Europe and we have to have them with us.

That is why one of the most important messages that I believe I brought you today was: How can we complete European democracy? What can we do? Not against our countries, because our countries are still the most important political reference for most of our citizens, but what can we do with our countries to show that they will only count in the world if they accept a much stronger Union; that on their own they will not have the leverage or the capacity to talk on an equal footing with the Americans or the Chinese or other powers; but that yes, together in Europe, we can do this and we can make a difference. That, precisely, is the message I brought you today.

A message where we work with our countries, not for the sake of nationalism, but in fact to win the battle against the nationalists or the extreme populists, to have a democratic federation of countries, a federation of citizens naturally, a union for the citizens of Europe. This is the message I brought you today and this is the only way to go forward if we want to achieve results.

If you read my speech last year, at that time some of the ideas were not given much consideration, but one year later we have seen that the governments – and I believe most political forces – have finally agreed. I proposed the redirection of central funds. I proposed the refinancing of the EIB, I proposed the creation of project funds – there was no consensus for all these ideas at that time, now they are agreed on.

It was also the Commission that proposed some time ago the creation of a strong backstop. At that time we proposed EUR 440 billion. It was rejected by some. It was not considered realistic; now we have it and today – it was about time – we have had the decision of the Constitutional Court of Germany. This shows that what is not agreed to today will become a consensus tomorrow, and our duty here as European institutions is precisely to build on this consensus, to show ambition but at the same time to do so with realism. This is the way to achieve those steps.

I was asked some specific questions, particularly on the banking union, which I think are very important. One was about doing this or not with the Central Bank. Fourteen out of the 17 national supervisors in the euro area today are already the central banks, and the UK is now in fact moving to place these tasks with the Bank of England, so there is not one single model in the European Union and the euro area. What matters is the quality and credibility of the supervision.

But let us be frank. Do we want to delay or do we want a solution? We have agreed, and it was a Commission proposal, to do this around the European Central Bank because this is a well-established European institution, a federal institution in the euro area. Of course we will do this ensuring a separation between the monetary functions and the future supervisory function. Our model offers all the guarantees that one could ask for – the independence of monetary policy – but what we need is a credible supervisor that can break free from the national capture of national supervisors and do so quickly. That is why the ECB is by far the best placed for this. Once again, if we now start to change this, there will be delay. Delaying the solutions is probably in the interests of some people, but it is certainly not in the interest of the European Commission. We want to have a single supervisor for the euro area as soon as possible.

This is why we have put forward a proposal that, in fact, also addresses other matters like the relationship between euro and non-euro area members. The single supervisory mechanism will strengthen the single market. The proposal is designed so as not to create any walls in the single market. The ECB will apply the single rule book, the substantive rules on bank capital requirements and so on which are agreed by all 27 Member States. More effective and consistent application is good for the stability and safety of all.

The non-euro area Member States should be able to take part. The proposal is as open as possible. Those outside the euro area can take part through a close cooperation arrangement. We have gone as far as possible within, of course, the current Treaty legal limits and there are lots of other safeguards. The decisions on supervision of cross-border banks will continue to be made in colleges of supervisors in which host Member States will still have their full say even where the ECB is the home supervisor, and the European Banking Authority will keep all its powers to solve disputes and uphold single market rules including vis-à-vis the ECB.

This is all to show you that no-one is more committed than the Commission to the idea of a Union, to the integrity of the European Union, and yes, to the principle of non-discrimination between Member States, Article 4. When Prime Minister I was one of those fighting for the principle of equality between all our Member States to be recognised. Of course there are different economic dimensions, different demographic dimensions, but as regards the law all the Member States have exactly the same dignity and we should strive for a unity based on these principles.

Some of the points made concerned growth and social matters. First of all, growth. We have to be very honest about this. The biggest problem we have with growth in Europe is the lack of competitiveness that has been accumulated in some of our Member States and we need to bring in reforms for that competitiveness. There are difficult, more urgent, problems, such as the lack of financing for the economy. Some of our countries in fact are making impressive – impressive – efforts of adjustment.

What Greece has achieved is sometimes not sufficiently recognised – or Ireland or Portugal. An impressive adjustment, but what is their problem? They also have a problem in financing the economy precisely because the sovereign debt problems contaminated the banks’ problems. So we should not forget what lay at the origin of this crisis and the origin of this crisis, I have to say to the Eurosceptics: No, it was not the euro. Britain has put in more taxpayers’ money to save the banks than any country in Europe. Iceland is not a member of the euro or the European Union, so it was not the euro which created the problem; it was the irresponsible behaviour of the financial sectors in many areas of the world, including the United States.

(Applause)

This was the crux of the problem, and let me tell you that sadly we can see that some people in the financial sector have learnt nothing. After what happened we continued to receive reports of rigging with Libor, manipulating the interest rates. We have seen banks in the United States that are financing Iran contrary to all the legislation of the United States. We have seen banks from Britain financing drug smuggling in Mexico. We continue to see some intolerable practices in the financial sector. This was part of the problem and that is why we need to regulate and to have credible supervision in the financial sector as well.

But this was not the whole cause of the problem. There was also unsustainable debt created by our governments; this is the reality. I am sorry, some people prefer to hear just some part of the reality, but we have to look at the reality in full. That is why we need to see how we came here. We came to this situation because the financial markets did not behave properly and that was the responsibility not of the European Union but of the national supervisors. The European Union at that time had no responsibility at all in terms of national supervision. We are now creating, we are now establishing, the first elements of this European supervision.

The problems of the debt were also created because some Member States did not respect the Stability and Growth Pact which they themselves had signed. When there is no respect for the rules, naturally there are problems of credibility. So I think it is fair to say that Europe’s current problems were not created by the European Union for the Member States, they were much more created by the Member States for the European Union and this is the reality of what we have today.

(Applause)

But now of course we have to see how to get out of this situation, and to get out of this situation requires proper financial supervision and regulation. Addressing the problems of deficit is also required, and so Member States which are under this pressure should continue with consultation measures and also with stricter reforms because there is an underlying problem of lack of comparison in some of our Member States.

It is not easy; there will not be a magic solution; it will require time, determination, persistence, coherence. I know that populists manipulate feelings and anger; they can offer a very simple solution. The solution is ‘No’. Saying ‘No’ is easy; saying ‘No’ to Europe is easy. What is difficult, and that requires leadership, is to say ‘Yes’ but while saying ‘How can we move forward?’ And that is why I am asking you to bring about the conditions for a true European debate with a true European democracy. And I am giving the signal for the next European elections because I believe in democracy.

I was elected to my Parliament in Portugal when I was just twenty-nine years old. Mr Farage, do not look at me like that because in fact I really have a great admiration for the wisdom of the British people. Every time you have tried to be elected in Britain you were rejected; that is why you came here. It shows that the British people know that it is much better to keep you away from your own system.

(Applause)

Every time I ran for election in my country I was elected. I was leader of the opposition, I was Prime Minister and to be President of the Commission I received the support of this European Parliament. But I think we have to go forward. I think we need to go for the next elections with all the relevant political parties – not you, frankly – but with all the relevant political parties to present a candidate for the Commission President and to have a truly political debate.

Today we adopted formally a new regulation for European political parties and I am calling not only on citizens, not only on you, but also on the best forces in Europe to engage in this debate on what we can do. Then I want to appeal to my pro-European, including federalist, friends. Frankly, sometimes I believe we waste too much time and energy criticising secondary issues. I think we have to unite the pro-European forces with regard to the future of Europe. A future that, yes, is to keep the social market economy. The social market economy is in the Treaty of Lisbon, it is not an invention. But at the same time to prepare the European consensus to reform those economies that will become more competitive. That is why European democracy is important.

There are some people who say democracy cannot be transnational and can only be national because it is based on national parliaments. I am sorry, but those who say that have not understood that we are already in the 21st century. In the 21st century we have transnational phenomena like the financial markets, and if we do not have transnational mechanisms to deal with them, the peoples, the citizens, will not have the leverage to regulate them and to have their say. That is why we also need at European level a European democracy, and a European democracy that is not built against our national democracies but to complement them, to coordinate, and that basis for European democracy is precisely this Parliament.

That is what I am telling you. I am telling you that the Commission is ready to engage in this Parliament and that we are going to put proposals forward before the next European elections so that we can have a real European debate, one where the political forces that are for Europe can say why they are for Europe and those who are against should also say why they are against Europe.

What annoys me today, to be very honest with you, and which we have to recognise, is that in many of our countries those who are taking the lead in the European debate are the anti-Europeans, the Eurosceptics, the populists, the extreme nationalists. That is why we have to provoke the pro-European forces, if necessary by making a positive, constructive clean break with them, to ask them to come and say what the consequences of not having this Europe will be. Because many of the young people around Europe do not remember when a great part of Europe was under totalitarian Communism or when there was no democracy in the south of Europe. They do not remember the times of non-freedom of movement – so we need to make the case for Europe, and to do that we need the pro-European forces from the Left, the Right and the Centre to come and fight for that ideal: to explain it, to take the initiative and not be always on the defensive.

I think this is what we can do for the next European elections and that is why the European Commission will come with proposals which will enable us to leave our comfort zone and sometimes see some of the governments of Europe giving up to those extremist forces because they believe that in that way they will keep some of the votes.

That is a very important point I want to make to you because some of us, instead of trying to attack each other, would be making a much better use of our time if we could try to convince not only the parties here in Strasbourg, but also the parties back home in the capitals, to say the same thing they say here in Strasbourg. The reality is that very often we hear the parties saying one thing here and we know very well that when the same parties are in the governments back home, they say a very different, if not a completely contradictory, thing. This is why we need to build a true public space in Europe with a true European democracy, with true European parties and true European institutions, not working against our Member States but working for a Union that goes beyond the Member States and that gives each Member State and our citizens the capacity to defend our interests and our values in the global world.

  Joseph Daul, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, je vais être très bref. Merci pour ce discours européen. Cher José Manuel, tu fais le même discours devant le Conseil la prochaine fois et je suis 100 % d'accord avec toi.

  Der Präsident. − Herr Daul, jetzt muss ich Ihnen etwas sagen, was ich schon einmal gesagt habe, da ich ja das Vergnügen habe, zumindest zeitweilig diesem Gremium anzugehören: Herr Barroso ist im Europäischen Rat mindestens so kämpferisch wie hier. Das will ich ausdrücklich bestätigen. Er macht das nicht nur hier. Er kämpft auch da. Seit ich ihm assistiere, ist er noch mutiger geworden!

  Hannes Swoboda, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Hätte Herr Barroso so viel Unterstützung im Rat wie im Parlament, dann würde Europa auch anders aussehen.

Erstens einmal möchte ich mich ausdrücklich dazu bekennen, dass die Erkenntnis des Bundesverfassungsgerichts eine gute Erkenntnis ist. Zum zweiten Mal innerhalb weniger Tage sind die fast schon hysterischen Europagegner abgewiesen worden – durch die Entscheidung der Europäischen Zentralbank und jetzt durch die Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Das zeigt, dass man mit Mut und klaren Entscheidungen auch Europa aufbauen kann, wenngleich auch gewisse Grenzen gezogen wurden.

Zweitens möchte ich ausdrücklich das unterstützen, was von Zita Gurmai und anderen zur Frauenfrage gesagt worden ist. Ich habe auch gestern mit Frau Vizepräsidentin Reding gesprochen. Es ist wichtig, gerade im Wirtschaftsbereich und auch bei den Nominierungen durch europäische Institutionen, dass die vielen guten und exzellenten Frauen unterstützt werden, die genauso wie die Männer eine Möglichkeit haben müssen, bestimmte Positionen zu besetzen.

Drittens möchte ich mich ausdrücklich für den Entwurf zu den politischen Parteien bedanken, der von der Kommission gekommen ist. Es ist sehr gut, dass wir jetzt einen neuen Entwurf haben, der uns nach vorne bringen wird. Ich bekenne mich zu den Grundsätzen, auch was die politischen Parteien betrifft. Ich gehe auch in alle Mitgliedstaaten und sage dort genau das, was Sie, Herr Präsident, hier gesagt haben.

Viertens, damit es nicht ganz so harmonisch ist, Herr Präsident: Sie bekennen sich zum sozialen Modell Europa. Das ist gut so. Ich unterstütze das. Aber wenn ich jetzt nach Griechenland schaue – und ich habe ganz deutlich gesagt, auch in Griechenland, dass starke, oft schmerzhafte strukturelle Reformen notwendig sind. Nicht jeder in Griechenland wollte das gerne hören, auch von meinen Freunden. Aber das ist notwendig. Wenn jetzt die Troika mit Einschluss der Kommission die Wiedereinführung der 6-Tage-Woche fordert, 13 Stunden pro Tag zu arbeiten und andere soziale Rechte abzubauen, dann ist das eine Destruktion des Sozialstaats. Herr Präsident Barroso, es geht nicht, dass wir uns im Parlament zum Sozialstaat, zum sozialen Modell bekennen, aber die Mitarbeiter der Kommission dann in den Troikas den Sozialstaat de facto abbauen und vernichten. Wir Sozialdemokraten können das nicht akzeptieren. Das ist keine Basis des Konsenses. Ich habe gerne mit Ihnen und der Kommission einen Konsens, was das Sozialmodell und den Sozialstaat betrifft, aber dann müssen die Mitarbeiter der Kommission auch in den Troikas dafür sorgen, dass der Sozialstaat nicht abgebaut wird, sondern jedenfalls in seinem Kern erhalten bleibt. Das ist der Grundsatz, den wir Sozialdemokraten vertreten.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, firstly, while to start with Mr Barroso was initially Mr Farage’s punching ball, is Mr Farage now becoming Mr Barroso’s punching ball? I would see that as a positive development in this Plenary.

I shall now come back to the main discussion we had an hour ago. I think – and my group thinks – that the Commission should make more use of its right of initiative on a number of topics and on a number of issues. I would advise the Commission not to wait for the green light – or red light – from Paris, Berlin or other capitals. The red light is always there but not the green light. It needs to do what is necessary and put its legislative proposals on the table. The effect on the market would be so positive that it would be far more difficult for these countries to react negatively.

My third point concerns banking union. Mr Barroso has said that he does not want a delay. I do not want a delay either. But that does not mean that, if he does not agree with a proposal that has the support of the Council – and mainly of Germany in this instance – that we cannot discuss it. Just because Germany considers that the ECB should do a given job we do not have to agree with it. I am sorry, but that is not codecision, is it? Codecision means that for a short period – and you can be sure that our coordinators will respect that and will examine the proposal – you can suggest other, better possibilities, rather than creating double standards.

Finally, in Germany they need to be serious. They cannot at the same time give tasks other than monetary functions to the ECB and criticise Mr Draghi for the interventions he is currently making in the markets. It is one or the other: either it is independent – in which case we have no financial supervision – or it is not, in which case they can continue to criticise Mr Draghi, as they have been doing in recent weeks.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich möchte erst mal zwei Feststellungen vorbringen. Zum Modell Sozialstaat Europa: Es gibt keinen Sozialstaat in Griechenland, er existiert im Moment nicht. Wenn wir ein Modell Sozialstaat haben wollen, muss die Europäische Union einen Sozialfonds zum Neustart eines Sozialstaats in Griechenland einrichten. Das muss man einfach so sehen. Man kann nicht immer weiter voranschreiten. Wenn jemand heute in Griechenland keine Arbeit hat, hat er überhaupt keine Unterstützung. Ist das verständlich? Deswegen: Das Modell Sozialstaat Europa kann nur weiterentwickelt werden, wenn wir ihm jetzt auch in den Staaten, in denen es nicht mehr existiert, wieder zur Geburt verhelfen. Das müsste mal in die Köpfe rein.

Zweitens: Frau Reding, wir unterstützen Ihre Initiative – ich hoffe, auch die gesamte Kommission und alle Männer – zur, wie man auf Deutsch sagt, gender balance in den Unternehmen usw. Und wenn Sie diese Initiative in einem Brief an Ihren lieben Herrn Juncker weitergeben würden und auch dem board der Europäischen Zentralbank, wäre das wirklich eine gute Nachricht.

Zum Schluss möchte ich sagen: Es geht nicht um einen Streit um die Perspektive Europas. Ich träume einmal, dass bei Entscheidungen über den europäischen Stabilitätsmechanismus und die Probleme, die entstehen werden, nicht ganz Europa nach Karlsruhe, sondern auf den Europäischen Gerichtshof schaut, denn da muss es entschieden werden. Außerdem hat irgendjemand gesagt – Herr Daul, glaube ich –, wir sollen mehr Mut haben, den Gerichtshof anzurufen. Nein! Politik ist Sache der Parlamente. Und wenn wir häufiger vor den Gerichtshof ziehen, wird es eine Angelegenheit der Technokraten. Das ist nicht gut. Die Verrechtlichung von Politik ist auch ein Abgesang auf die Politik.

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, Mr Barroso, I understand that some of the Brussels press corps in the Twitter sphere were less than enraptured by your speech. In fact, many of them were playing Barroso buzzword bingo during its delivery. I wonder if anybody can guess what the winning line was. What did he say the most? You said ‘let us be frank’ five or six times during your speech. That was the winning line.

Well, let us be frank with you. You really offered us nothing new today, did you? You offered us the same old tired solutions, that the answer to all of our problems is more Europe. Not better Europe, not more efficient Europe, just more Europe.

And I say that I welcome the debate. Table your proposals. Let us have the debate about whether we want more Europe or whether we want less Europe, whether we want more power to the centre or more back to Member States. And I will tell you something even more radical. Let us have that debate, let us reach the conclusions and then let us ask the people in our Member States, in referenda, what they think of the solutions offered.

(Applause)

And then let us do something even more radical and let us take notice this time of what they say if, in fact, they reject your solutions.

Let me give you another quote from a dear Member of the EPP Group, from Mr Daul’s party, from José María Aznar, who said over the weekend that the drive for full fiscal and political union is ‘deeply misguided’. He said that ‘a United States of Europe is an impossible idea. It is a very serious mistake to try to destroy nation states. You cannot go against the cultural beliefs of the people and the forces of history’, and I think he was right in what he said there.

Many people in this Chamber, many of the leaders that have spoken, are stuck in the 1950s, in the old mantra of what should be done – all except Mr Cohn-Bendit, of course. He is still stuck on the barricades in 1968. But they offer the tired solutions of the past. We need to reform the EU, we need to look forward to what the EU should offer us in the 21st century, and that should be less Europe and more competitive Europe and more competitive economies.

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

  Gay Mitchell (PPE), blue-card question. – Mr President, I would like to thank my colleague for giving way. Would Mr Callanan agree with me that the real problem is just what he said? He is more interested in what the press corps say and what the markets say, than what the people need. Are we to be prisoners of the commentariat or are we going to give leadership to bring Europe out of the darkness that people are in?

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE), blue-card question. – Mr President, I am sorry to say it but I am disappointed that Mr Callanan was following Mr Farage’s line of argument about holding the referendum. Let us hold the referendum! Do not take the responsibility from your shoulders! Are you really ready to take responsibility for keeping your country, the United Kingdom, outside the new, transformed, more united Europe? Are you ready for that? You, Mr Callanan and your Conservative Party in Great Britain?

  Martin Callanan (ECR), blue-card answer – Mr President, two questions for the price of one. I am sorry if I offended Mr Mitchell. I am half Irish, if that counts, and I know that the Irish appreciate a joke. Obviously in Mr Mitchell’s case, they sadly did not, but it was not meant to be a serious comment. On the subject of democracy, perhaps Mr Mitchell could learn from Mr Protasiewicz. The people of Ireland, of course, have been asked numerous times whether they want more Europe and more times than they have said ‘more’, they have said they wanted less Europe.

When we have this debate and when we have the results of it, we can do no more. If we really do believe in democracy, let us put the results of any constitutional convention, of proposals for more Europe, to the people of Europe in referenda and see if they agree. If they say yes, I will happily accept that result. But the reason that you will not put it to a referendum is that you know what the result will be and I know what the result will be. The people will say that they do not want any more Europe.

[Applause]

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, Mr Barroso claims to be a good democrat. It is a very twisted form of democracy when he says that all of those political parties that get votes with which you do not agree are not relevant. It is a pretty obscene definition of democracy to decry those of us that believe in national democracy and European cooperation. Mr Barroso calls us populists, extremists, xenophobic and nationalistic.

Surely Mr Barroso, the point about democracy is that you engage in debate. You listen to what the other person has to say, you put it to the public and you accept the result. That is what real, genuine parliamentary democracy is about, and you seem to actually despise that and everything that those of us that stand for national democracy believe in. And to tell me that you are in this position because this Parliament voted for you! We were only given the chance to vote for one candidate! Is that your new model of European democracy?

(Applause)

  Gabriele Zimmer, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Herr Barroso, ich hatte bereits in der ersten Runde deutlich gemacht, was ich in den Mittelpunkt stellen möchte. Mir geht es um die Erwartung meiner Fraktion an die Kommission, dass sie ihrer Verantwortung in den entsprechenden Gremien wie der Troika nachkommt, um klar und deutlich zu machen: Wir als Kommission, als europäische Institution stehen dafür, dass Menschen nicht noch mehr in Armut getrieben werden, dass Arbeitszeiten nicht verlängert werden, dass ökologische und soziale Standards nicht ausgehebelt werden. Das ist ihre Aufgabe. Wenn es uns gelingt, dass wir das deutlich machen, dann senden wir auch ein Signal an die Menschen, die in diesen Tagen zu Tausenden, zu Hunderttausenden protestieren, die auf die Straßen gegangen sind und mit denen wir uns als Fraktion auch solidarisch erklären, ob in Thessaloniki oder in Barcelona.

Ich habe heute früh die Nachricht gehört, dass in Griechenland die Krebskranken protestieren. Wo sind wir denn hingekommen, dass die Menschen, die in einer tiefen sozialen und persönlichen Not stecken, keinerlei Hilfe und Unterstützung mehr bekommen können, weil das Gesundheitssystem zusammengebrochen ist? Hier müssen wird doch endlich aktiv werden.

Ein Ansatz in den Köpfen vieler Verantwortlicher lautet: Die Menschen in Griechenland und in anderen Staaten haben über ihre Verhältnisse gelebt. Sie müssen heute dafür bestraft werden und Sanktionen ertragen. Diese Ansatz ist untauglich, eine europäische Gemeinschaft, eine solidarische Gemeinschaft zu stärken. Ich unterstelle nicht Ihnen das, Herr Barroso, aber das ist ein Ansatz, der sich in vielen Ländern durchzieht und leider auch in meinem Land immer wieder in den Medien gespielt wird.

  Elmar Brok (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Präsident! Eine Frage an Herrn Farage: Finden bei der Wahl des Premierministers in Großbritannien im House of Commons Kampfabstimmungen statt oder kandidiert nur derjenige, der der Königin den Ring geküsst hat?

  Nigel Farage (EFD), blue-card answer. – I think I had better be slightly careful how I answer the last part of that question.

Mr Brok, the British Prime Minister is taken from the floor of the House of Commons and in fact nearly the entire British Government are elected Members of that House of Commons. That is the Government of the United Kingdom.

The fundamental difference between that and the European Union is that this College of Commissioners that you see over here – the people who have the sole right to propose legislation with the European system – not one of them has been voted for by anybody in Europe and therefore they cannot be removed. That is why the European system is not just undemocratic, it is anti-democratic.

  Der Präsident. − Ich glaube, wir müssen etwas ein für alle Mal klären, was dieses Haus angeht. Die europäische Exekutive erwirbt ihre demokratische Legitimation durch die Abstimmung in diesem Haus. Es gibt keine nationale Regierung, in der sich Minister einer so starken Überprüfung unterwerfen müssen wie die einzelnen Kommissare bei den Hearings hier.

(Beifall)

Und es gibt keine transparentere Bestellung als die der Kommission hier im Parlament. Dass die des Rates intransparent ist, wissen wir. Aber der Rat ist exakt das Organ, das Sie, Herr Farage, ja ständig stärken wollen. Also, dieses Haus ist eine demokratische Institution. Wenn Sie sie für so undemokratisch halten, warum sitzen sie dann hier?

(Beifall)

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). - Herr Präsident! Es ist ja wieder erstaunlich, wie viel Aufmerksamkeit Herrn Farage geschenkt wird.

Herr Kommissionspräsident, ich hatte Ihnen zugerufen „Bürger statt Banken“, Sie haben dann lange über die Finanzmärkte und die Regulierungsvorhaben gesprochen. Aber wieder haben Sie mit keinem Wort das so große Problem des too big to fail der Großbanken angesprochen. Ganz viele Bürger in Europa sind der festen Überzeugung – und ich zähle mich auch dazu –, dass sich, wenn dieses Problem nicht gelöst wird, wenn wir nicht wieder Banken zurückschrumpfen, Investmentbanken und Geschäftsbanken nach dem US-Vorbild trennen, herausstellen wird, dass die Europäische Union keineswegs too big to fail ist. Noch einmal fordere ich Sie auf: Kümmern Sie sich um diese Problematik des too big to fail. Downsize the banks to upgrade Europe.

  Nigel Farage (EFD). - Mr President, under the Rules of Procedure of this Parliament, if you, as the President, wish to enter into a debate, that is fine. You are allowed to do so but you first have to leave the Chair. I would suggest what you just did was to enter into that debate from the Chair, and that is not the way this, or any other Chamber, should be conducted.

  Der Präsident. − Sie irren sich, Herr Farage, ich habe nicht in die Diskussion eingegriffen, sondern ich habe Ihr fortgesetztes Anzweifeln einer demokratischen Legitimität dieses Hauses zurückgewiesen. Das ist meine Pflicht als Präsident!

(Beifall)

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, I will give very concrete answers to very concrete questions.

First of all, to Mr Martin – because he was accusing me of giving too much attention to other Members of the Parliament – we are currently discussing in the Commission what we can do in terms of this issue of the risks inherent in different kinds of activities between banks.

As you know, Commissioner Barnier has asked Mr Liikanen to put forward a report. Based on that report we will take decisions about what we can do to prevent risks associated with big banks, namely the possibility of addressing the issue of different activities they may pursue.

Regarding other concrete issues, such as Romania and Bulgaria, we have already said that we believe that Romania and Bulgaria meet the necessary conditions to become members of the Schengen area. I want to reiterate that here today. That, of course, does not mean that we do not have the right to act when we believe decisions taken by any of our Member States may call into question some of the principles of the rule of law that all Member States accepted.

Some of you insisted on the issue of social cohesion. Indeed it is a very important matter. The reality is that we are doing what we can at European level, but there are differences here between the instruments available at national and European level. As you may be aware, one of the concerns we now have in terms of the discussion for the next MFF is the opposition that some of our governments are signalling, not only about the reinforcement of the Social Fund, but also the Globalisation Adjustment Fund, which is so important for workers who may feel the impact and be considered redundant because of some structural transformations in Europe, and even the Solidarity Fund, because there are some governments that are simply proposing the elimination of this fund.

I would also like to thank those of you who have referred to the European programme of aid for deprived persons. I would like to confirm that the Commission will put forward a proposal for a new programme to help poor people in Europe because there is now rising poverty in Europe.

So that is why we have to be absolutely sincere and frank. Yes, I say those words once again. You cannot withdraw from the European institutions the instruments for showing solidarity and afterwards criticise Europe because Europe does not have enough solidarity.

We also need to act at European level in the social area. This is critically important, not only because it is just, but because we need a social dimension at European level so that we can keep support for our social market economy and for our European project. When we speak about more Europe, it is not just more Europe for the sake of Europe or for the European institutions. The crisis in the euro area has shown that the credibility of the euro as a single currency is also dependent on the coherence and integration of the decisions taken for the euro area.

When people ask me why we need more Europe, we need more Europe if we want to keep and sustain a common currency. We need more integration of the institutions, but also more harmonisation of norms to avoid behaviours that are against the common norms and also we need more coherence of policies. This is indispensable for a common currency. Of course, we want to make those proposals not just for the euro area but for the European Union because we want this to be united and open for all. If some Members do not want to join us, of course they have that right, but they should not have the right to prevent those who want to have a stronger Union from building that stronger Union, not only for the currency but also for our common goals of a united Europe.

Finally, let me thank you for this debate. I believe in democracy. I believe in national democracy, but also in European democracy. I want to reiterate that today, in the 21st century, with national democracy alone our citizens will not be able to control their future and their countries will become irrelevant. We are living in fundamentally new times. That is why we need to complete our national democracies with a strong European democracy. This Parliament is the basis for that future stronger European democracy.

[Applause]

  Der Präsident. − Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. – Europos Sąjungoje tebesitęsiant finansinei, ekonominei ir socialinei krizei būtina surasti politinę valią ir priimti nepopuliarius ir sudėtingus, tačiau ES išlikimui būtinus sprendimus. Šiandien buvo paminėtas Europos bankų sąjungos sukūrimas, kuris ateityje leis efektyviau prižiūrėti šį sektorių. Pritariu šiam sprendimui, tačiau tenka apgailestauti, kad iki šiol nesiryžtama imtis veiksmų, kurie, jei būtų buvę priimti laiku, būtų leidę Sąjungai ir jos valstybėms narėms sėkmingiau kovoti su krize. Kalbu apie Europos kredito reitingų agentūros įsteigimą, kas būtų leidę teisingiau ir objektyviau vertinti valstybių narių ekonomikas. Taip pat primenu apie išsakytą raginimą ES lygmeniu steigti dujų pirkimo grupę, kuri užtikrintų sąžiningas ir konkurencingas dujų kainas visoms valstybėms narėms, kas savo ruožtu padidintų mūsų pramonės konkurencingumą bei sumažintų vartotojų sąskaitas. Ilgą laiką buvome įtikinėjami, kad krizė baigiasi ir kad norint iš jos kuo skubiau išeiti būtina imtis pačių griežčiausių taupymo priemonių. Dabar matome, kad tokios taupymo priemonės sumažino vartojimą bei pajamų surinkimą į biudžetus, itin padidino bedarbystę ir ilgam laikui sustabdė ekonominį valstybių narių augimą. Dauguma ekonomistų pripažįsta, kad griežtos taupymo priemonės nedavė naudos, kurios buvo tikimasi, o tik dar labiau apsunkino ES ekonominį ir socialinį atsigavimą.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), în scris. – Ne aflăm încă într-o perioadă dificilă, în care criza economică şi a datoriei suverane continuă să persiste, iar principalul obiectiv rămâne redresarea economică. Măsurile decise pentru stimularea economiei şi reducerea şomajului trebuie să fie puse în aplicare cât mai curând posibil şi într-un mod cât mai eficient. În acest sens, consider că trebuie să se pună în continuare accentul pe impulsionarea întreprinzătorilor şi crearea de locuri de muncă în Uniune. Disciplina fiscală şi bugetară şi creşterea economică reprezintă subiecte care trebuie să continue să se afle pe ordinea de zi.

Susţin faptul că Uniunea trebuie întărită, însă este nevoie de timp pentru ca efectele deciziilor luate să fie resimţite. Totodată, reformele trebuie să se bazeze pe principiul egalităţii şi pe o mai bună coordonare. Necesitatea aprofundării integrării a devenit tot mai accentuată în ultima vreme. Preşedintele Barroso a reiterat o temă foarte importantă, cea a federalizării Uniunii Europene. România a susţinut în mod constant această idee, inclusiv importanţa avansării spre o uniune politică. Nevoile specifice ale fiecărui stat membru trebuie luate în considerare, în vederea reducerii diferenţelor de competitivitate şi productivitate. Numai astfel vom putea ajunge la o politică economică coerentă şi la o politică externă relevantă pe plan internaţional.

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), písemně. – Myšlenku o bankovní unii, která v ČR vyvolala značnou nespokojenost na vládní úrovni, já osobně vítám. Její existence by měla obnovit důvěru v banky i jednotnou měnu euro. Rovněž by byla součástí dlouhodobé koncepce hospodářské a fiskální integrace EU. Hlavními prvky bankovní unie jsou bankovní pravidla platná v celé EU – včetně společných, avšak flexibilních požadavků na výši kapitálu, který musí banky udržovat, jednotného bankovního dohledu EU s přímým dozorem nad bankami, které působí ve více zemích, a nad velkými bankovními domy, což umožní prosazování pravidel a větší přehled o kontrole rizik, společných pravidel, která zabrání krachům bank, a v případě, že se banka dostane do potíží, umožní včasný zásah, díky němuž nebude nutné banku sanovat z peněz daňových poplatníků, a jednotného systému pojištění vkladů poskytujícího ochranu vkladatelům, ať již uloží své peníze nebo investují v kterémkoli státě Unie. Cílem je posílit důvěru v celý bankovní systém.

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), na piśmie. – Obecny problem Unii Europejskiej polega na tym, iż próbuje zwalczyć kryzys poprzez drastyczne redukowanie wydatków publicznych po to, aby zmniejszać deficyty budżetowe. W ten sposób, wymuszając oszczędności, owszem, na jakiś czas jesteśmy w stanie poprawić ogólny stan finansów publicznych. Jednak ograniczamy tym samym możliwości wzrostu gospodarczego, co grozi kontynentowi pogłębieniem kryzysu i recesją na wielką skalę.

Niektóre państwa członkowskie forsują ideologię zmniejszania wydatków publicznych również na poziomie budżetu UE w nowej perspektywie finansowej do 2020 roku. Trudno zrozumieć taką politykę w aktualnej sytuacji ekonomicznej, wiedząc, że środki unijne stanowią poważny element pobudzania gospodarki, i to nie tylko od strony popytowej, ale również poprzez mechanizmy ich pozyskiwania, takie jak współfinansowanie i wymóg tworzenia miejsc pracy, czyli poprzez nacisk na nowe przedsięwzięcia.

Niestety zamiast prawdziwej strategii na rzecz wzrostu i zatrudnienia wciąż mamy tylko propozycje pogłębiania integracji i pozbawiania państw członkowskich kolejnych sfer suwerenności. Dlatego negatywnie oceniam pomysł stworzenia wspólnego nadzoru nad bankami czy wręcz powołania unii bankowej. Nierealne, a wręcz irytujące, jest w tym kontekście nawoływanie do stworzenia nowego traktatu europejskiego, na mocy którego instytucje unijne przejęłyby pełną kontrolę nad budżetami narodowymi, do końca pozbawiając kraje członkowskie narzędzi zarządzania własnymi gospodarkami.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – O presidente da Comissão Europeia veio ao Parlamento Europeu encenar mais uma monumental farsa. Perante o aprofundamento da crise da UE e da Zona Euro, perante o descrédito generalizado da UE e das suas instituições, Barroso veio propor um novo salto federalista, neoliberal e militarista no processo de integração económica e política. As medidas anunciadas não resolvem nenhum dos problemas com que os trabalhadores e os povos da Europa se defrontam. A profunda crise em que a UE está mergulhada resulta das políticas e orientações que, desde há anos, têm sido prosseguidas. Políticas que promovem a divergência e desigualdade crescente entre países, assim como a transferência da riqueza dos trabalhadores para o grande capital económico e financeiro. Não haverá saída para a crise no quadro da persistência destas políticas. Em lugar de arrepiar caminho e mudar de orientação e de políticas, Barroso vem agora propor alterações na arquitetura institucional da UE. São alterações que visam, antes de mais, criar novas e mais favoráveis condições para prosseguir estas mesmas políticas de desastre e de retrocesso social, que vêm sendo impostas aos trabalhadores e aos povos, com a brutalidade e consequências que se conhecem. Anunciam-se novos golpes institucionais, dando nova e reforçada expressão ao confronto crescente desta UE com a democracia.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne – EÚ sa momentálne nachádza v zlej situácii. Pretrvávajúca hospodárska a ekonomická kríza a jej dôsledky sa nás tvrdo dotýkajú. Obrovská úroveň nezamestnanosti, krachujúce podniky, nezmyselné škrty vo verejnom sektore, ako je školstvo, zdravotníctvo, či sociálny systém, ktoré najviac ovplyvňujú najzraniteľnejších obyvateľov Únie. Zlá ekonomická a sociálna situácia obyvateľov. Padajúce ekonomiky, pretrvávajúca recesia. Obyvatelia Únie pociťujú súčasné problémy na vlastnej koži. Nemôžeme sa čudovať, že strácajú vieru v európsky projekt. V Bruseli sa vedú siahodlhé debaty, ako z krízy von. Obyvatelia jednotlivých členských štátov však necítia reálne výsledky našej snahy. Naše debaty totiž nikam nevedú! Protikrízové opatrenia nie sú dostatočne účinné a my iba strácame drahocenný čas! Summity prinášajú nulové riešenia. Konečne sa treba zobudiť a treba začať konať! Treba prijať konkrétne opatrenia na podporu rastu a zamestnanosti. Treba prijať potrebné opatrenia na zvrátenie hroziaceho kolapsu globálnej konkurencieschopnosti EÚ. Treba prijať opatrenia na oživenie nášho jednotného trhu. Musíme posilniť fiškálnu, ekonomickú a politickú integráciu. Potrebujeme konkrétny plán na vytvorenie bankovej únie. Potrebujeme väčšiu mieru vzájomnej solidarity. Buď spojíme naše sily, pretože za európsky projekt sa predsa oplatí bojovať, alebo sa jednoducho potopíme každý zvlášť. Na prijatie potrebných opatrení musíme prekonať politickú krátkozrakosť a stanoviť si ambiciózny plán.

  Илиaна Ивaнова (PPE), в писмена форма. – Кризата открои сериозни пропуски в надзора на банковия сектор в страните от ЕС. Проблемите с банковите системи на някои от държавите в еврозоната бяха причина за сериозни проблеми с публичните им финанси. А сега цената се заплаща от европейския данъкоплатец.

Днес виждаме, че не е достатъчно ЕЦБ да наблюдава единствено системно-важните банки, за да се гарантира стабилността на системата. Много от финансовите институции работят трансгранично в рамките на Съюза и затова са нужни мерки на европейско ниво, за да бъде ефективно и ефикасно наблюдаван и контролиран този сектор. Законодателните предложения на ЕК относно Европейски надзорен механизъм, целящи създаване на Банков съюз в рамките на ЕС ще засилят допълнително ролята на Европейската централна банка.

Необходими са обаче гаранции за това, че десетте страни-членки извън еврозоната няма да останат на заден план и техният глас ще продължи да се чува. Единствено така ще се гарантира равнопоставеност при вземането на решения за нашето общо европейско бъдеще.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), na piśmie. – Parę tygodni temu Angela Merkel wezwała do rozpoczęcia prac nad nowym traktatem konstytucyjnym, który usprawniłby Unię i przybliżył ją do obywateli. Wydaje się jednak, że trzeba raczej wykorzystać możliwości, które stwarzają obecne traktaty, niż przygotowywać nowe. Druga fala kryzysu wynika raczej z braku wiarygodności Unii i jej państw członkowskich, a ta nie zwiększy się w wyniku kilkunastomiesięcznych sporów na temat rozwiązań instytucjonalnych. Trzeba działać dzisiaj, podejmować dzisiaj decyzje.

Rozpoczyna się piąty rok kryzysu i możemy już powiedzieć, że podjęte w Europie środki zaradcze nie działają. Działania podjęte przez Grecję, Portugalię, Hiszpanię czy Włochy nie sprawdzają się, a dodatkowo wiążą się z ogromnymi kosztami społecznymi. Dlatego też optymizm mogą budzić ubiegłotygodniowe zapowiedzi prezesa EBC o pośrednim wsparciu dla tych krajów. Jednak bez odzyskania wiarygodności przez Unię i jej państwa członkowskie nie uda się przełamać kryzysowej fali. Chciałabym więc zapytać Przewodniczącego Barroso o dwie kwestie. Po pierwsze, jakie środki planuje przyjąć Komisja, aby wspomóc Europejski Bank Centralny w podejmowanych przez niego działaniach? Po drugie, jak ocenia propozycje Berlina, szczególnie tą dotyczącą odejścia od zwiększonego 95% udziału środków unijnych w realizowanych projektach?

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), na piśmie. – Szanowni Państwo! W centrum swoich rozważań na temat przyszłości Unia Europejska powinna umieścić wszystkich obywateli. Dalsza integracja UE jest możliwa i pożądana pod warunkiem wszakże, iż będziemy potrafili zapewnić obywatelom to, co leżało u podstaw procesów integracyjnych – pokój i bezpieczeństwo, ochronę ważnych dla obywateli wartości i powiększanie dobrobytu. Warto pamiętać, że najważniejsze i niezbywalne wartości UE wynikają z inspiracji chrześcijańskiej. Unia opowiada się za godnością, wolnością i solidarnością. Propozycja rozwijania UE jako federacji państw narodowych jest krytykowana między innymi z pozycji radykalnie federalistycznych. „Prawdziwi” federaliści wcale nie chcą federacji państw narodowych. Oni chcą, jak zresztą wprost powiedzieli, organizacji UE jako struktury postnarodowej. W tym kontekście propozycja przewodniczącego Barroso jest umiarkowana, a dla wielu posłów wręcz zachowawcza.

Federacja postnarodowa jest dziś, moim zdaniem, niemożliwa z bardzo wielu powodów. Wiele narodów europejskich po prostu nie chce i nie wyobraża sobie Europy postnarodowej. Po drugie, sytuacja gospodarcza państw UE uniemożliwia wprowadzenie koniecznego ujednolicenia wielu parametrów, które musiałby być jednolite w całej federacji, takich jak minimalna płaca, minimalna emerytura, minimum dochodów uprawniające do wsparcia socjalnego, wiek emerytalny czy koszyk bezpłatnych świadczeń medycznych. Niezależnie od preferowanej ideologii, ujednolicenie standardów niezbędnych dla formy federalnej wydaje się niemożliwe do spełnienia w przewidywalnej przyszłości.

  Sandra Kalniete (PPE), rakstiski. – Es atbalstu daudzas no State of the European Union izteiktajām idejām. Īpaši svarīgi īstenot plānu par Eiropas banku savienības un vienotā uzraudzības mehānisma izveidošanu. Tas, ka bankas darbojas pārnacionālā līmenī, bet vadās pēc nacionālajiem likumiem, mums ir radījis nopietnus ekonomiskus sarežģījumus. Ceru, ka šī plāna realizācija kārtējo reizi neiestrēgs Eiropas Savienības Padomē dalībvalstu daudzvārdīgās diskusijās, bet jau tuvākajā laikā tiks pieņemti nepieciešamie lēmumi, kas ļaus ātri izveidot efektīvu banku uzraudzības mehānismu. Pēdējo 24 stundu aktivitātes finanšu tirgos rāda, ka eiro ir atguvis uzticību, un tas mums dod nepieciešamo laiku, lai atjaunotu ekonomisko izaugsmi.

To, ka jārīkojas izlēmīgi, ir jāapzinās gan Eiropas Savienības institūcijām, gan dalībvalstu valdībām. Tanī pat laikā man ir šaubas, vai visi šajā augstajā namā ievēlētie politiskie spēki saprot situācijas nopietnību. Dalībvalstīm ir nepieciešams pieņemt grūtus un nepopulārus lēmumus, kuri ilgtermiņā radīs ekonomisko izaugsmi.

Bez darba tirgus reformēšanas un produktivitātes kāpuma dalībvalstīs ilgtspējīga izaugsme nav sasniedzama. Par šiem jautājumiem ir jārunā, un tie ir apņēmīgi jārisina, problēmu ignorēšana situāciju tikai pasliktina. Reformas, kuras Latvijas valdība īstenoja ministru prezidenta Valda Dombrovska vadībā, ir lielisks piemērs pārējām Eiropas valstīm. V. Dombrovskis valsts vadību pārņēma visdziļākajā krīzes punktā, veica reformas, un šobrīd Latvija piedzīvo straujāko ekonomisko izaugsmi Eiropā.

  Marine Le Pen (NI), par écrit. – Malgré l'artifice d'un "Discours sur l'état de l'Union", nous ne sommes pas encore les États-Unis d'Europe dont vous rêvez. Il vous faudra, à la vue des résultats, trouver des arguments et des projets bien plus convaincants pour tenter d'asseoir une quelconque légitimité démocratique. Votre seul message, malgré l'épreuve des faits, se résume à "toujours plus d'Europe" ultralibérale et mondialiste, tout en continuant à nous soumettre à une caste financière internationale toujours plus spéculatrice et irréfléchie. Outre que l'on détruit les avancées sociales arrachées de haute lutte par nos peuples depuis des siècles, l'euro et le fédéralisme forment une religion sacrificielle qui étouffe les agriculteurs, les artisans, les petites et moyennes entreprises et industries, qui constituent l'essentiel de nos forces vives, c'est-à-dire l'économie du réel et du vivant. Nous devons au contraire instaurer ensemble, au plus vite, un mécanisme efficace de sortie de l'euro plutôt que de subir les conséquences catastrophiques de sa chute annoncée. J'appelle pour cela à la mise en place de référendums en France et en Europe concernant ces sujets cruciaux. J'appelle enfin à la tenue d'élections européennes anticipées étant donné l'accélération du déclin de nos pays respectifs, entraînés vers le bas à cause, justement, de "l'état de l'Union européenne".

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE), na piśmie. – Przyszłość Unii Europejskiej to przede wszystkim przyszłość jej dzieci i młodzieży. Jak możemy oczekiwać, że młodzi ludzie będą chcieli budować wspólnotę, która nie zapewni im zaspokojenia podstawowych potrzeb? Ponad 1/3 osób w wieku 15-24 lat nie uczestniczy ani w rynku edukacyjnym, ani w rynku pracy. Bez pracy żyje 1/4 osób, które nie ukończyły 25. roku życia, a w Grecji i Hiszpanii stanowią oni niemal połowę swojej grupy wiekowej. Ponad 25% młodych bezrobotnych nie znalazła pracy przez ostatni rok lub dłużej. Krajowe rynki pracy oferują im w dużej mierze pracę tymczasową, za płacę nieproporcjonalnie niską do ich wykształcenia i kwalifikacji. Pracy mogliby szukać za granicą – ale często obawiają się skorzystać z tej możliwości. Ich strach mógłby zmniejszyć wyjazd w czasie studiów, ale to dla większości oznacza konieczność poświęcenia swoich własnych środków finansowych, i pozwalają sobie na to głównie mieszkańcy dużych ośrodków miejskich. Jak w takiej sytuacji wszyscy młodzi mają wierzyć w nasz wspólny, europejski projekt? Jak mają nam zaufać, gdy wzywamy do dalszych poświęceń, mówiąc jednocześnie o równości i demokracji?

  Светослав Христов Малинов (PPE), в писмена форма. – Г-н Президент, позволете ми да изразя силното си одобрение за речта на г-н Барозо, който ни представи една смела визия за обединена Европа. Аз съм от тези, които без колебания биха тръгнали по този път. Подобни послания категорично очертават разделенията в този Парламент - и това е особено полезно, защото, както показаха колегите консерватори, търсенето на консенсус за тази визия е безсмислено. Никой не може да се хареса на всички.

Разбирам, че дневният ред на Съюза е пълен със спешни и неотложни мерки - и въпреки това искам да обърна внимание на процес, който ще се окаже изключително вреден в дългосрочна перспектива. Наблюдаваме изолиране на страните от еврозоната от останалите. Не оставяйте у нашите граждани усещането, че за да поеме в правилната посока, известно време Европа ще трябва да се движи на две или три скорости! На всяка цена трябва да се намерят механизми, за да могат страните извън еврозоната да участват още по-пълноценно в решаващите дебати, които предстоят.

Днес, в тази зала, равнопоставеността е налице - но ако тя отсъства на другите равнища на дебати и вземане на решения, то как ще убедим нашите граждани да ни следват по пътя на смелите реформи, които предстоят?

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – Disregard the OSCE recommendations to abolish any restrictions to entitlement of citizenship for children of non-citizens of the Latvian Republic who were born after 21 August 1999 – the Speaker of the Latvian Parliament, Solvita Aboltina, stated that the OSCE recommendations are just of an advisory nature. Taking into account the fact that the Latvian Parliament and ruling coalition contain the pro-Nazi political forces of Latvia, there is nothing new in the statement of Parliament’s Speaker. But for the first time in the history of modern Latvia it is precisely the Speaker of the Saeima who so cynically neglects the opinion of European Union. Last year already, when Knut Vollebæk, the OSCE High Commissioner, mistakenly praised the Latvian Government for ‘successes’ in the integration, the Speaker of the Parliament, Mrs Aboltina, and the Prime Minister of Latvia, Mr Dombrovskis, admired him. Today, when Vollebæk ‘has had his eyes opened’ on the situation in Latvia, his recommendations are not needed. All that gives the right to assert that the Latvian Republic lives by double standards, supporting legislation where features of nationalism and racism are openly displayed! It is necessary to evaluate the statements and actions of members of the ruling coalitions and the Prime Minister of the Latvian Republic, which are leading to national conflict. The ‘Cold War’ against Russian-speaking children started in Latvia. This War can lead to bad results.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. – Wenn EZB-Präsident Mario Draghi meint, der Euro sei unumkehrbar, dann ist das nichts anderes als ein Bekenntnis zum bisherigen Irrweg, der zu einer Transfer- und Schuldenunion führen soll. Ein Ankauf von Staatsanleihen maroder Staaten durch die EZB bedeutet eine Rechtsbeugung, wenn nicht gar einen Rechtsbruch. Staaten, die jahrelang über ihre Verhältnisse gelebt haben, sollen belohnt, und jene Staaten, die sich durch Haushaltsdisziplin auszeichnen, sollen bestraft werden. Außerdem zeigt Slowenien, was von Jubelmeldungen über angebliche Musterschüler zu halten ist. Vor wenigen Jahren galt Laibach als Vorzeigekandidat, so dass es die drohende Zahlungsunfähigkeit eigentlich gar nicht geben dürfte. Aber anstatt der harten Realität ins Auge zu blicken, wird offenbar geschummelt und schöngeredet, was das Zeug hält. Auch stellt sich die Frage, wer das ganze Euro-Desaster bezahlen soll. Dauernd die wirtschaftlich erfolgreichen Euro-Länder wie Deutschland, Österreich oder die Niederlande zur Kasse zu bitten, wird nicht funktionieren. Denn diese sind bereits am Ende ihrer Leistungsfähigkeit angelangt, und wenn der Finanzbedarf Spaniens höher ist als angenommen und wenn dann auch noch Italien unter den Euro-Rettungsschirm schlüpfen sollte, werden auch sie als letzte Dominosteine fallen. Deshalb müssen schleunigst Regeln für ein Ausscheiden von Pleitestaaten aus der Euro-Zone geschaffen werden.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), na piśmie. – Kryzys trwa 4,5 roku. Znaleźliśmy się w punkcie, w którym nie możemy dalej błądzić we mgle. Dotychczasowe działania nie przyniosły zamierzonych efektów. Ekonomiści biją na alarm, gdyż wzrasta ryzyko rozszerzenia i zaostrzenia się kryzysu. Na szczęście Europejczycy nie utracili wiary w unijny projekt. Wyniki Barometru z zeszłego tygodnia pokazują, że 40% wypowiada się pozytywnie o UE. Najwięcej respondentów wymieniło Parlament Europejski jako rozpoznawalną i godną zaufania instytucję unijną. Podobnie jak we wcześniejszych sondażach obywatele oczekują od PE skutecznej walki z biedą, wykluczeniem społecznym i bezrobociem. Dlatego też Parlament musi być w pełni włączony w realizację i monitoring Paktu na rzecz wzrostu gospodarczego i zatrudnienia. W szczególności należy jak najszybciej zająć się kwestami zwiększania zatrudnienia. Apeluję w tym zakresie o sprawną analizę przez Radę pakietu Komisji dotyczącego zatrudnienia, aby można było tworzyć nowe miejsca pracy. Z zadowoleniem odnotowuję przyjęte na ostatnim posiedzenie Rady strategiczne ramy UE dotyczące praw człowieka i demokracji oraz związany z nimi plan działania. Powinny one stanowić wytyczne pracy specjalnego przedstawiciela ds. praw człowieka, co pozwoli na wypowiadanie się Unii jednym głosem w dziedzinie praw człowieka.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE), írásban. – Európa országai rendkívül súlyos helyzetben vannak, én elsősorban mégsem a jelenlegi gazdasági-pénzügyi válságról szeretnék beszélni, hanem arról a morális válságról és arról a bizalmi válságról, amelyek legalább ugyanannyira sújtják társadalmainkat, mint az adósságválság. Az európai nemzetek a második világháború után példátlan vállalkozásba kezdtek a közös Európa megteremtésének projektjével, sajnálatos módon mégis mindannyian azt tapasztaljuk, hogy még ma sem teljes a bizalom nemcsak a tagállamok és az EU viszonylatában, hanem az államok és polgáraik között sem. Egyes országok régen meghaladott célokra fordítanak komoly erőforrásokat. Például vannak olyan tagállamok, amelyek nem értékként tekintenek a területükön élő nemzeti kisebbségekre, hanem akadályozzák azok legitim törekvéseit, és továbbra is asszimilációjukra törekednek. Többet költenek az elavult, centralizált adminisztrációjukra, titkosszolgálatukra, hadseregre, mint oktatásra, infrastruktúrára, szociális ügyekre. Véleményem szerint – különösképpen a mostani viszonyok között – ezek a gyakorlatok nem segítenek leküzdeni azt a kettős, morális és bizalmi válságot, amely rányomja bélyegét mindennapjainkra.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. – Ao longo dos últimos anos tem-se verificado uma grande diversidade de opiniões e posições entre os diversos líderes políticos europeus, que acaba por implicar um atraso na definição de políticas públicas nas várias áreas setoriais. Subscrevo, por completo, a criação de uma "federação de Estados-nações" anunciada hoje mesmo pelo Presidente da Comissão Europeia, assim como o reforço da união económica e monetária e uma supervisão única que vise garantir uma crescente estabilidade bancária na zona Euro. Considero ainda fundamental que as medidas de austeridade adotadas pelos Estados-Membros sejam conciliadas com novas medidas de promoção do crescimento e do emprego, devendo ser definidas ações concretas que visem estimular o relançamento económico e criação de emprego, como uma nova política industrial, reforço das atividades de investigação e inovação e incentivos ao empreendedorismo. Num momento de elevadas dificuldades económicas e sociais, entendo que a União Europeia deve ter um especial cuidado com os mais vulneráveis, reforçando o sentido de solidariedade vigente entre povos. Por fim, chamo à atenção da Comissão Europeia e dos respetivos Estados-Membros de que é fundamental reforçar o orçamento da União Europeia para o período 2014-2020, ajustando-o às necessidades de desenvolvimento das economias e regiões.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), na piśmie. – Przewodniczący Barroso w dzisiejszym wystąpieniu wzywał do dalszej integracji, do jednolitego zarządzania gospodarczego i finansowego, do nowego traktatu europejskiego i ściślejszej federacji. Chociaż posłużył się terminem „federacja państw narodowych”, to miał na myśli dalsze wzmacnianie instytucji UE i pozbawianie państw narodowych ich kompetencji. Teoria optymalnych obszarów walutowych doskonale wyjaśnia, kiedy wprowadzenie wspólnej waluty jest opłacalne. Jednak wprowadzenie euro nie było oparte o racjonalne przesłanki, lecz polityczne nadzieje – nadzieje na to, że wspólna waluta utoruje drogę do jednego europejskiego państwa. Teraz widać, że projekt euro nie działa i – niczym skazaniec – czeka na wykonanie wyroku. Nie mogło się to powieść, dopóki w Europie istnieją odrębne narody, kultury, języki i społeczności. Dlatego kryzys euro jest nie tylko kryzysem gospodarczym, ale symbolem kryzysu całej koncepcji federalizacji Europy. Czy dobrym krokiem jest więc dalsza integracja? Nie. Trzeba zrobić krok wstecz. Jeżeli myślimy już o nowym traktacie, to trzeba się cofnąć do traktatu nicejskiego. Trzeba zacząć ograniczać kompetencje UE, a odpowiedzialność scedować na rządy narodowe. Potrzebujemy w Europie współpracy pomiędzy państwami, a nie jednego państwa zarządzanego z Brukseli. Dalsza federalizacja Europy spowoduje umocnienie silnych ośrodków i marginalizację słabszych, stworzy Europę dwóch prędkości, kontynent przegranych i wygranych. Patrząc na kształt kryzysu, łatwiej wskazać tych pierwszych.

5. Pirmininko pareiškimas

  Der Präsident. − Lassen Sie mich bitte eine kurze Mitteilung machen, auf die mich mehrere Kollegen bereits während der Sitzung hingewiesen haben. Auf die Botschaft der Vereinigten Staaten in Bengasi ist ein schwerer Anschlag verübt worden, bei dem der amerikanische Botschafter und etliche Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter der Botschaft getötet worden sind. Ich möchte an dieser Stelle diesen offensichtlich terroristischen Akt ausdrücklich verurteilen und den Autoritäten der Vereinigten Staaten unsere Anteilnahme zum Ausdruck bringen.

(Beifall)

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΣΤΑΜΚΟΣ
Αντιπρόεδρος

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - Mr President, I should just like to second what our President has said about our deep condolences to the American people because of this attack on the Consulate in Benghazi, where the American Ambassador has been killed, and to say that these condolences should also be extended to the brave people of Libya who do not deserve the terrible image given by this attack by a few fundamentalists.

6. Pirmininko pranešimas

  Πρόεδρος. - Κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι, ανακοινώθηκαν στην Ολομέλεια τη Δευτέρα 10 Σεπτεμβρίου 2012:

- η σύσταση της Επιτροπής Μεταφορών περί μη διατύπωσης αντίρρησης σε σχέδιο εκτελεστικών μέτρων σχετικά με την κανονιστική διαδικασία με έλεγχο: «Σύσταση σχετικά με την απόφαση περί μη διατύπωσης αντίρρησης στο σχέδιο απόφασης της Επιτροπής που αφορά την χορήγηση άδειας στην Γαλλική Δημοκρατία για παρέκκλιση από τις διατάξεις του κανονισμού (ΕΕ) αριθ. 1332/2011 της Επιτροπής σχετικά με την χρήση ενός νέου συστήματος λογισμικού για την αποφυγή εναέριας σύγκρουσης (ACAS II) σε ορισμένα νεοκατασκευασθέντα αεροσκάφη» (B7-0423/2012)· και

- η σύσταση της Επιτροπής Γεωργίας περί μη διατύπωσης αντίρρησης σε κατ' εξουσιοδότηση πράξη: «Σύσταση όσον αφορά την απόφαση σχετικά με μη διατύπωση αντίρρησης ως προς τον κατ' εξουσιοδότηση κανονισμό της Επιτροπής της 28ης Ιουνίου 2012, για τη συμπλήρωση του κανονισμού (ΕΚ) αριθ. 1234/2007 του Συμβουλίου όσον αφορά τη διακρατική συνεργασία και τις συμβατικές διαπραγματεύσεις των οργανώσεων παραγωγών στον τομέα του γάλακτος και των γαλακτοκομικών προϊόντων» (B7-0424/2012).

Δεν διατυπώθηκε αντίρρηση στις ανωτέρω συστάσεις, εντός προθεσμίας είκοσι τεσσάρων ωρών, όπως ορίζεται στο άρθρο 87α του Κανονισμού. Συνεπώς, οι συστάσεις αυτές θεωρούνται εγκριθείσες με ισχύ από την 11η Σεπτεμβρίου 2012 και οι αποφάσεις θα δημοσιευθούν στα «Κείμενα που Εγκρίθηκαν» της 12ης Σεπτεμβρίου 2012.

  Christian Ehler (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Ich möchte auch als Vorsitzender der Delegation des Europäischen Parlaments für die Beziehungen zu den Vereinigten Staaten und vor allen Dingen in Anwesenheit des Botschafters der Vereinigten Staaten bei der Europäischen Union und einer hochrangigen Regierungsvertretung der US-Administration noch einmal unsere Verbundenheit zum Ausdruck bringen. Ein Angriff auf gleich welche demokratische und vor allen Dingen diplomatisch legitimierte Vertretung ist zutiefst zu verurteilen. Unsere Solidarität gilt den Opfern, aber unsere Aufforderung ist auch an die libysche Regierung, die Sicherheit von diplomatischen Vertretungen sicherzustellen!

(Beifall)

7. Balsuoti skirtas laikas

  Πρόεδρος. - Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η Ώρα των ψηφοφοριών.

(Για τα αποτελέσματα και άλλες πληροφορίες σχετικά με τις ψηφοφορίες: Βλέπε Συνοπτικά Πρακτικά.)

7.1. Būtiniausi nusikaltimų aukų teisių, paramos joms ir jų apsaugos standartai (A7-0244/2012 - Antonyia Parvanova, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio) (balsavimas)

7.2. Tam tikrų Bendrijos tarifinių aukštos kokybės jautienos, taip pat kiaulienos, paukštienos, kviečių ir meslino bei sėlenų, išsijų ir kitų liekanų kvotų administravimas (A7-0212/2012 - Vital Moreira) (balsavimas)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία:

  Vital Moreira, rapporteur. − Mr President, it is only to draw your attention to the fact that we are going to vote only on the amended version of the proposal as adopted in the Committee on International Trade (INTA). If this Chamber adopts our proposal, I will request that the vote on the legislative resolution be postponed in order to allow for negotiations for a late first-reading agreement with the Council.

- Μετά από την ψηφοφορία:

  Vital Moreira, rapporteur. − Mr President, I request postponement of the vote on the legislative resolution.

(Το Σώμα εγκρίνει το αίτημα.)

7.3. Deleguotųjų ir įgyvendinimo įgaliojimų suteikimas Komisijai atsižvelgiant į alyvuogių aliejaus ir kitų žemės ūkio produktų, kurių kilmės šalis yra Turkija, importą (A7-0209/2012 - Vital Moreira) (balsavimas)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία:

  Vital Moreira, rapporteur. − Mr President, it is the same remark as in the previous file, noting that we are voting only on the amended proposal and that, if afterwards we approve this proposal, then I request that the votes on the legislative resolution be postponed.

- Μετά από την ψηφοφορία:

  Vital Moreira, rapporteur. − Mr President, this is to formalise the request for the postponement of the vote on the legislative resolution.

(Το Σώμα εγκρίνει το αίτημα.)

7.4. Europos bendrijos ir Australijos susitarimas dėl atitikties įvertinimo, sertifikatų ir žymėjimų abipusio pripažinimo (A7-0211/2012 - Vital Moreira) (balsavimas)

7.5. EB ir Naujosios Zelandijos susitarimas dėl abipusio pripažinimo, skirto atitikties vertinimui (A7-0210/2012 - Vital Moreira) (balsavimas)

7.6. Priemonių, susijusiių su valstybėmis, kurios leidžia vykdyti netausią žvejybą, taikymas siekiant išsaugoti žuvų išteklius (A7-0146/2012 - Pat the Cope Gallagher) (balsavimas)

7.7. Bendras žuvininkystės ir akvakultūros produktų rinkų organizavimas (A7-0217/2012 - Struan Stevenson) (balsavimas)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί της τροπολογίας 164:

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). - Senhor Presidente, em relação a esta alteração 164 só por lapso não foi pedido durante o tempo estabelecido para tal que fosse votado nominalmente. Eu queria, por isso, pedir-lhe, agora, que pudesse ser considerada, na alteração 164, pudesse ser considerada uma votação nominal.

7.8. Tarybos metinis pranešimas Europos Parlamentui dėl bendros užsienio ir saugumo politikos (A7-0252/2012 - Elmar Brok) (balsavimas)

  Πρόεδρος. - Υπάρχει αίτημα για ψηφοφορία με ονομαστική κλήση. Ψηφίζουμε με ονομαστική κλήση την τροπολογία 164. Άρχεται η ψηφοφορία.

Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί της παραγράφου 15:

  Elmar Brok (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Wir haben einige mündliche Änderungsanträge, denn durch das Vorziehen der Debatte brauchten die Fraktionen Zeit, um zur Einigung zu kommen. Deswegen bitten wir Sie, das zu gestatten, dass wir das einige Male haben. Wir möchten gern die Formulierung hinzugefügt haben:

‘takes into account the important historical relationship between European and Iranian peoples’.

(Η προφορική τροπολογία κρατείται.)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί της τροπολογίας 3:

  Elmar Brok (PPE). - Hier möchten wir gern hinzugefügt haben, dass die Türkei ermutigt werden sollte, ihre Außenpolitik in a framework of good neighbourly relations durchzuführen.

(Η προφορική τροπολογία κρατείται.)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί της τροπολογίας 4:

  Elmar Brok (PPE). - This is the proposed oral amendment: ‘calls for all sides to work for a peaceful resolution and urges Iran to respect the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the United Nations resolution and to cooperate fully with the IAEA’.

(H προφορική τροπολογία κρατείται.)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί της τροπολογίας 6:

  Elmar Brok (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Wir haben für den letzten Satz einen Kompromiss gefunden. Er heißt:

‘considers that the opening of an EU delegation in Tehran could take place at an appropriate moment in the development of EU-Iranian relations’.

(H προφορική τροπολογία κρατείται.)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί της τροπολογίας 7:

  Elmar Brok (PPE). - Wir haben bei den folgenden conflicts einen Kompromiss gefunden. Es heißt jetzt:

‘in particular breaking the deadlock on South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict’.

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί της τροπολογίας 9:

  Elmar Brok (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Auf Wunsch einer einzelnen Fraktion möchten wir das Wort Canada hinzufügen.

(H προφορική τροπολογία κρατείται.)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί της παραγράφου 84:

  Elmar Brok (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Im ersten Satz soll es heißen:

‘Notes that the joint Africa-EU strategy and its eight sectors have initially focused ...’.

In der Mitte wollen wir hinzufügen:

‘the coherence and differences on this strategy have been reduced by the existence of overlapping agreements with multiple partners and the lack of a specific budget for its implementation; in addition ...’.

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί της παραγράφου 104:

  Elmar Brok (PPE). - Ich verspreche es, es ist das letzte Mal.

‘is of the opinion that NATO’s decision to develop a civilian crisis management capacity should not duplicate EU capabilities’.

(H προφορική τροπολογία κρατείται.)

- Πριν από την τελική ψηφοφορία:

  Χαράλαμπος Αγγουράκης (GUE/NGL). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να σας παρακαλέσω να τεθεί σε ονομαστική ψηφοφορία το σύνολο του ψηφίσματος.

(Το Σώμα εγκρίνει το αίτημα)

7.9. Žuvų išteklių apsauga ir tausojantis naudojimas (A7-0225/2012 - Carl Haglund) (balsavimas)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί της παραγράφου 4:

  Mario Pirillo (S&D). - Signor Presidente, chiedo la votazione per appello nominale del paragrafo 4, perché si riferisce alla richiesta alla Commissione europea di valutare la possibilità di istituire zone di ripopolamento ittico.

(Το Σώμα εγκρίνει το αίτημα.)

7.10. Bendros žuvininkystės politikos reforma (A7-0253/2012 - Nikolaos Salavrakos) (balsavimas)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί της παραγράφου 6:

  Chris Davies (ALDE). - Mr President, there is a roll-call on the original text. It was our intention that this should be on the amendments which concern the rebuilding of fish stocks and to ask the House to agree to a roll-call vote on the amendment.

(Το Σώμα εγκρίνει το αίτημα.)

8. Paaiškinimai dėl balsavimo

Προφορικές αιτιολογήσεις ψήφου

Έκθεση Antonyia Parvanova, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (A7-0244/2012)

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). - Hr. formand! Med den fri bevægelighed og naturligvis også den teknologiske udvikling er kriminaliteten i stadig højere grad blevet grænseoverskridende. Der er ikke længere nogen grænser for kriminelle, og derfor skal der selvfølgelig heller ikke være grænser for vores politi, anklagemyndighed og beskyttelsen af vores borgere. Hvis man bliver offer for en forbrydelse, skal man selvfølgelig have en række grundlæggende rettigheder, uanset hvor i Europa man befinder sig. Som offer skal man altid have ret til information, tolkning, juridisk bistand og ikke mindst beskyttelse mod kriminelle. De rettigheder får EU's borgere fra og med i dag! Men dette er kun et skridt på vejen mod et mere sikkert samfund for vores borgere, og derfor fortsætter vi kampen mod et endnu stærkere politisamarbejde.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE). - Signor Presidente, troppo spesso all'interno dell'Unione europea le vittime di reato non sporgono denuncia a causa della paura o della mancanza di fiducia nelle istituzioni.

Il testo votato oggi tende a rafforzare i diritti delle vittime della criminalità e a garantire loro lo stesso livello di protezione, di assistenza e di accesso alla giustizia in tutti i paesi dell'Unione, prestando particolare attenzione a quelle vittime che corrono un rischio elevato di subire ulteriori pregiudizi o intimidazioni nel corso del procedimento penale.

Di particolare importanza è, dunque, il riconoscimento dello status di vittima, non solo per le persone che hanno subito un pregiudizio a seguito di un reato, ma anche per i familiari e la persona deceduta a seguito del reato.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sono molto favorevole a questa relazione anche perché quando, qualche anno fa, ero consigliere regionale in Piemonte ho partecipato in prima persona alla stesura di una legge regionale che prevedeva proprio una serie di agevolazioni, riconoscimenti, nonché servizi alle persone vittime di reato.

Trovo giusto che l'Unione europea e gli Stati membri riconoscano le vittime di reato quali soggetti da tutelare e aiutare, in particolare lungo il percorso psicologico immediato, ma anche durante l'eventuale processo penale e fino alla completa ripresa delle normali condizioni di vita.

Tutte le vittime devono avere gli stessi diritti, essere trattate con rispetto e dignità, al riparo dal ripetersi di reati, e avere accesso a servizi di sostegno, giustizia nonché risarcimento. Una particolare attenzione deve essere posta nei confronti dei minori, delle vittime di abusi sessuali e nei confronti di quei crimini che risultano particolarmente efferati.

  Anna Maria Corazza Bildt (PPE). - Mr President, I am particularly happy that we have adopted the Directive on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and I very much support the EPP rapporteur, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio.

From now on, women suffering domestic violence, children trapped in trafficking, innocent victims of terrorism and victims of all crimes will be able to have the same rights, regardless of the Member State where the crime has been committed and their nationality. We have set up clear common standards to ensure that each victim is treated with respect, dignity and without discrimination across the European Union. I welcome in particular the attention given to children and to people with special needs and that there will be an individual assessment of their vulnerability so as not to create first or second-class victims.

In the Stockholm Programme we promised to have a Europe that is a community of rights for all citizens. This is a significant step in that direction and I look forward to continuing to work with colleagues to make it a reality.

  Mitro Repo (S&D). - Arvoisa puhemies, henkilöiden vapaa liikkuvuus on perusoikeus, joka on turvattu kaikille Euroopan unionin kansalaisille. Oikeuksien ja vapauksien nauttiminen tarkoittaa, että kansalaiset voivat myös matkustaa EU:n alueella ja etsiä työtä, koulutusta tai parempaa elintasoa.

Vapaa liikkuvuus kuuluu EU:n suurimpiin saavutuksiin ja sen perimmäisenä tarkoituksena on tarjota yhdenvertaiset mahdollisuudet ja yhdenvertainen kohtelu EU:n kansalaisten välillä. Yhdenvertaisuus tarkoittaa myös sitä, että kaikki EU-kansalaiset saavat samantasoiset oikeudet, tuen ja suojelun, mikäli he joutuvat rikoksen uhriksi Euroopan unionin alueella. Kyse ei ole ainoastaan yhteisten vähimmäisvaatimusten luomisesta vaan myös rikoksen uhrien samantasoisesta suojelusta EU:ssa. Kyse on myös siitä, että EU-kansalaisten luottamusta parannetaan kansallisiin oikeusjärjestelmiin. Yleisesti ottaen direktiivi mahdollistaa oikeusjärjestelmiin kohdistuvan luottamuksen kasvamisen kaikissa jäsenvaltioissa. Siksi tuen mielelläni komission esitystä direktiiviksi rikoksen uhrien oikeuksia, tukea ja suojelua koskevista vähimmäisvaatimuksista.

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Die gegenwärtige politische Situation ist von einer tiefgreifenden Skepsis vieler Menschen über die Lösungskompetenz der europäischen Ebene gekennzeichnet. Die Richtlinie über die Mindeststandards für die Rechte und den Schutz von Opfern von Straftaten ist ein Beweis dafür, dass solche Entscheidungen nicht immer der Realität entsprechen müssen. Sie zeigt vielmehr, wie viel Lösungskompetenz hier vorhanden ist. Erstmals wird dieser Personengruppe in der gesamten Union der gleiche Rechtszugang und das gleiche Niveau der Unterstützung ermöglicht. Das ist ein großer Schritt für Europa und vor allem für die Betroffenen. Vor allem ist es auch eine wichtige Hilfestellung für die Opfer von Straftaten. Hier handelt es sich ja um Menschen, die zumeist ohne ihr persönliches Zutun in eine solche Lage geraten. Hier ist professionelle Hilfe, die nicht an Staatsgrenzen Halt macht, ein wichtiges Signal, dass die Menschen von der Gesellschaft nicht alleingelassen werden. Also insgesamt ein sehr guter Tag für Europa.

  Emer Costello (S&D). - Mr President, being the victim of a crime can be a very horrendous experience, but for many reporting a crime and dealing with the authorities after the experience can be equally, and often more, traumatic. This is magnified even further if the crime happens abroad.

So I very much welcome this directive, which will put in place minimum standards and protect the rights of victims of crime across the EU. Victims will be entitled to linguistic assistance and, importantly, access to easily accessible and confidential support services free of charge. The particular circumstances need to be taken into consideration. Their gender, race or sexual orientation need to be considered too.

The directive will help victims of crime feel safer, not just in their own country but throughout the EU. Importantly, this directive will help citizens of the EU gain trust in policing systems and judicial systems across the European Union.

  Marina Yannakoudakis (ECR). - Mr President, this report will ensure that citizens who become victims of crime when travelling in another EU country are given the help there that is needed. It gives victims of crime access to information as well as practical and emotional support. In the past, foreign victims have faced obstacles in obtaining fair compensation or they have been left without proper help and protection.

These minimum standards will make it easier for victims to receive help and, more importantly, access to justice. Basic procedural minimums are a more effective way of securing victims’ rights than a set of rigid regulations. This is a well-balanced approach to dealing with a problem which affects so many people in all Member States.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I fully support establishing minimum EU standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. An example would be the right to receive a copy of your police report at a police station in your native language. The definition of a victim will also be broadened to encompass the family of a person who is murdered or who dies in a terrorist attack.

In the event of a court case, the directive also encourages Member States to allow families for the first time to speak in court, even if they are not a witness, if their statement does not interfere directly with the proceedings.

I am particularly drawn to the directive’s proposal for a children’s rights package. This will establish a set of minimum standards for child victims, an example of which is the right to be interviewed by a video link and not in the court room. The recent terrible unsolved French Alps murders, leaving two orphaned British children, provide an example of potential beneficiaries of these measures.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, I believe that victims should be able to benefit from minimum levels of rights without discrimination across the EU. The Stockholm Programme states that a more integrated and coordinated approach to victims is needed. This directive is part of a package of measures which will help improve legislation in this area, ensuring that victims of crime have effective rights in practice.

I am particularly pleased to have had the opportunity to support the children’s rights package initiated by my colleague Timothy Kirkhope. There are lots of very important rights for victims enshrined in this directive. But I feel rather disappointed, particularly having listened this morning to many people here extolling the virtues of Europe, that we are in the position where we have to impose pan-European direction on this.

Surely, as Member States, we are in a position where these basic rights will be afforded our citizens without that sort of compulsion.

  Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE). - Mr President, I voted in favour of this proposal because it will strengthen and give more substance to the rights of the victims in the European Union and will improve their protection throughout the Union. We have finally set minimum standards for handling the victims of crimes, irrespective of their nationality or the place where the crime was perpetrated.

This directive provides for the first time a unified definition of a victim to be used in all EU countries. This definition was broadened to include people such as the victims’ close family. This directive will increase the confidence of EU citizens in the area of justice and they will feel they are equally protected in all Member States.

I call on the Member States to develop greater cooperation and coordination to protect and provide support for the victims of crime.

  James Nicholson (ECR). - Mr President, can I very briefly say that I welcome the adoption of this directive on the rights of victims. I believe this a very important piece of work and I would like to thank the rapporteurs for their work. As you may be aware, where I come from in Northern Ireland, we suffered decades of violence from terrorists and it has had a very deep effect on the families of victims.

We all hope that thankfully that is well now behind us, but it should never be forgotten, and nor should the impact of what occurred and its effect on many people. I am pleased therefore too that this report specifically refers to the victims of terrorism and crucially recognises that their families are victims and as such are entitled to rights and support.

I note that national governments have three years to transpose this directive in national law and I would urge the UK to do this as swiftly as possible, particularly since – in my opinion – Europe has for once understood the definition of a victim an awful lot better than my own people in Northern Ireland have done.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE). - Rolul şi nevoile victimelor în cadrul procedurilor penale nu sunt încă, în general, suficient luate în considerare în sistemele juridice ale statelor membre. Situaţia actuală ne arată că, în multe cazuri, victimele nu sunt tratate cu respect şi demnitate, nu sunt suficient protejate sau sprijinite şi, totodată, că nu beneficiază de un acces efectiv la justiţie, la despăgubiri şi la repararea prejudiciului suferit.

Nu este admisibil ca nivelul sprijinului acordat unei victime să fie diferit, în funcţie de statul membru în care persoana respectivă a căzut victimă. Recunoaşterea reciprocă poate funcţiona în mod eficient doar într-un climat de încredere, în care nu doar autorităţile judiciare, ci şi toate părţile implicate în procesul penal pot avea încredere în caracterul adecvat al normelor din fiecare stat membru şi pot fi sigure că acestea sunt aplicate corect. De aceea, susţin acest raport şi îmi exprim convingerea că, odată cu adoptarea acestei directive, situaţia victimelor se va îmbunătăţi considerabil în întreaga Uniune Europeană şi, totodată, că victimele criminalităţii vor beneficia de aceleaşi drepturi şi servicii de bază în toate statele membre.

  Daniel Hannan (ECR). - Mr President, a single thief acting alone is an outlaw but a gang of thieves who manage to control the institutions of the state find that they can compel the law to their service. A counterfeiter is sent to prison; a central banker who debauches the currency is rewarded with a knighthood. A blackmailer who extorts is convicted; a taxman who does the same thing is supported by the taxpayers whom he is fleecing. A kidnapper who holds us to ransom expects a long prison sentence; a government minister who holds us in oppression expects to retire with a healthy pension.

The story of democracy, the story of human progress, is holding to account those who govern us and preventing that systemic looting, but now at European level our looters have escaped the bounds of public opinion and so, particularly in the peripheral states, we see generational poverty being inflicted without any recourse from the victims. On the 20th anniversary of my own country’s escape from the ERM let me assure the peoples of European that there is an alternative, there is a way out: running your own affairs in your own interest and growing your own way back to growth.

  Syed Kamall (ECR). - Mr President, I think the issue of the rights of victims of crime is one that probably united most of the House. We can all feel sympathy for the victims of crime, particularly when the measures that are being proposed seek to afford victims in a Member State the rights of the citizens of that Member State. I think it is important that we look at these issues, but actually I also think there should be a word of caution.

Of course it is all too easy to harmonise when it comes to something that we all agree on. It is all too easy to say that it is harmonised because we all care about victims of crime. We all care about children, particularly those children who are the victims of crime, but at the same time we have to be careful that this is not the beginning of the slippery slope to more and more harmonisation of rights. At the beginning we all believe and support these moves, but actually as we go down that slippery slope, at what point does it become an imposition on the rights of Member States?

Έκθεση Pat the Cope Gallagher (A7-0146/2012)

  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). - Signor Presidente, i quattro dossier che sono stati oggi approvati testimoniano indubbiamente la volontà del Parlamento europeo di contribuire in maniera decisa a sostenere un comparto – quello della pesca – che in effetti soffre non poche difficoltà.

Ho votato a favore perché ritengo che un'azione coordinata sia essenziale, così come ritengo assolutamente doveroso un approccio attraverso la regionalizzazione per calibrare al meglio quest'azione con riferimento ai singoli territori. Occorre accorciare la filiera, incrementare gli sbocchi commerciali, consentire l'ammodernamento delle flotte e garantire, nel solco della tradizione, una concreta modernizzazione e crescita di un settore nel quale va coniugata la sostenibilità ambientale con la redditività economica.

Attendiamo il regolamento quadro e infine il dossier applicativo sui fondi per quell'ulteriore accelerazione che riteniamo essere necessaria.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I give my full support for measures against countries that fish unsustainably and threaten marine resources. This is in keeping with my party’s environmental policy to encourage sustainable food production and enhance the resilience of the whole food chain, namely the fish industry, in so doing.

The political impetus behind these proposals can be attributed in part to the latest international disputes over fisheries such as the unsustainable fishing of mackerel stocks. This proposal also sees ‘associated stocks’ being redefined for the first time as a new umbrella term to encompass any fish belonging to the same ecosystem that prey upon that stock or that are preyed upon by the common stock in question.

With regard to the imposing of these restrictions or actions, I also agree strongly with the obligation to consider and evaluate the environmental, trade, economic and social effects of the measures in order to ensure that they are reasonable, just and proportionate and that they are fully compatible with the EU’s WTO international trade obligations.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, at a time when we are reforming the common fisheries policy and requiring our own fishermen to ensure that their activities are sustainable, it is fair to ensure where possible a level playing field for fisheries imports.

I supported this proposal enthusiastically because it enables the European Union to take action against those countries that fish unsustainably. I very much support measures in the text whereby we will be able to impose quantitative restrictions on imports of fish into the Union from third countries.

But I want to make a particular point. One of the reasons why I was so enthusiastic to support this is that it is time that we called on the Commission to take note of Parliament’s will. This was a strong vote in favour of the report. They must take note of Parliament’s will on this issue and they must make sure that they find a way of making sure that we are compatible with our international obligations, not finding lots of reasons to tell us why we will not be. The rapporteur and the work he has done on this issue deserve that kind of respect.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, I voted in favour and strongly support this report. We need to ensure cooperation between EU states in order to establish truly sustainable fishing practices which conserve fish stocks and ensure their optimal use. We need to be able to impose sanctions on non-EU states which are responsible for measures and practices that lead to over-exploitation of stocks or which do not cooperate in good faith by taking agreed management measures.

We, as a Parliament – and this has been repeatedly said – need to send a strong political message to the Commission. That message is that we will no longer accept or do business with countries which continue to allow unsustainable fisheries. Otherwise only our fishermen will lose out. All imports of fish and fishery products of all species originating from countries allowing non-sustainable fishing practices should be banned and banned immediately.

  Peter Jahr (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Natürlich scheint es auf den ersten Blick sehr logisch und vernünftig zu sein, dass man aus den Weltmeeren nur das entnehmen und fischen kann, was jährlich nachgewachsen ist. Aber wir wissen ja selbst: Der Mensch ist nicht immer vernünftig, besonders dann, wenn er Verantwortung quasi delegieren und abgeben kann. Und deshalb ist es außerordentlich wichtig, dass wir uns erstens über Überfangquoten, über den Schutz unserer Fischbestände in den Weltmeeren verständigen.

Damit dies funktioniert, müssen wir uns zweitens auch mit den Ländern beschäftigen, die sich – aus welchen Gründen auch immer – nicht an diese Forderungen und Begrenzungen halten wollen. Deshalb bin ich dem Berichterstatter außerordentlich dankbar für diesen Bericht und habe ihm selbstverständlich zugestimmt. Es liegt nun an der Kommission, geeignete Maßnahmen festzulegen, damit wir mit diesen Ländern verhandeln können und auch diesen Ländern signalisieren: Nachhaltiger Fischfang ist außerordentlich wichtig, und es geht nicht nur um uns, es geht nicht nur um die Fische, es geht auch um die nächsten Generationen auf unserer Welt.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - Am votat în favoarea acestui raport, deoarece eforturile Uniunii Europene de a realiza activităţi de pescuit sustenabil nu sunt suficiente, atâta timp cât sunt singulare. Uniunea trebuie să determine şi statele terţe să îi urmeze exemplul şi să realizeze activităţi sustenabile de pescuit. Exploatarea excesivă a unor stocuri de peşte, precum macroul, poate avea efecte globale. Aceste efecte se resimt dincolo de graniţele statului care efectuează exploatarea, având consecinţe pe termen lung asupra biodiversităţii marine.

Impunerea unor bariere comerciale pentru statele care realizează o exploatare nesustenabilă poate reprezenta răspunsul Uniunii pentru a determina un comportament responsabil din partea acestora. Adoptarea unor astfel de măsuri ar trebui să fie precedată de o evaluare a efectelor de mediu, comerciale, economice şi sociale.

Έκθεση Struan Stevenson (A7-0217/2012)

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, I voted with my group in favour of the report which reforms the Common Fisheries Policy with regard to the organisation of the markets.

The first positive change is that discards will be reduced by stipulating that producer organisations should actively promote discard avoidance. Another merit is the modified objectives of producer organisations, which now include promoting the creation of jobs in coastal and rural areas, as well as providing vocational training to motivate young people to enter the sector. Crucially, another amended objective of producer organisations is the assurance that a fair standard of living will be implemented for those in the fisheries sector.

Finally the amended report also ensures that clearer information should be given to the consumer on the origin of the fisheries products. It also, notably, calls for the development of an EU-wide eco-label for sustainable fishery products.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - A Uachtaráin, vótáil mé i gcoinne na tuarascála seo. Bunaíodh an CMO sna 1970í agus é mar chuspóir aige, mar dhea, cobhsaíocht a bhunú agus ioncam cóir a chinntiú d’iascairí. Níor baineadh amach na spriocanna seo riamh. Ina ionad sin, ní fhaca na hiascairí ach torthaí laghdaitheacha agus tionscal á thachtadh.

Vótáil mé chomh maith i gcoinne Thuarascáil Haglund a thacaíonn le Cuótaí Inaistrithe Aonair. Togra nua-liobrálach is ea é seo a mbeadh príobháidiú acmhainne nádúrtha mar thoradh air. As seo, rachaidh iascairí beaga agus meánmhéide níos faide i léig, le hollchabhlaigh ag dul i gceannas agus pobail chósta á ndíothú.

Éilíonn an Páirtí Sóisialach go gcuirfí iascairí beaga, oibrithe sa tionscal agus pobail chósta isteach i gcroílár bhainistiú thionscal na hiascaireachta.  Le pleanáil agus le bainistiú daonlathach cuótaí, d’fhéadfaí ioncam cóir a dheimhniú do dhaoine atá ag obair sa tionscal chomh maith le húsáid inbhuanaithe na hacmhainne ríthabhachtaí seo a chinntiú.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, this report is the first of the three legislative proposals to reform the common fisheries policy. It aims to provide market incentives to support more sustainable practices, and to enhance the market potential of EU products. It is vital, of course, to promote a more sustainable fisheries sector but we must at the same time support fishermen.

The role of producer organisations (POs) cannot be underestimated in this equation, and I welcome the introduction of clear objectives for them to ensure that they promote profitable fishing and reject profligate fishing. I was very pleased to see the requirements that POs promote the avoidance of by-catch and the handling of remaining unwanted catch in a responsible way, not distorting the market.

Lastly, I was also pleased to support the amendment tabled by my colleague Struan Stevenson requesting that the Commission introduce an EU-wide eco-label for sustainable fisheries practice. I very much support all of these aims and I hope we will be able to make sure that our new common fisheries policy does the job we want it to do.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, I would like to commend the rapporteur, Struan Stevenson, on producing an excellent report, after a lot of dialogue and a lot of amendments, but finally we have an agreement.

I am particularly happy with the role given to the producer organisations in Articles 6 to 31. I also welcome the common marketing standards in Articles 32 and 34, which will lead to greater efficiencies in terms of marketing.

As regards the stabilisation of the markets, the Commission is finally recognising the huge price volatility in the sector. We now at last have a list of fish which can be stored by freezing, salting, drying or pasteurisation in order to be withheld and released onto the market at a later date.

The minimum standards of consumer information to enable consumers to make an informed choice in Article 42 and 46 are also extremely welcome. Information is the key for consumers to make a choice.

Finally I welcome the market intelligence provisions of Article 49. This is needed in order to better understand the supply chain and understand market trends.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - Am votat pentru acest raport, întrucât propunerea Comisiei trebuie să ofere un grad ridicat de predictibilitate pentru organizaţiile de producători. Organizarea comună a pieţelor în sectorul produselor obţinute din pescuit reprezintă o componentă de bază a politicii comune în domeniul pescuitului. Alegerea unor produse în deplină cunoştinţă de cauză este deosebit de importantă pentru consumatorul european. Utilizarea unei etichete ecologice pentru produsele obţinute din pescuit oferă posibilitatea informării clare cu privire la sustenabilitatea ecologică a acestor produse.

În acest sens, este necesară o coerenţă deplină între politica comună în domeniul pescuitului şi politica comercială comună. Produsele importate care intră pe piaţa Uniunii ar trebui să respecte aceleaşi cerinţe şi standarde de comercializare pe care trebuie să le îndeplinească producătorii din Uniunea Europeană.

Έκθεση Elmar Brok (A7-0252/2012)

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, the ECR accepts the reality of the CFSP and the need to engage with it. However, the CFSP must always remain subject to unanimity in the Council as my group, the ECR, does not want to see the EU undermining national sovereignty in this key area or totally usurping the role of national foreign ministries. That explains why my group abstained and could not support all aspects of the Brok report.

We have as a group engaged constructively with the External Action Service, though not uncritically, particularly over their unreasonable demand for a budget increase in this climate of austerity. I have to say that in spite of the huge crisis in the Union over the euro, the EEAS is actually up and running and that has to be recognised. The EEAS must, however, in this climate of austerity prove its value added, both in savings to the Member States, particularly the smaller ones with lower bilateral representations, and show that States such as my own, the United Kingdom, which are major international players, can see their national interests both protected and better projected through using the new EEAS service. One good example of this is the new European Compound in Juba, South Sudan, where all EU Member States are signing up to using this as a joined-up operation.

The ECR was also pleased to note a positive reference to Taiwan in the report and in particular Taiwan’s commitment to peace and security in the East Asia region. This commitment has been further reinforced by President Ma’s East China Sea Peace Initiative, a courageous and commendable effort to resolve the long-standing territorial dispute between Taiwan, China and Japan over the Diaoyu Islands/Senkaku Islands. Recently tensions have suddenly escalated with China, I think it was yesterday, sending patrol boats in response to the purchase of the islands by the Japanese Government. President Ma’s imaginative and visionary plan, analogous to what happens over the Antarctic Treaty, deserves in the view of my Group, the EU’s full support.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). - Am votat în favoarea acestui raport, care este un raport anual, un document de poziţie şi, în special, un document care ar trebui să aibă o viziune. Sigur, el continuă linia clasică de abordare a Uniunii Europene - nu aduce foarte multe lucruri noi în această abordare - însă, pentru mine, a fost important faptul că, în componenta de securitate a politicii europene, raportorul a abordat câteva subiecte care sunt importante nu numai pentru viitorul unei politici comune, sensibil în acest domeniu, dar şi pentru vizibilitatea şi forţa Uniunii Europene în afara graniţelor ei. Mă refer la faptul că s-a salutat întărirea capacităţii Serviciului de Acţiune Externă de a acţiona în linia prevenirii conflictelor. Cred că alocarea în viitorul buget a unei sume semnificative este foarte importantă.

În al doilea rând, un aspect pe care doresc să îl subliniez este comerţul cu armament. O poziţie comună în vederea negocierii viitorului tratat este cheia succesului în acest domeniu.

  Ewald Stadler (NI). - Herr Präsident! Ich habe diesen Bericht abgelehnt und möchte dies auch kurz begründen. Zunächst teile ich die Minderheitenansicht, die meine Kollegen Meyer und Lösing in dem angeschlossenen Bericht zum Ausdruck bringen. Es ist tatsächlich von einer Militarisierung der gemeinsamen Sicherheits- und Außenpolitik die Rede. Ziel ist eine Interventionsstrategie, und die Trennung von der NATO – und das ist für mich als Österreicher nicht akzeptabel – ist nicht mehr wirklich erkennbar.

Aber ich halte auch die Strategie, was die Türkei anbelangt für falsch, wenn etwa die Eröffnung weiterer Beitrittskapitel verlangt wird. Dass die Libyen-Politik gescheitert ist, ist spätestens heute klar angesichts dieses dramatischen Anschlags in Bengasi. Die Libyen-Politik ist vollkommen gescheitert, wird aber im Bericht ganz anders dargestellt. Letztlich ist auch die Syrien-Politik falsch. Sie ist auf Intervention ausgerichtet, sie ist auf Druck gegen Russland ausgerichtet, sie ist auf Druck gegen China ausgerichtet, und das sollen unsere Partner sein. Alles nur, weil hier bestimmte Interessen in Syrien zur Wirkung kommen sollen. Man verkennt auch völlig, dass dort die Rebellen saudi-arabische Dialekte sprechen. Saudi-Arabien wird mit keinem einzigen Wort erwähnt. Der Bericht ist einseitig und daher abzulehnen.

  Sergio Gaetano Cofferati (S&D). - Signor Presidente, ho votato a favore della relazione di Elmar Brok, pur non nascondendomi le gravi difficoltà e i vistosi limiti della politica estera dell'Unione europea.

Vorrei sottolineare due elementi che mi preoccupano particolarmente. Il primo riguarda il commercio di armi. Noi ci poniamo l'obiettivo della non proliferazione e del disarmo e, nel contempo, abbiamo normative del tutto insufficienti per quanto riguarda il controllo dell'esportazione delle armi. Quanto affermiamo a parole di voler fare è dunque poi negato e contraddetto dai nostri comportamenti.

Il secondo tema sul quale i nostri limiti sono del tutto evidenti è quello relativo alla prevenzione dei conflitti, che dovrebbe consentire di consolidare la pace. Quanto avvenuto nel Mediterraneo – quella che è stata definita impropriamente la Primavera araba – dimostra che non abbiamo colto per tempo quanto stava succedendo in quei paesi e la politica estera dell'Unione non è stata in grado di evitare che si arrivasse a situazioni davvero drammatiche per milioni di persone.

Spero che il futuro della nostra politica estera sia più efficace di quanto sia stato nel corso di questi mesi.

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). - Po przyjęciu traktatu w Lizbonie, miała wzrosnąć ranga wspólnej polityki bezpieczeństwa i obrony. Moim zdaniem postęp w tej dziedzinie jest jednak bardzo słaby i powolny. Jest tutaj znacznie więcej intencji, różnych zachęt. Niestety bardzo mało twardych faktów. Skrajnym przejawem tej niemocy jest działalność grup bojowych w Europie. Do tej pory przez szereg lat żadna z tych grup nie została użyta. Można powiedzieć, że te grupy bojowe wyglądają bardzo ładnie, ale tylko na papierze. Popełniamy w Europie błąd poświęcając tak mało miejsca współpracy o wojskowym charakterze. Konieczne jest na znacznie szerszą skalę wspólne planowanie i także wspólne prowadzenie misji i operacji wojskowych. Należy łączyć i działania wojskowe, należy współpracować znacznie szerzej, jeśli chodzi o badania i przemysł dla wojska. Bardzo zachęcam, by Komisja Europejska podjęła znacznie aktywniejsze działania na tym polu.

  Adam Bielan (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! Wstrzymałem się od głosu. Sprawozdanie zawiera szereg istotnych argumentów, zwracając przykładowo uwagę na konieczność lepszego wykorzystania środków z budżetu wspólnej polityki zagranicznej i bezpieczeństwa, eksponuje problem dywersyfikacji źródeł energii. Nie budzi również wątpliwości poparcie dla krytycznego stanowiska Brukseli w stosunkach z Moskwą oraz podkreślenie strategicznego znaczenia Partnerstwa Wschodniego. Udało się także wprowadzić kompromisowy zapis dotyczący Tajwanu, uznając zaangażowanie tego kraju w procesie utrzymania stabilności w regionie. Jednakże sprawozdanie w swoim zasadniczym tonie postuluje zwiększenie roli Europejskiej Służby Działań Zewnętrznych oraz wyznacza – jako jeden z celów – wspólną obronę. Pragnę przy tym zwrócić uwagę, że nadal utrzymuje się ogromna dysproporcja polskich przedstawicieli zatrudnionych w europejskiej dyplomacji. Ponadto dokument ten zawiera wezwanie państw członkowskich do żądania stałego miejsca w zreformowanej Radzie Bezpieczeństwa ONZ dla Unii Europejskiej. Są to propozycje, z którym nie mogę się zgodzić.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Głosowałem za przyjęciem tego sprawozdania, ponieważ jest to moim zdaniem dokument strategiczny i ambitny. W moim przekonaniu uznanie rozwoju polityki sąsiedztwa za jeden z kluczowych celów wspólnej polityki zagranicznej i bezpieczeństwa jest zasadne i słuszne. Z zadowoleniem przyjmuję podkreślenie znaczenia współpracy z krajami Partnerstwa Wschodniego.

Mam jednocześnie nadzieję, że pomimo niepokojących wydarzeń w państwach należących do południowego wymiaru polityki sąsiedztwa, odpowiedni balans zostanie zachowany i wymiar wschodni nadal będzie traktowany z należną mu powagą. Na koniec chciałbym podkreślić, iż apel do wysokiej przedstawiciel o zapewnienie wystarczających środków finansowych na wsparcie dodatkowych misji monitorowania przebiegu wyborów na Ukrainie uważam za wyjątkowo potrzebny i istotny.

  Andrzej Grzyb (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Podobnie jak wielu moich kolegów występujących w tej części naszej debaty poparłem sprawozdanie Elmara Broka w sprawie rocznego sprawozdania na temat wspólnej polityki zagranicznej i bezpieczeństwa. Ta nowa pozycja polityki zagranicznej i obrony w Traktacie z Lizbony daje nam nowe prerogatywy, ale jednocześnie chciałbym zauważyć, że wiele wydarzeń związanych między innymi z licznymi kryzysami, w tym również kryzysem ekonomicznym, osłabiło zainteresowanie w szczególności naszymi partnerami w sąsiedztwie, i to zarówno u sąsiadów w Europie, jak i u sąsiadów Europy.

Mianowicie kraje wiosny arabskiej, Egipt, przygotowują nową konstytucję. Nie interesujemy się w sposób wystarczający tym, jaki ona będzie miała kształt. Partnerstwo Wschodnie: czekają nas wybory na Ukrainie, w Gruzji; na rozwiązanie czekają również zamrożone konflikty, jak konflikt naddniestrzański czy w Górskim Karabachu, a również kwestia Abchazji i Osetii. Widzę takie, powiedziałbym, zmęczenie, chociażby sprawami Ukrainy, ponieważ nie wszystko udało nam się rozwiązać. Dlatego uważam, że Parlament nie powinien w tych kwestiach dotyczących sąsiedztwa jednak zmieniać czy zmniejszać swojego zainteresowania. Sprawy sąsiedztwa są dla nas to zbyt ważne.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - Am susţinut şi eu raportul domnului Brok, deoarece soluţionarea provocărilor globale se poate face numai prin abordări integrate. Tratatul de la Lisabona a oferit Uniunii o serie de instrumente care să îi permită să vorbească cu o singură voce. Însă există în continuare o serie de neajunsuri în ceea ce priveşte politica externă şi de securitate comună. Consolidarea relaţiilor dintre Serviciul European de Acţiune Externă, Comisie şi statele membre este esenţială. Doar în acest fel putem obţine o sinergie în aplicarea eficientă a acţiunii externe.

Consider că, în ceea ce priveşte viitorul PESC, o atenţie specială ar trebui să fie acordată politicii europene de vecinătate, cu accent pe dimensiunea sa estică. Parteneriatul estic trebuie să fie un mijloc esenţial de a promova valorile Uniunii în estul Europei şi de a oferi o reală perspectivă europeană unor state precum Republica Moldova.

Έκθεση Carl Haglund (A7-025/201)

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, since 2002 the Commission has been obliged, under a Council regulation, to report on the conservation and sustainable exportation of marine, i.e. fishery, resources and on fishing restrictions in the 12-nautical-mile zone by the end of 2011. The most recent report states that Member States’ efforts to enhance conservation and to rebuild fish stocks are insufficient and that little progress has been made on the reduction of fleet capacity.

I am in favour of this report as it states that, in order to improve the system of fishing restrictions in the 12-nautical-mile waters, a concrete definition of over-capacity must be established at EU level, regional definitions must be accommodated and, finally, efficient data collection mechanisms with long-term management plans for all EU fisheries must be enforced rigorously.

If this, which is part of a three-pronged new legislative package, still fails, then in my view the whole of the CFP must be questioned and perhaps should be abandoned and repatriated to the Member States. So this is the last chance to get this thing right for our fishermen in the European Union.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, I also voted for this report even though I am always very wary when I hear the word ‘conservation’, as we have a tendency to think of the environment without the needs of the fishing community. This report is different, however. It is clear that Member States’ efforts to enhance conservation and to rebuild fish stocks have been insufficient and that there is equally little progress on the reduction of fleet capacity.

The system of fishing restrictions in the 12-nautical-mile waters was working well and I think it could potentially be extended to a regime of 10 to 20 miles to more effectively achieve the objectives. Our fishermen need to be better informed as to why certain restrictions might be put in place, as very often self-policing is the only realistic option; overfishing will not be addressed in a proper manner otherwise. We need to interact with RACs and other relevant stakeholders for effective conservation. Furthermore, a mechanism at EU level to compensate fishermen affected by economic or social repercussions as well as by ecosystem protection measures could be established. This is something I would strongly support.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - Am votat pentru acest raport, deoarece actualul sistem de cote de pescuit a adus în prim plan preocupările pe termen scurt pe care le au statele. Astfel, sustenabilitatea sectorului de pescuit a fost trecută în plan secund. Regionalizarea politicii comune în domeniul pescuitului trebuie avută în vedere ca soluţie pentru remedierea deficienţelor actuale. Comisia trebuie să iniţieze planuri pe termen lung care să ţină cont, pe de o parte, de nevoile statelor membre iar, pe de alta, de necesitatea prezervării stocurilor de peşte.

Aproximativ 60% din stocurile europene de peşte sunt exploatate peste limita maximă a sustenabilităţii. Această exploatare excesivă aduce atingere şi altor specii, precum delfinii din Marea Neagră. Ei sunt prinşi accidental foarte des în plasele de pescuit. În acest sens, am iniţiat o declaraţie scrisă referitoare la necesitatea instituirii unor mijloace de protecţie a delfinilor din Marea Neagră.

Έκθεση Nikolaos Salavrakos (A7-0253/2012)

  Andrea Zanoni (ALDE). - Signor Presidente, la riforma della politica comune della pesca è una scelta necessaria e non più rinviabile. In Europa si pesca troppo e spesso si pesca male.

Se vogliamo salvaguardare le risorse biologiche marine, preservare l'ecosistema marino e garantire la sopravvivenza del settore della pesca dobbiamo dare agli stock ittici sovrasfruttati il tempo di ripopolarsi. Ma oggi in quest'Aula ha prevalso, per pochi voti, la miope visione di chi vuole mantenere lo statu quo e continuare a condannare il nostro mare e l'intero settore della pesca a morte certa.

Per questi motivi ho votato contro la relazione sulla riforma della politica comune della pesca. Abbiamo bisogno di una riforma coerente, che permetta uno sfruttamento sostenibile delle risorse marine e non di un testo annacquato, senza prospettive per il futuro. Servono piani di gestione pluriennali e un calendario preciso con l'istituzione di una rete di riserve protette.

Ben vengano le sanzioni nei confronti di quegli Stati membri che non rispettano le regole, effettuano controlli insufficienti, sforano le proprie quote e non forniscono dati affidabili. Più tutela dei pesci nei nostri mari significa più posti di lavoro per i pescatori europei, ma in quest'Aula c'è ancora chi non l'ha capito.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, common fisheries policy reform, as a package, will now hopefully mean the Commission will be encouraged, in a non-binding way, to strengthen measures for the conservation of marine biological resources. This is very much in line with my party’s ambitious 10-year biodiversity strategy.

Hopefully this will also ensure socio-economic sustainability – which is in keeping with our commitment to build a more responsible economic model and to improve job prospects in the fisheries and aquaculture industries – and strengthen regionalisation. This is in harmony with our national aim in the United Kingdom to create a fairer and more balanced economy, where new businesses and economic opportunities are more evenly shared between regions and industries.

The common fisheries policy now either needs to be urgently and radically reformed and modernised or, frankly, abandoned altogether as an EU competence.

  Jim Higgins (PPE). - Mr President, I am pleased that this motion for a resolution was adopted by the House. It is important that we have a coherent and clear strategy going forward so that fishermen can plan with better certainty for the investment that they put in.

The EU’s aquaculture sector, if properly managed on the basis of global sustainability, could, as the motion says, make a greater contribution to the needs of European society in terms of food security and quality, employment, environmental protection and the maintenance of dynamic and varied fishing and coastal communities.

Finally, as regards Ireland, I am particularly pleased that the resolution calls on the Commission to investigate the reduction in fish stocks owing to natural predators such as sea lions, seals and cormorants, and to draw up and implement management plans to regulate these populations in cooperation with the affected and relevant Member States.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - Am votat şi în favoarea acestui raport, deoarece reforma pescuitului la nivel european trebuie să ţină cont de realităţile din fiecare stat membru. De aceea, Comisia ar trebui să elaboreze o serie de studii legate de stocurile de peşte disponibile la nivelul întregii Uniuni. Sunt necesare estimări cu privire la exploatarea sustenabilă a acestor stocuri. Aceste estimări ar trebui să propună un calendar referitor la diminuarea exploatării care să conducă la o reîntregire a stocurilor într-un termen relativ scurt.

Este deosebit de important ca studiile să fie adaptate fiecărui stat membru şi să ţină cont de capacităţile reale de exploatare pe care la deţine. Posibilitatea regionalizării politicii comune în domeniul pescuitului trebuie analizată, însă, mai atent. În acest mod, s-ar asigura o utilizare mult mai eficientă a fondurilor destinate activităţilor de pescuit.

  Chris Davies (ALDE). - Mr President, we have heard concern about the fishing industry from the PPE Members, from the Irish, from the Spanish and the Italians and others. I do not think they know what they have been doing today. We know we are overfishing, we know our fish stocks are depleted and yet they voted today for an amendment which says we shall not rebuild our fish stocks. Let me repeat that: this House voted by a majority of just five for a PPE amendment, signed by Jim Higgins and others, which says we shall not attempt to rebuild our fish stocks.

I am sure they did that for the best possible reasons – give the fishing industry another year, do not make it too difficult by cutting the quotas – but only when you rebuild fish stocks, give a bit of room for the fish to breathe and to grow and to multiply, that is the only way in which the fishing industry is going to have a secure future. I do not know what our citizens out there will think. They will think the people over there are utterly mad to have done that. Of course we need the fish stocks rebuilding. It is utterly mad. They have two months in which to rethink before we have to consider the legislation and vote for it finally.

  Julie Girling (ECR). - Mr President, this report provides an overview of Parliament’s response to the Commission’s suggestions for reform of the Common Fisheries Policy. I support the general thrust of the measures for conservation in marine biology.

But this own-initiative report has given us just a little peek into how the arguments are going to be played out in the coming months. We have just seen a little bit of it now. There will be arguments and compromises over words. We have seen it here in the amendment attempting to change wording from levels above maximum sustainable yield (MSY) to close to MSY.

There will be the liberal use of euphemisms, such as ‘renewal’, when what we are really talking about is giving public money to replace boats, making them bigger with higher capacity and not necessarily doing anything for the conservation of fish stocks.

I am committed to working on common fisheries policy reform towards sustainability, but unfortunately, due to the amendments, I was not able to support this report.

Γραπτές αιτιολογήσεις ψήφου

Έκθεση Antonyia Parvanova, Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (A7-0244/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Aprovo o presente Relatório, pois sua intenção é reforçar os direitos das vítimas na União Europeia. Considero de extrema importância e utilidade a proposta da criação de um conjunto de regras comuns no que respeita às vítimas de crimes em todos os Estados-Membros da União Europeia, sendo essenciais direitos como o direito de ser ouvido, de informação, de compreender e ser compreendido, ter ao seu dispor serviços de apoio à vítima, a mais fácil identificação de vítimas vulneráveis e proteção das vítimas durante processos de questionário ou em processo criminal. Tal conjunto de regras deve ser capaz de aumentar a confiança no sistema criminal e de justiça de todos os Estados-Membros da União Europeia e ao mesmo tempo assegurar uma maior cooperação judicial num clima de mútuo entendimento e promoção dos valores fundamentais europeus. Por todas estas razões apontadas, aprovo esta proposta a favor das pessoas vítimas de crime que merecem por parte das autoridades competentes mais ajuda, assistência e informação.

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE), per iscritto. − Secondo i dati Eurostat ogni anno nell'Unione europea si registrano 30 milioni di reati contro persone o beni e molti di questi non vengono denunciati. Infatti, come citato nel testo della proposta, "risulta che troppo spesso le vittime non denunciano a causa della paura, dell'incertezza o di mancanza di fiducia o di informazioni". Inoltre, come stimato dalla Commissione europea, il costo complessivo della criminalità arriva a 233 miliardi di euro, e ciò si deve non solo ai danni di ogni reato, ma alla mancanza di adeguati servizi di assistenza alle vittime che le aiutino a recuperare e ad affrontare i procedimenti legali. Appoggio con forza il lavoro svolto dalla Commissione e dai miei colleghi, perché per conquistare la fiducia di tutti i cittadini nella giustizia europea è necessario dotarsi di un quadro giuridico europeo completo ed efficiente. Ed un primo grande passo l'abbiamo fatto lo scorso 13 dicembre con l'adozione della Direttiva sull'ordine di protezione europeo.

  Χαράλαμπος Αγγουράκης (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Οι ευρωβουλευτές του ΚΚΕ ψήφισαν λευκό στη σχετική έκθεση και την πρόταση της Επιτροπής, γιατί προωθεί την εναρμόνιση και την ομογενοποίηση βασικών διατάξεων του ποινικού δικαίου των κρατών μελών στο επίπεδο της ΕΕ, περιορίζοντας έτσι περισσότερο τα κυριαρχικά τους δικαιώματα. Εντάσσεται στη στρατηγική της ΕΕ για τον «ενιαίο χώρο ελευθερίας, ασφάλειας και δικαιοσύνης» που στόχος της είναι η αποτελεσματικότερη θωράκιση του εκμεταλλευτικού συστήματος, με τη γιγάντωση των κατασταλτικών μηχανισμών και τον περιορισμό των λαϊκών ελευθεριών και των δημοκρατικών δικαιωμάτων. Η ποινική μεταχείριση και οι όροι απονομής της ποινικής δικαιοσύνης συνιστούν κυρίαρχη αρμοδιότητα κάθε κράτους μέλους που με μια σειρά ευρωενωσιακά νομοθετήματα, σταδιακά και στοχοθετημένα, εκχωρείται στα ευρωενωσιακά όργανα. Για το σκοπό αυτό επιλέγονται ζητήματα που ευαισθητοποιούν τους εργαζόμενους, όπως η προστασία των παιδιών, των θυμάτων εγκληματικών ενεργειών κλπ, για να εμπεδωθεί στη λαϊκή συνείδηση η δήθεν αναγκαιότητα κοινού ποινικού δικαίου της ΕΕ. Περαιτέρω, επικίνδυνες είναι οι διατάξεις της οδηγίας που παρέχουν τη δυνατότητα κατάθεσης των θυμάτων χωρίς τη φυσική τους παρουσία στο δικαστήριο. Τέτοιες διατάξεις προωθούνται στην «αντιτρομοκρατική» νομοθεσία της ΕΕ και των κρατών μελών της, αναιρώντας θεμελιακά δικαιώματα της υπεράσπισης του κατηγορουμένου, όπως η δυνατότητα της υπεράσπισης να ελέγχει με ζωντανή διαδικασία την αξιοπιστία της κατάθεσης.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį pranešimą dėl direktyvos dėl nusikaltimų aukų teisių, paramos joms ir jų apsaugos. Šia direktyva siekiama kiek įmanoma efektyviau ginti aukų teises, aukoms ir jų šeimos nariams teikti pagalbą ir apsaugą, užtikrinti nukentėjusiųjų teisių apsaugą baudžiamajame procese, teikiant jiems aiškia ir suprantama kalba informaciją apie proceso eigą bei priimtus sprendimus. Suderinus šiuos minimalius standartus būtų skatinamas ES piliečių pasitikėjimas savo ir kitų valstybių narių teismų sistemomis. Pritariu siūlymui priimti išsamią Europos teisinę sistemą, suteikiant aukoms, nepaisant jų pilietybės ar nusikaltimo vietos, teises gauti informaciją, gauti vertimo žodžiu ir raštu paslaugas, naudotis paramos aukoms tarnybų paslaugomis, išvengti aukos ir nusikaltėlio kontakto, teisę į apsaugą per apklausą baudžiamojo proceso metu ir kt. Pritariu, kad reikėtų nustatyti vienodą aukos apibrėžtį ir pagal ją aukos statusas būtų suteikiamas ne tik nusikaltimo metu nukentėjusiems asmenims, bet ir artimiems šeimos nariams.

  Erik Bánki (PPE), írásban. − A mai napon nagy többséggel szavazta meg az Európai Parlament azt az áldozatvédelemmel foglalkozó közösségi irányelvet, mely az áldozatok védelme és segítése érdekében fogalmaz meg minimumszabályokat a tagállamok számára. A jogszabálynak köszönhetően egy gyakorlatban alkalmazható, az uniós állampolgárok számára is kézzelfogható eszközzel lesz gazdagabb a közösségi igazságszolgáltatás, aminek köszönhetően az áldozatok, és családtagjaik is megkapják majd a kellő figyelmet és támogatást. Ezért a jelentést szavazatommal támogattam.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente este relatório que foi apresentado na data simbólica de 11 de setembro e que permite recordar e homenagear todas as vítimas da criminalidade, assim como os seus familiares. A Europa precisa de um sistema de justiça comum e transparente e deve assegurar o reforço dos direitos e da proteção das vítimas de crimes. Esta Diretiva constitui um passo importante na construção do Espaço Europeu de Liberdade, Segurança e Justiça. Todas as vítimas de crimes, independentemente do grau de danos sofrido, encontram-se abrangidas por esta Diretiva e deve-lhes ser oferecido apoio e proteção no seu país, assim como nos outros Estados-Membros. É essencial a existência de uma maior cooperação interinstitucional transfronteiriça, incluindo uma partilha eficaz de informações e de boas práticas.

  Sergio Berlato (PPE), per iscritto. − La fiducia dei cittadini nella giustizia rappresenta una delle più importanti priorità dell'Unione europea.

Accolgo con favore l'obiettivo generale della Commissione di istituire norme minime riguardanti i diritti, l'assistenza e la protezione delle vittime di reato, a condizione che si presti maggiore attenzione ai servizi di assistenza rivolti alle vittime che corrono un rischio particolarmente elevato di subire ulteriori pregiudizi e intimidazioni durante il procedimento penale.

Secondo recenti stime, il costo annuo della criminalità per le vittime nell'Unione, per i datori di lavoro, lo Stato e la società civile, è di 233 miliardi di euro. Questi costi sono imputabili non solo ai reati in sé, ma anche alla mancanza di adeguati servizi di assistenza alle vittime. Pertanto, accolgo con favore tutti gli sforzi volti a consolidare i diritti delle vittime e a fornire loro servizi di assistenza appropriati, perché rappresentano provvedimenti efficaci sul piano dei costi, che contribuiranno positivamente ad agevolare la denuncia dei reati e a mantenere la sostenibilità dei sistemi giudiziari e sanitari nazionali.

Ritengo inoltre fondamentale che la direttiva fornisca una definizione unificata del concetto di "vittima", affinché tale status sia riconosciuto non solo alla persona che ha subito il reato, ma anche ai suoi parenti stretti.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau dėl šio pranešimo, kadangi įsigalėjus 2009 metų Lisabonos sutarčiai ir Stokholmo programoje numatytoms gairėms, nusikaltimų aukų apsauga ES tapo vienu iš svarbiausių ES darbotvarkės klausimų. Glaudesnis bendradarbiavimas tarp valstybių narių ir geresnis veiksmų koordinavimas aukų atžvilgiu padėtų sumažinti neigiamą nusikaltimų poveikį ir antrinės, ir pakartotinės viktimizacijos, ir stigmatizacijos riziką. Visos aukos, nepaisant jų kilmės ar patirtos žalos, turėtų gauti nemokamą pagalbą, su jomis turi būti elgiamasi pagarbiai, komunikuojama joms suprantama kalba. Pagal aukos sąvoką pagalba turėtų būti pasiūlyta ir nukentėjusiųjų vaikams bei šeimos nariams. Labai svarbu, kad per baudžiamąji procesą ir po jo visomis įmanomomis priemonėmis būtų apsaugotas aukų privatus ir šeimos gyvenimas. Ypač atkreiptinas dėmesys į žiniasklaidą, kuri dažnai skatina aukas jaustis pažeidžiamomis ir dezorientuotomis, todėl reikia užtikrinti, kad žiniasklaidos priemonės imtųsi savireguliavimo priemonių. Norint išvengti netyčinės diskriminacijos vertėtų negalią turinčius asmenis, nuo seksualinės prievartos nukentėjusias moteris ar vaikus, terorizmo aukas ir organizuoto nusikalstamumo aukas apibrėžti ne „pažeidžiamomis aukomis“, tačiau kaip „specialiųjų poreikių turinčias aukas“, garantuoti joms konkrečias apsaugos priemones: prieglobsčio suteikimą, medicininę pagalbą, teisines ir psichologines konsultacijas.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), per iscritto. − Approvo la relazione, che rivela una sensibilità attenta a individuare possibili aporie e lacune nell'impianto – peraltro valido – della direttiva emanata dalla Commissione.

Per esercitare con efficacia i loro diritti, le vittime di reato possono aver bisogno di misure più specifiche e di strumenti di natura pratica e operativa, soprattutto in alcune aree e in segmenti vulnerabili della società.

Ricordo, a questo proposito, le osservazioni contenute nel rapporto Europol 2011 sul traffico di esseri umani, rapporto che indica chiaramente come fattore decisivo elementi di debolezza economica e di condizionamento culturale che facilitano l'operato delle organizzazioni criminali ai danni di vittime, spesso minori o donne provenienti da paesi segnati da povertà e grave instabilità politica, sfruttate negli ambiti più diversi, dall'edile al tessile, fino all'accattonaggio e alla prostituzione.

Senza dimenticare che perduranti situazioni di debolezza culturale e sociale, in alcune aree dei nostri paesi, favoriscono tuttora fenomeni di violenza domestica e reati contro la persona, assai raramente denunciati e perseguiti. Strumenti addizionali di tutela, anche fisica e personale, di assistenza immediata, di rappresentanza in giudizio (penale e civile) e davanti alle autorità di polizia diventano perciò indispensabili per l'applicazione delle norme in direttiva e per l'esercizio dei diritti delle vittime.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), par écrit. – Mardi 11 septembre 2012, j'ai voté en faveur du rapport relatif aux normes minimales concernant les droits, le soutien et la protection des victimes de la criminalité. Le constat est alarmant : 75 millions de personnes sont victimes chaque année de la criminalité dans l'Union européenne. Il était alors urgent d'agir dans le sens d'un meilleur accompagnement et assistance aux victimes d'actes criminels commis dans un autre pays, qui trop souvent sont confrontées à de graves problèmes en raison des différences de culture, de langue et de législation. Je soutiens donc cette directive qui prévoit, entre autres, une procédure d'évaluation individuelle, des services de soutien psychologique et des services d'interprétation et de traduction.

  Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), na piśmie. − Zwiększenie praw ofiar przestępstw nierozłącznie wiąże się z poprawą sytuacji osób poszkodowanych na terenie całej UE, niezależnie od przynależności państwowej lub miejsca przestępstwa. W tej kwestii interesy Polski są zbieżne z tymi reprezentowanymi przez inne państwa członkowskie Unii Europejskiej. Koszty takiej decyzji są z pewnością dla Europy wysokie, jednak niewspółmiernie cenniejsza jest wartość życia ludzkiego, dlatego działania prowadzone przez Teresę Jiménez-Becerril Barrio spotkały się z moim uznaniem.

Praca nad powstałym dokumentem była pełna wyzwań z uwagi m.in. na występujące różnice w systemach prawnych państw członkowskich, w tym wobec definicji ofiar przestępstw. Jednak ostateczny kształt dokumentu, wypracowany dzięki zawartym kompromisom, przyjmuję z zadowoleniem. Tym samym dziękuję sprawozdawczyniom za wysiłek włożony w przygotowanie sprawozdania.

  John Bufton, Derek Roland Clark and William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), in writing. − UKIP voted against this report as it is yet more EU legislation over criminal law. The EU has no democratic right to legislate in this area and law-making should be left to elected politicians, accountable to the public, not unelected foreign Commissioners in Brussels. Of course, victims of crime should have the strongest rights and legal protection, but that is already afforded in UK law and “minimum standards” at EU level may well create a race to the bottom which makes our criminal justice system weaker. Withdrawal from the EU, European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice would be a major step forward for victims of crime seeking swift and proportional justice.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE), in writing. − I entirely support this directive with the changes proposed in this report, because it will strengthen the rights of victims all over Europe. I also voted in favour of this report because of the attention given to vulnerable categories in society, like children and people with special needs. In the past, citizens of the EU residing or travelling in another EU Member State faced serious difficulties in getting the same level of protection as the nationals of that Member State. This directive will create a set of minimum common standards across the EU for victims of crime, creating a shorter and easier process for victims to receive the support they need. Ultimately, this will ensure that each victim is treated with respect and dignity without any sort of discrimination anywhere in the EU.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − Apoio inteiramente o estabelecimento de normas mínimas relativas aos direitos, ao apoio e à proteção das vítimas da criminalidade, independentemente da sua nacionalidade ou local onde ocorreu o crime. Considero da maior relevância reforçar os direitos das vítimas em geral e, em particular, das vítimas com necessidades específicas e aquelas que sofreram uma experiência particularmente horrível, bem assim como garantir a proteção da privacidade da vítima, independentemente da natureza do dano sofrido. Por estas razões, votei favoravelmente o presente relatório.

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), în scris. − Încrederea în justiţie este o prioritate în cazul tuturor cetăţenilor, în special al victimelor care îşi văd drepturile neluate în seamă sau nerespectate. Un sistem judiciar comun şi transparent, aplicabil în toate statele membre UE, este o necesitate imperioasă. Directiva nu se limitează să apere drepturile victimelor, oferindu-le sprijin şi protecţie, ci va ajuta cetăţenii europeni să dobândească încredere în sistemele judiciare ale ţării lor şi ale vecinilor din UE, prin armonizarea standardelor minime.

Pentru a evalua în detaliu circumstanţele şi caracteristicile victimelor, este nevoie să se definească „violenţa de gen” şi „violenţa în cadrul relaţiilor apropiate”. Violenţa de gen se referă la violenţa îndreptată împotriva unei persoane din cauza genului ei. Violenţa în cadrul relaţiilor apropiate include actele de violenţă săvârşite de parteneri sau de foşti parteneri sau de alţi membri ai familiei, conducând la discriminare şi încălcarea libertăţilor fundamentale ale victimelor.

Situaţia specială a victimelor cu nevoi specifice trebuie să fie luată în considerare atunci când se concep servicii de sprijinire adecvate sau se procedează la formarea practicienilor care vor avea contact direct cu victimele. Astfel, directiva include o serie de drepturi garantate pentru victime, acoperind un gol semnificativ care exista în protecţia drepturilor omului în cazul victimelor infracţiunilor.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), por escrito. − A presente Diretiva insere-se num pacote de medidas legislativas cujo objetivo é reforçar os direitos, o apoio e a proteção das vítimas de criminalidade na UE. A UE necessita, assim, de uma abordagem integrada e coordenada neste domínio que possa garantir que os direitos e necessidades das vítimas da criminalidade, em todas as suas vertentes, possam ser respeitados e cumpridos.

São, assim, estabelecidas normas mínimas aplicáveis aos casos em que os crimes tenham sido cometidos na UE e aos processos penais que decorram na UE, reforçando desta forma a confiança nos sistemas de justiça penal de todos os Estados-Membros, o que deverá contribuir para uma cooperação judiciária mais eficaz num clima de confiança mútua e deverá, igualmente, promover uma cultura de direitos fundamentais na UE. Apoio, assim, esta iniciativa que deverá permitir reforçar e complementar os instrumentos já existentes. É igualmente positivo que se tenha conseguido alcançar um acordo em primeira leitura. Espero agora que os Estados-Membros possam cumprir a sua parte e proceder à sua transposição atempada nos próximos três anos.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), în scris. − Susţin raportul care vizează consolidarea drepturilor victimelor infracţiunilor pe teritoriul UE. De la intrarea în vigoare a Tratatului de la Lisabona, în 2009, şi a orientărilor privind Spaţiul european de libertate, securitate şi justiţie, protecţia victimelor tuturor tipurilor de infracţiuni s-a aflat - după cum se preconizează în Programul de la Stockholm - printre priorităţile absolute ale agendei UE.

Un sistem judiciar comun şi transparent, aplicabil în toate statele membre UE, trebuie să aibă la bază nevoia de sprijin a victimelor, inclusiv a celor cu nevoi speciale sau, cum au mai fost numite, vulnerabile, cum este cazul victimelor violenţei de gen, al copiilor şi al persoanelor cu dizabilităţi. În Europa, peste o cincime din numărul total de femei au suferit acte de violenţă fizică cel puţin o dată în cursul vieţii adulte, iar peste o zecime au suferit acte de violenţă sexuală implicând folosirea forţei. În acest context, consider că este esenţială incriminarea tuturor formelor de violenţă de gen şi luarea unor măsuri speciale de prevenire, protecţie şi reparaţie în favoarea victimelor acestui tip de violenţă.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), par écrit. – J’ai voté en faveur de ce texte qui vise à renforcer les droits de nos concitoyens où qu’ils se trouvent au sein de l’Union. Parmi les mesures ici prévues, une meilleure coopération entre les autorités compétentes permettra aux victimes de ne plus faire de mauvais échanges d’information retardant parfois leur prise en charge. L’Union européenne se doit avant tout d’être au service de nos populations et ce rapport souligne une nouvelle fois la prise en compte de leurs attentes!

  Edite Estrela (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente este relatório por estabelecer normas mínimas relativas aos direitos, ao apoio e à proteção das vítimas de criminalidade. Considero de elevada importância as propostas relacionadas com os serviços de apoio às vítimas, que correm um risco particularmente elevado de sofrer novos danos, intimidação ou vitimização repetida durante o processo penal.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − Considero de elementar justiça que, num espaço que para tantos efeitos é único, existam normas de proteção das vítimas que sejam comuns a toda a União. Esta proteção, como bem defende a Comissão, deve ser conferida independentemente da nacionalidade da vítima e do local da prática do crime. Neste Parlamento, em dezembro passado, aprovámos medidas que pretendiam garantir a todos os acusados alguns direitos básicos nos processos penais. Cabe agora conferir a mesma proteção às vítimas de crimes, as quais, por esse mesmo facto, muitas vezes se sentem desamparadas perante um processo que não conhecem e que não percebem, sobretudo quando tal processo corre termos num país estrangeiro. Um adequado acompanhamento e proteção das vítimas de criminalidade é um passo de elementar justiça e vai a Comissão no bom caminho.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − O objetivo da criação da União Europeia (UE) é que todos os cidadãos se sintam irmanados num projeto de bem-estar e segurança. A livre circulação de pessoas e bens só poderá ser fruída em plenitude quando sentirmos salvaguardados os nossos direitos em qualquer Estado-Membro onde nos encontremos. É fundamental sabermos que, onde quer que estejamos, há sempre alguém que se preocupa connosco. Quando ocorre um atentado terrorista, há uma grande preocupação em identificar os seus autores e levá-los a julgamento. Tudo gira à volta do criminoso. Muitas vezes, são organizações internacionais que patrocinam a defesa dos terroristas e defendem os direitos dos prisioneiros. No entanto, a maior parte das vítimas e suas famílias são esquecidas. O que, além de injusto, é desumano. Congratulo-me com a apresentação desta proposta que vem clarificar os direitos dos cidadãos quando vítimas de violência de género, tráfico, violação, terrorismo, etc. em qualquer Estado-Membro da UE. Felicito as relatoras pelo excelente trabalho realizado em prol da cidadania europeia, sobretudo daqueles que, por qualquer motivo – e pode acontecer a qualquer um de nós – possam vir a ser vítimas. Assim se constrói a Europa dos cidadãos. Uma Europa que não nos abandona quando estamos mais vulneráveis.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − O relatório propõe a adoção de medidas para apoiar e proteger as vítimas de vários tipos de violência exercida sobre as pessoas: violência doméstica, discriminações em função do sexo e orientação sexual, tráfico de seres humanos, exploração na prostituição, assédio sexual e moral, mutilação genital feminina, entre tantas outras, são algumas das formas de violência referidas. Refere-se também a necessidade de especialização dos profissionais que intervêm nestes processos de apoio e proteção. Valorizamos estas propostas muito embora não acompanhemos as propostas relativas à transferência de mais poder para a UE através de nova legislação. Daí a nossa abstenção. Algumas outras considerações: entendemos também ser necessário acautelar o direito de audição de menores; consideramos justa a possibilidade de o ofendido poder pedir o reexame de decisões proferidas pelas autoridades competentes.

  Louis Grech (S&D), in writing. − I have voted in favour of this dossier as it is my belief that more should be done to safeguard the needs of victims in all Member States throughout the Union. Victims should be able to receive free support from the moment they have suffered harm in order for their recovery from the trauma to be facilitated as much as possible. This directive would establish minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims, which would also ensure that quality support would be given. Further to this, I agree that victims’ rights not only need to be standardised throughout the whole of the EU but victims must also be made aware of their rights within the framework. For this reason, information and awareness-raising campaigns, research and education programmes and cooperation with civil society agencies should be established by means of well orchestrated campaigns throughout EU Member States.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), par écrit. – Le rapport de mes collègues Antonyia Parvanova et Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio a été adopté à une large majorité (par 611 voix pour) et je m'en félicite. Ce rapport a pour objectif de renforcer les droits des victimes dans l'Union européenne. L'Union européenne s'est fixé pour objectif de maintenir et de développer un espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice, dont la pierre angulaire est le principe de reconnaissance mutuelle des jugements et autres décisions d'autorités judiciaires en matière civile et pénale dans l'UE. Le rapport insiste sur la nécessité d'améliorer les services de soutien aux victimes qui s'exposent à l'intimidation ou d'autres préjudices pendant la procédure pénale.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), na piśmie. − Przestępstwa mogą się między sobą bardzo różnić. Jednakże wszystkie łączy jedno – osoby dotknięte przemocą. W projekcie dyrektywy określa się je mianem ofiar przestępstw i to właśnie na nich powinniśmy skupić naszą uwagę. Niezwykle ważne jest, aby takie osoby miały zaufanie do wymiaru sprawiedliwości. Dlatego w Unii Europejskiej powinien funkcjonować przejrzysty i jednolity akt prawny, gwarantujący ofiarom przestępstw, bez względu na pochodzenie i kraj, w którym przestępstwo miało miejsce, minimalną gwarancję ochrony ich praw.

Zgadzam się z opinią sprawozdawczyni, iż, aby poczynić wszelkie możliwe kroki ku większej ochronie praw ofiar przemocy, należy ustanowić europejską sieć monitorowania ofiar i pomocy im udzielanej, w celu stworzenia bazy danych statystycznych dotyczących liczby, wieku, płci i przynależności państwowej ofiar. Z pewnością informacje te mogłyby zostać wykorzystane w dalszych pracach legislacyjnych. Niezbędnym jest również, aby funkcjonariusze, którzy zajmują się ofiarami przemocy, potrafili udzielić specjalistycznego wsparcia i pomocy. Dlatego zgadzam się, iż powinni przechodzić, w porozumieniu z organizacjami pozarządowymi, szkolenia dotyczące postępowania z ofiarą w odpowiedni sposób, w zależności od rodzaju przestępstwa.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − This proposed directive seeks to establish minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. I welcome the fact that it will create EU-wide basic standards as to what will happen if an EU citizen is the victim of crime anywhere in the EU. This means, for example, that EU citizens will have the right to receive a copy of their crime statement at a police station in their own language, information on where to go if they need medical help or emotional support, etc. Also, for the first time, the definition of a victim has been broadened to include the family of a person who is murdered or who dies in a terrorist attack. I also welcome the fact that the proposals include a ‘children’s rights package’, which will establish a set of minimum standards for child victims.

  Sergej Kozlík (ALDE), písomne − Návrh Komisie na vypracovanie novej smernice umožňuje prijať komplexný právny rámec, ktorý ponúkne všetkým obetiam trestnej činnosti, bez ohľadu na ich právne postavenie alebo uznanie, čo možno najširšiu ochranu na území Únie. Komisia rozšírila práva všetkých obetí akéhokoľvek trestného činu na minimálne normy v celej EÚ a poskytuje všetkým obetiam, bez ohľadu na ich národnosť alebo miesto, kde sa trestný čin stal, medziiným právo na informácie, právo rozumieť a byť porozumený, právo na tlmočenie a preklad, ale i ďalšie práva vrátane priznania definície obete aj pre najbližších rodinných príslušníkov. Nová smernica má obhajovať práva obetí, ale aj vytvoriť dôveru občanov EÚ v národné a susedské systémy súdnictva v rámci ich harmonizácie a osobne plne podporujem tieto kroky.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), în scris. − Aproximativ 15% din populaţia UE, adică aproximativ 75 de milioane de cetăţeni sunt afectaţi direct de cele aproximativ 30 de milioane de infracţiuni (excluzând infracţiunile de mică gravitate) săvârşite anual (statistica EUROSTAT din 2007).

Reglementările anterioare pentru protecţia victimelor criminalităţii, precum şi aplicarea acestora au fost deficitare până în prezent. În acelaşi timp, în prezent, legislaţiile statelor membre sunt foarte diferite, iar dinamica socială creează noi cerinţe de reglementare.

Tocmai date fiind cele de mai sus, susţin acest raport, întrucât măsurile propuse: - vor garanta tratamentul respectuos şi informarea completă şi corectă a victimelor şi persoanelor care le însoţesc cu privire la drepturile lor;

- vor oferi victimelor servicii de asistenţă juridică, financiară, psihologică şi practică;

- vor asigura comunicarea într-o limbă pe care victimele o înţeleg;

- vor asigura acces efectiv la despăgubiri şi la repararea prejudiciului suferit.

Consider de asemenea utilă luarea în considerare la stabilirea măsurilor de sprijin a unor factori precum vârsta, capacitatea intelectuală a victimei, caracteristicile personale sau tipul de infracţiune, care ar vulnerabiliza persoane din afara categoriilor stabilite ca fiind vulnerabile în general.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this report. With this report victims will have the right to have access, through a dedicated office that will be created in each Member State, to compensation and practical resources like medical support, legal advice, interpretation and translation. The legislation ensures that all measures are taken to minimise the difficulties faced by UK citizens who become victims of crime.

  Jiří Maštálka (GUE/NGL), písemně. − Lidská práva, zejména dodržování práv žen a dětí, patří k základním hodnotám, které je nutné ctít. Také s ohledem ke zranitelnosti dětské psychiky, další viktimizaci obětí, která by mohla být negativně ovlivněna ve veřejných soudních procesech, což by v konečném důsledku mohlo představovat značnou překážku v budování sociálních vztahů se svým okolím, vítám tuto zprávu. Trestné činy spojené s dětskou pornografií přesahují v mnoha případech hranice jednotlivých členských států, a proto vyžadují jednotnou, provázanou právní úpravu této problematiky.

  Barbara Matera (PPE), in writing. − I voted in favour of Ms Parvanova’s report on the minimum standards on the rights, support, and protection of victims of crime because it draws necessary attention to an issue that needs to be addressed by the EU. First and foremost, the provisions will establish uniformity throughout the EU for victims’ rights and protection, ensuring all victims of crime will be treated in the same way regardless of the Member State in which they are located. Notably, the report encourages the individual assessment of a victim’s needs, particularly those with specific needs, when determining the methodology of protection. It recognises the unique nature of gender-based discrimination and urges particular protection for those who are repeat victims of crime.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur du texte sur les normes minimales pour les droits, le soutien et la protection des victimes de la criminalité afin que ces normes bénéficient à toutes les victimes dans l'UE et renforcent leur protection. Il s'agit notamment d'offrir un soutien et une protection aux victimes et aux membres de leurs familles grâce à un service d'aide confidentielle mis en place par les États membres afin de les protéger contre d'éventuelles représailles. L'accès aux services d'aide, tels qu'un soutien psychologique ou une assistance pratique, devra être déterminé sur base d'une évaluation individuelle de leurs besoins spécifiques.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), per iscritto. − Il mio voto alla relazione è favorevole. Per assicurare che l'Unione europea ottemperi al programma di Stoccolma, urge istituire un sistema giudiziario comune e trasparente, applicabile in tutti gli Stati membri dell'UE. Sono certo che la direttiva in esame permetterà non solo di difendere i diritti delle vittime, ma anche di aiutare i cittadini europei ad acquisire fiducia nel sistema giudiziario nazionale e in quello degli Stati membri vicini grazie all'armonizzazione di tali norme minime.

  Erminia Mazzoni (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho votato con convinzione a favore della risoluzione Parvanova-Jiménez-Becerril Barrio, con la quale il Parlamento europeo ha inteso sottoscrivere il proprio impegno per la protezione delle vittime di reato. L'iniziativa si inserisce, completandola, nel quadro del Programma di Stoccolma del 2009, che, nel 2011, si è arricchito di nuovi e importanti strumenti normativi: la Direttiva sull´ordine di protezione europeo, la Direttiva sulla lotta contro l´abuso e lo sfruttamento sessuale dei minori e la pornografia minorile, la Direttiva sulla prevenzione e la repressione della tratta di esseri umani. La Direttiva segue la Decisione quadro del 2001, introducendo specifici obblighi a favore delle vittime. Bene l´estensione della definizione al fine di includere anche i parenti delle vittime dirette. Mi congratulo, infine, con le relatrici per essere riuscite a redigere un testo trasversale, che riguarda tutte le categorie di vittime, mantenendo un´attenzione particolare per le "vittime particolarmente vulnerabili".

  Arlene McCarthy (S&D), in writing. − This report is a step towards the creation of a common EU framework for the minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime. There are 30 million criminal offences recorded annually in the EU each year and all too often victims and their families are denied critical information and support in their time of need. We urgently need a fast and simple EU system for victims, which explains their rights to them, gives them information in their own language and provides essential support to families and victims. This law is a tribute to campaigners like Gary Dunne’s parents and Maggie Hughes, who have turned personal tragedy into a commitment that others will not face the challenges they did. I hope this new law will ensure that vulnerable young women are not subjected to additional trauma in order to get justice. I hope the British Government will maintain its opt-in to this law and not give in to the Eurosceptics, denying British victims of crime vital protection. Labour Euro MPs are committed to strengthening the rights of victims and therefore voted in favour of this report. We will continue our work to ensure that this new law lives up to campaigners’ calls.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – Ce rapport transforme les propositions de normes minimales garantissant les droits des victimes de criminalités en normes minimalistes. Le droit de la victime de faire appel d'une décision d'arrêt des poursuites n'est plus garantie, sauf en cas d'infraction grave et s'il n'y a pas eu de règlement à l'amiable. La possibilité d'engager une action publique en se constituant partie civile ou en citant la personne présumée coupable à comparaître devant un tribunal correctionnel n'est même pas envisagée. Le droit à une traduction écrite de l'intégralité des documents concernant l'affaire qui la concerne n'est plus garanti à la victime. Quant au remboursement des frais de justice, il devient aléatoire. Je vote contre.

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), písomne − Stanovenie minimálnych noriem v oblasti práv, podpory a ochrany obetí trestných činov, ktoré upravuje predkladaná smernica, pomôže ochraňovať obete trestných činov v celej Európskej únii tým, že sa vytvoria všeobecné štandardy záruk práv obetí bez ohľadu na to, v ktorom členskom štáte sa daná obeť nachádza. Podľa môjho názoru základom celého systému ochrany obetí je uľahčenie oznamovania trestných činov, v rámci ktorého treba dbať na odstránenie takzvanej opakovanej viktimizácie. Mnohé kriminalistické a psychologické štúdie totiž poukazujú na fakt, že mnohé obete neoznámia na nich spáchaný trestný čin z dôvodu obáv z necitlivého a častokrát neosobne rutinného prístupu orgánov činných v trestnom konaní. Nemožno preto len s poľutovaním konštatovať, že sa jedná predovšetkým o obete obchodovania s ľuďmi, deti ako obete sexuálneho zneužívania, sexuálneho vykorisťovania a pornografie, ale treba pristúpiť k prijatiu konkrétnych právnych opatrení s pôsobnosťou v celej Európskej únii. Z uvedených dôvodov predkladaný návrh smernice podporujem.

  Claudio Morganti (EFD), per iscritto. − Ho voluto esprimere il mio pieno sostegno a questa relazione che ha lo scopo di offrire maggiori tutele e garanzie per le vittime di reati.

Una persona che abbia subito un furto, un'aggressione, delle molestie, fino ad arrivare a reati più gravi come lo stupro o ad episodi legati a criminalità organizzata e terrorismo, deve potersi sentire adeguatamente protetta e rispettata, per non rischiare di essere vittima due volte, della stessa violenza subita e delle problematiche che possono sorgere in seguito.

In proposito occorre sottolineare come particolare attenzione e misure specifiche siano prese per donne, minori e persone con disabilità, per le quali un episodio delittuoso può lasciare ripercussioni molto gravi e difficili da superare nel tempo. Ben vengano inoltre misure che siano omogenee a livello europeo, per assicurare adeguati standard in tutti i paesi e per proteggere altresì le vittime che subiscono atti criminali in uno Stato che non sia quello in cui abitualmente risiedono.

  Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), raštu. − Vieningos teisingumo erdvės sukūrimas reikalauja, kad visoje ES būtų vienodai užtikrinamos ir teismo ar administracinio proceso dalyvių teisės. Todėl išties svarbu, kad šiandien pritarėme dažnai silpniausių proceso dalyvių – aukų – teises ES mastu suvienodinančią Direktyvą. Ypatingą reikšmę ši Direktyva turės nusikaltimų, peržengiančių vienos valstybės ribas, atveju. Raginu ir Tarybą kuo greičiau pritarti Parlamento patvirtintam tekstui.

  Tiziano Motti (PPE), per iscritto. − L' ISTAT riporta che le donne tra i 16 e i 70 anni che dichiarano di essere state vittime di violenza, fisica o sessuale, almeno una volta nella vita sono 6 milioni e 743 mila, cioè il 31,9%; considerando il solo stupro, la percentuale è del 4,8% (oltre un milione di donne). Il 14,3% delle donne afferma inoltre di essere stata oggetto di violenze da parte del partner: il 12% di violenza fisica e il 6,1% di violenza sessuale. Del rimanente 24,7% si contano 9,8% di violenze fisiche e 20,4% di violenza sessuale. Il 2,4% delle donne afferma di essere stata violentata dal partner e il 2,9% da persone estranee. Il 93% delle donne che afferma di aver subito violenze dal coniuge ha dichiarato di non aver denunciato i fatti all'Autorità pubblica; la percentuale sale al 96% se l'autore della violenza non è il partner. Dati che ci lasciano esterrefatti e pongono una domanda di fondo che oggi puo' forse trovare una risposta con gli elementi del testo della risoluzione che abbiamo approvato oggi. Perché queste violenze non vengono denunciate? Perché le vittime non si sentono protette. I programmi di protezione delle vittime vanno quindi nella giusta direzione di assistenza alle donne come agli anziani ed ai minori.

  Siiri Oviir (ALDE), kirjalikult. − Toetasin kuriteoohvrite õigusi tugevdava direktiivi vastuvõtmist, pidades oluliseks tagada kõikidele kuriteoohvritele vajalik kaitse ja tunnustus kogu Euroopa Liidu territooriumil hoolimata nende õiguslikust seisundist. Õigus tasuta õigusabile, ohvriabiteenusele, anda selgitusi, vältida kokkupuudet ohvri ja teo toimepanija vahel, saada ülekuulamisel kaitset jne on elementaarsed miinimumnõuded, mille tagamine on kuriteoohvritele väga tähtis. Samuti pean väga oluliseks, et direktiiviga nähakse ette kuriteoohvrite ühtne määratlus, mis annab kuriteoohvri seisundi ka kannatanu lähedastele pereliikmetele. Tervitan ka raportööride ettepanekut kriminaliseerida kõik soopõhise vägivalla vormid ning võimaldada ohvritele erilisi ennetus- ja kaitsemeetmeid ning õiguskaitsevahendeid. Selleks et kuriteoohvrid oleksid teadlikud oma õigustest Euroopa Liidus, tuleks tõsta nende teadlikkust läbi teavituskampaaniate ja haridusprogrammide, tehes koostööd erinevate mittetulundusühingutega.

  Γεώργιος Παπανικολάου (PPE), γραπτώς. – Υπερψήφισα την έκθεση. Μέχρι σήμερα, η Ε.Ε. στερείτο ενός ολοκληρωμένου ευρωπαϊκού νομοθετικού πλαισίου που παρέχει σε όλα τα θύματα εγκληματικών πράξεων, ανεξάρτητα από το νομικό τους καθεστώς, αναγνώριση και την ευρύτερη δυνατή προστασία εντός της επικράτειας της Ένωσης. Η παρούσα πρωτοβουλία συμβάλλει στην διεύρυνση των δικαιωμάτων αυτών, όπως είναι η ενημέρωση, το δικαίωμα διερμηνείας και μετάφρασης, το δικαίωμα ακρόασης, το δικαίωμα αποζημίωσης, το δικαίωμα αποφυγής της επαφής μεταξύ του θύματος και του δράστη. Επισημαίνεται ωστόσο ότι από την κοινοτική νομοθεσία εκλείπει ο ορισμός «θύμα», κάτι που θα πρέπει να διασαφηνίζεται σε μελλοντικές νομοθετικές πράξεις. Παράλληλα, παρά τον περιεκτικό κατάλογο δικαιωμάτων που προβλέπει η ανακοίνωση της Επιτροπής για τα θύματα εγκληματικών πράξεων, εκλείπουν σημεία όπως η ψυχολογική υποστήριξη στα θύματα, η επιπρόσθετη προστασία θυμάτων που έχουν ιδιαίτερες ανάγκες και η διασφάλιση της προστασίας της ιδιωτικής ζωής των θυμάτων, σημεία που συμπεριλαμβάνονται στην έκθεση του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου.

  Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D), per iscritto. − Esprimo voto favorevole riguardo la proposta di direttiva del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio che istituisce norme minime riguardanti i diritti, l'assistenza e la protezione delle vittime di reato. La nuova direttiva si propone di istituire norme minime riguardanti i diritti, l'assistenza, il riconoscimento e la massima protezione nel territorio dell'UE delle vittime di reato, a prescindere dal loro status giuridico, tanto in termini di contenuto quanto di attuazione. Dato che la fiducia nella giustizia rappresenta una priorità per tutti i cittadini, in particolare per le vittime che ritengono che i loro diritti siano ignorati o al di fuori della loro portata, considero questa proposta di direttiva come un mezzo adeguato per superare le numerose lacune ed ostacoli attualmente presenti nel mercato interno e nello spazio di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia europeo.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − Congratulo-me com a adoção deste relatório sobre a proposta da Comissão relativa a uma Diretiva sobre os direitos, o apoio e a proteção das vítimas da criminalidade, que se insere num pacote de medidas legislativas cujo objetivo é reforçar os direitos das vítimas na UE e que inclui uma proposta de Regulamento sobre o reconhecimento mútuo de medidas de proteção em matérias civis e uma comunicação intitulada "Reforçar os direitos das vítimas na UE".

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), per iscritto. − Già dall'entrata in vigore del trattato di Lisbona nel 2009 e degli orientamenti per la creazione di uno spazio europeo di libertà, sicurezza e giustizia, secondo quanto previsto dal programma di Stoccolma, la protezione delle vittime di reato nell'UE rappresenta una priorità dell'Unione. Ora, sulla base della decisione quadro 2001/220/GAI del Consiglio, relativa alla posizione della vittima nel procedimento penale, si rende necessario adottare un quadro giuridico europeo completo che offra a tutte le vittime di reato, a prescindere dal loro status giuridico, il riconoscimento e la massima protezione nel territorio dell'UE, e fornire una definizione unificata del concetto di "vittima", affinché tale status sia riconosciuto non solo alla persona che ha subito il reato, ma anche ai suoi parenti stretti. Con l'obiettivo di rafforzare i diritti delle vittime e assicurarne maggiore tutela della loro vita privata, esprimiamo il nostro voto favorevole alla proposta.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), per iscritto. − Mi congratulo con la collega Jiménez-Becerril Barrio per il lavoro svolto.

Con l'approvazione di tale relazione, vista la proposta della Commissione al Parlamento europeo e al Consiglio (COM(2011)0275) e visto il parere del Comitato economico e sociale europeo del 7 dicembre 2011, il Parlamento assicura che qualsiasi vittima di reati godrà gli stessi diritti e di una valutazione delle sue esigenze specifiche, in tutta l'UE.

Ma l'aspetto positivo di tale relazione è che da oggi le vittime di reati quali rapina, furto, aggressione, stupro, molestie, crimine d'odio, attacchi terroristici, o traffico di esseri umani, non incontreranno più problematiche causate da differenze culturali, linguistiche o legislative, e soprattutto verranno sostenute e supportate, sin dal momento in cui subiscono il reato, da servizi di assistenza gratuiti e confidenziali (ad esempio, il sostegno psicologico), a prescindere da dove sia avvenuto il reato.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Gender-based violence as well as violence in close relationships is defined for the first time in EU legislation (recital 8f) which is regarded as a huge success due to the fact that Commissioner Reding's proposal was gender blind; in fact the seriousness of gender-based violence was denied, as was the request for a separate directive on gender-based violence. The Greens also managed to highlight and include reference to victims of race, hate or other bias crimes. Another success was our proposals regarding access to victim rights, support and protection without discrimination of any kind, including residence status, and regardless of victim’ participation in criminal proceedings, which were adopted by the rapporteurs and the Commission, and were thus accepted by Council as well. This means that irregular migrants who are victims of crime will have access to the rights, support and protection afforded by the directive, regardless of whether the victim makes a formal complaint of a criminal offence. The agreed wording also adopts the language of the Charter of Fundamental Rights regarding the prohibited grounds of discrimination, which is broader than the five grounds of discrimination protected by the EU equality directives.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de cette directive visant à assurer, partout dans l'Union, des droits de base aux victimes de vol avec violence, agression, viol, harcèlement, attaque terroriste ou trafic d'êtres humains. Annuellement, près d'un européen sur six est victime d'un acte criminel sérieux. Pourtant, le traitement et la protection des victimes variaient singulièrement d'un pays à l'autre. Il était temps de remédier à cette véritable lacune juridique et humaine.

Concrètement: que la personne soit victime d'un accident de la route dans le Sud de la France, d'un vol avec violence dans les rues de Milan, Londres ou Berlin, ou qu'elle soit agressée (vol avec violence, cambriolage, viol, harcèlement, crime haineux, attaque terroriste ou trafic humain), chaque victime aura le même seuil de protection. Nous avons aussi inclus la garantie de fournir une assistance à la victime lorsqu'elle est informée de la remise en liberté de l'auteur de l'infraction; la douloureuse actualité judiciaire en Belgique de ce mois de septembre souligne un peu plus encore que le support aux victimes à ce moment est aussi est primordial...

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − O reforço desta diretiva é da maior importância para aumentar o direito das vítimas da UE, o apoio prestado e a proteção das mesmas em qualquer crime em território da UE. Considero este relatório uma importante medida que amplia os direitos das vítimas de qualquer tipo de crime, através da aplicação de normas mínimas em toda a UE. Gostaria de salientar alguns dos pontos contidos no relatório, nomeadamente a proteção das vítimas com necessidades específicas, adotando os métodos e o apoio, tendo em conta o tipo de dano sofrido, uma avaliação individual e formação das entidades competentes, a compreensão da dinâmica de género dos direitos das vítimas e a maior cooperação e coordenação para a proteção das mesmas entre os Estados-Membros. Esta proteção deve ser estendida à família e o apoio prestado deve ocorrer em todo o processo legal, devendo as vítimas serem informadas de forma clara e perceptível. Um espaço de liberdade, justiça e segurança deve ter no seu âmago o cidadão.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. − Am votat pentru Rezoluţia referitoare la propunerea de directivă privind stabilirea unor standarde minime privind drepturile, sprijinul acordat şi protejarea victimelor criminalităţii.

Victimele criminalităţii trebuie să fie recunoscute şi tratate cu respect, atenţie şi profesionalism, fără a fi discriminate pe baza vreunui motiv, precum rasa, culoarea, originea etnică sau socială, trăsăturile genetice, limba, religia sau credinţa, opiniile politice sau de oricare altă natură, apartenenţa la o minoritate naţională, bunurile de care dispune, naşterea, handicapul, vârsta, genul, identitatea de gen şi modalitatea de exprimare a genului, orientarea sexuală, statutul acestora din punctul de vedere al reşedinţei sau sănătatea.

Informaţiile şi consilierea furnizate de autorităţile competente, serviciile de sprijinire a victimelor şi serviciile de justiţie reparatorie ar trebui să fie, pe cât posibil, acordate printr-o serie de mijloace şi într-o manieră care poate fi înţeleasă de către victimă. Victima ar trebui să aibă dreptul de a contesta o hotărâre prin care se constată că nu sunt necesare servicii de interpretare sau de traducere, în conformitate cu procedurile din cadrul legislaţiei naţionale. De asemenea, victimele ar trebui să primească informaţii cu privire la orice drept referitor la o cale de atac împotriva unei hotărâri de eliberare a autorului infracţiunii, dacă un astfel de drept există în cadrul legislaţiei naţionale.

  Thomas Ulmer (PPE), schriftlich. − Ich habe dem Bericht zugestimmt. Zum ersten Mal wird hier versucht, die gemeinsamen Grundlagen zum Opferschutz zu regeln. Dieses Anliegen ist außerordentlich wichtig, da der Opferschutz fast überall deutlich verbesserungswürdig ist. Jetzt ist die Kommission gefordert, rasch zu handlen und Wege für die praktische Umsetzung aufzuzeigen.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − This report, which has my full support, will help minimise the difficulties faced by EU citizens when they become victims of crime in an EU country other than their own. As a result of this legislation, each Member State will provide specialist support services for foreign crime victims, including free translation and interpretation services and access to information on any medical help that may be required in the aftermath of the incident. This report will be instrumental in ensuring that the 15% of EU citizens who are estimated to become victims of crime each year while travelling or working within the EU receive the support they should rightly be entitled to.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), schriftlich. − Die Schaffung von Mindeststandards für den Schutz von Opfern von Straftaten ist Grundlage für den bestmöglichen Schutz und Opferhilfe im gesamten Unionsgebiet und die Stärkung des Vertrauens der Bürger in das Rechtssystem. Die Angst der Opfer vor Anzeige von Straftaten soll vermindert werden, und Mindeststandards wie das Recht auf Information, das Recht zu verstehen und verstanden zu werden, das Recht auf Verdolmetschung, Opferhilfe, rechtliches Gehör, Täter-Opfer-Ausgleich, etc. sind ein Schritt in diese Richtung. Auch das soziale Umfeld der Opfer ist von Straftaten betroffen und sollte mit in die Opferhilfe einbezogen werden.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. − This law will provide vital protection to UK citizens who are unfortunate enough to be the victim of a crime in another EU country. Being the victim of a crime is always a traumatic experience, but it is even more so when the crime takes place in a different country, away from the support of family and friends and where victims may not speak the language.

The proposals will cover victims of human trafficking, sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, violence against women, terrorism, hate crimes and organised crime. However, anyone who is a victim of any sort of crime in one of the EU’s 27 Member States can now expect to receive the same minimum level of treatment and care wherever the crime takes place. The law will ensure that victims have access to medical and legal support, compensation and, crucially, interpretation and translation services, so that they are not left confused and distressed and feeling unable to access justice due to a failure to understand another country’s legal system.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), na piśmie. − Dyrektywa ustanawiająca normy minimalne w zakresie praw, wsparcia i ochrony ofiar przestępstw ma moje pełne poparcie. Po pierwsze, przedmiotowa dyrektywa wzmocni prawa ofiar, zapewniając im dodatkowe wsparcie, jak również ochronę. Po drugie, pomoże obywatelom europejskim zdobyć zaufanie do wymiaru sprawiedliwości. Ponadto pozwoli ona również na pogłębienie współpracy i zwiększenie koordynacji miedzy państwami członkowskimi, poprzez utworzenie formalnych i nieformalnych struktur współpracy. Takie skoordynowane podejście do ofiar umożliwi zminimalizowanie negatywnego wpływu przestępstw.

  Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), na piśmie. − Niestety praktyka wciąż pokazuje, że w wielu przypadkach ofiara ma mniej praw niż oprawca. Poświęca się jej mniej czasu, zapomina o jej prawach. Dlatego dziś z zadowoleniem przyjmuję decyzję Parlamentu Europejskiego dotyczącą zmiany tego stanu rzeczy. Głównym moim celem jako ministra sprawiedliwości było postawienie praw ofiar, praw zwykłych ludzi, przed prawami bandytów i złoczyńców. Mam nadzieję, że decyzja ta zostanie jak najszybciej wdrożona, a państwa członkowskie w końcu zagwarantują pełną ochronę praw ofiar.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Acompanhamos este relatório no que se refere à chamada de atenção para a proteção integrada dos vários tipos de violência sobre as pessoas: violência doméstica, discriminações em função do sexo e orientação sexual, tráfico de seres humanos, exploração na prostituição, assédio sexual e moral, mutilação genital feminina, entre tantas outras. No entanto, por uma questão de princípio e de soberania em matéria judicial não estamos de acordo com uma maior transferência de poder nesta área para a UE. Em muitas das áreas mencionadas Portugal já tem legislação adequada, nomeadamente no que se refere à proteção das vítimas de violência doméstica, ao direito de audição do menor e à proteção de menores. A realidade que Portugal enfrenta é, antes, a da falta de investimento público na concretização das medidas práticas de apoio à vítima.

Έκθεση Vital Moreira (A7-0212/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Aprovo o presente Relatório, tomando em conta que a presente proposta da Comissão pretende ajustar o Regulamento (CE) n.º 774/94 do Conselho, relativo à abertura e modo de gestão de determinados contingentes pautais comunitários de alguns produtos de carne e cereais, aos artigos 290.º e 291.º do Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia (TFUE), que confere à Comissão (CE) competências para adotar as medidas de execução necessárias e alterar esse regulamento, caso os volumes e outras condições relativas ao regime de contingentes sejam ajustados, nomeadamente por decisões de celebração de acordos com países terceiros. Como Membro do Parlamento Europeu, defendo a posição da relatora que esses poderes devem ser ajustados ao regime pós-Lisboa de atos delegados e atos de execução, através da atribuição de competências de execução relevantes à CE, que devem ser exercidas em conformidade com as disposições do Regulamento (UE) n.º 182/2011 do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de modo a haver um verdadeiro envolvimento do Parlamento Europeu. Nunca nos podemos esquecer que o Parlamento Europeu é a instituição que representa os cidadãos da Europa, logo deve ter poderes para limitar a atuação da Comissão.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea acestui raport, deoarece sunt de părere că modificarea prezentului regulament este binevenită şi, în acelaşi timp, necesară în vederea gestionării anumitor contingente tarifare comunitare pentru anumite tipuri de carne şi produse din cereale. Legislaţia în vigoare, precum şi competenţele acordate Comisiei în ceea ce priveşte adaptarea măsurilor de punere în aplicare şi de modificare a regulamentului trebuie aliniate la Tratatul de la Lisabona cât mai rapid posibil. Aceste competenţe trebuie să aibă în vedere atât actele delegate, cât şi cele de punere în aplicare. De asemenea, sunt de părere că Parlamentul ar trebui să aibă o implicare mai importantă în pregătirea şi punerea în aplicare a actelor delegate. Totodată, eliminarea trimiterilor la procedura comitetelor este deosebit de importantă, în vederea reflectării modificărilor în aplicarea procedurii.

  Adam Bielan (ECR), na piśmie. − Panie Przewodniczący! Polscy rolnicy stanowią dużą grupę producentów żywności w Unii Europejskiej. Także w moim regionie przewaga gospodarki rolnej jest bardzo wyraźna. Niezwykle istotne są zatem dla mnie wszelkie działania mające na celu zapewnienie korzystnych regulacji dotyczących obrotu produktami rolnymi, w tym odpowiedniego poziomu kontyngentów taryfowych. Rozszerzenie zaangażowania Parlamentu Europejskiego, poprzez włączenie naszej instytucji w przygotowanie i wdrażanie aktów delegowanych w tej materii, uważam za działanie pożądane. Korzystnie oceniam również wydłużenie do czterech miesięcy terminu zgłaszania sprzeciwu wobec projektów tychże aktów. Jak cała moja grupa polityczna, akceptuję zaproponowane przez Komisję techniczne zmiany w połączeniu ze stanowiskiem sprawozdawcy zapewniającym szerokie kompetencje parlamentarnej Komisji Handlu Zagranicznego w tym zakresie. Popieram sprawozdanie.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Sostengo la relazione dell'on. Moreira che porta verso l’'allineamento del regolamento (CE) n. 774/94 del Consiglio al regime degli atti delegati, come previsto dagli articoli 290 e 291 TFUE. Non si apportano quindi modifiche nei contenuti o nel merito del regolamento ma si tratta di un mero aggiornamento tecnico.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau dėl šio pranešimo, kadangi yra būtina suderinti ES prekybos politiką reguliuojančių teisės aktų dalį su Sutarties dėl Europos Sąjungos veikimo 290 ir 291 straipsnių nuostatomis. Pakeitimai turėtų aprėpti tinkamą Europos Parlamento dalyvavimą rengiant ir įgyvendinant deleguotuosius aktus, pratęsimą laikotarpio dėl tikėtino prieštaravimo dėl deleguotojo akto projekto, įgaliojimų suteikimo dėl laikotarpio apribojimo ir rašytinės procedūros taikymo tvarkos pakeitimą. Taip pat komiteto procedūros nuorodos, susijusios su bendro žemės ūkio rinkų organizavimo reglamentu, turėtų būti panaikintos ir įtrauktos į šį reglamentą, nes taip būtų atspindėti visi pakeitimai dėl rašytinės procedūros taikymo. Tokiu būdu taip pat būtų užtikrinta, kad Europos Parlamento Tarptautinės prekybos komitetas neprarastų teisės tikrinti įgyvendinimo aktus, kurie yra būtini kvotų sistemai administruoti.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), par écrit. – Mercredi 12 septembre 2012, j'ai voté en faveur du règlement du PE et du Conseil modifiant le règlement du Conseil portant ouverture et mode de gestion de certains contingents tarifaires communautaires pour la viande bovine de haute qualité, la viande porcine, la viande de volaille, le froment et méteil et les sons, remoulages et autres résidus. Je soutiens particulièrement l'idée de participation appropriée du Parlement européen à la préparation et à l'exécution des actes délégués.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente relatório por permitir uma simplificação de procedimentos salvaguardando o seu rigor e transparência.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente relatório que tem como objetivo o alinhamento do regulamento (CE) n.° 774/94 com o novo sistema de atos delegados e de atos de execução (art. 290° e 291° do TFUE). Este regulamento visa a abertura e gestão de determinados contingentes pautais comunitários para certas carnes e produtos à base de cereais. Confere também alguns poderes à Comissão para que esta adote as necessárias medidas de execução e de alteração do regulamento.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − O Regulamento (CE) n.º 774/94 do Conselho relativo à abertura e ao modo de gestão de determinados contingentes pautais comunitários de carne de bovino de alta qualidade, carne de suíno, carne de aves de capoeira, trigo e mistura de trigo com centeio, sêmeas, farelos e outros resíduos é agora sujeito a modificações com o mesmo objetivo. A adequação da legislação comunitária aos tratados que lhe subjazem é necessária quer do ponto de vista da sistematização quer da segurança e inteligibilidade jurídicas.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − O relatório em apreço, da autoria de Vital Moreira, aborda a proposta de regulamento do Parlamento Europeu (PE) e do Conselho que altera o regulamento (CE) n.° 774/94 do Conselho relativo à abertura e modo de gestão de determinados contingentes pautais comunitários de carne de bovino de alta qualidade, carne de suíno, carne de aves de capoeira, trigo e mistura de trigo com centeio, sêmeas, farelos e outros resíduos. As alterações propostas, entre outras medidas, implicam um maior envolvimento do PE na preparação e execução dos atos delegados, limitam a delegação de poderes a cinco anos tacitamente prorrogáveis, prolongam o período de objeção aos projetos de atos delegados de dois para quatro meses e obrigam ao procedimento escrito. Considerando que se trata de matéria jurídica que visa adaptar os poderes conferidos à Comissão (CE) pelo Regulamento (CE) n.º 774/94 ao regime pós-Tratado de Lisboa no que respeita aos atos delegados e aos atos de execução, competências que, agora, devem ser exercidas de acordo com o Regulamento (UE) n.º 182/2011 do PE e do Conselho, voto favoravelmente o presente relatório.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Este relatório tem como principal objetivo colocar o regulamento do Conselho acima mencionado com os artigos 290.º e 291.º do Tratado de Funcionamento da União Europeia (TFUE). O relator introduz algumas alterações que vão no sentido de limitar os poderes da Comissão em relação à delegação de poderes e defender um maior envolvimento do Parlamento Europeu na preparação e execução dos atos delegados. Valorizamos a disposição que garante mais tempo ao Parlamento para objetar a um ato delegado.

Todavia, este relatório não pode deixar de ser analisado pelo seu significado mais profundo, tendo em conta posições de princípio relativamente ao Tratado e ao que nele é disposto sobre a política comercial. Com efeito, o Tratado de Lisboa estipula que a politica comercial é uma competência exclusiva da UE. Ou seja, retirou-se aos Estados um instrumento de política económica essencial. Os interesses no domínio comercial são, evidentemente, distintos de país para país, porque diferentes são as respetivas economias, as fragilidades e potencialidades de cada uma. A sobreposição dos interesses dos mais fortes aos mais fracos, neste como noutros domínios, acarreta prejuízos tremendos para economias mais débeis, como sucede com Portugal. Vejam-se os efeitos das políticas de livre comércio na desestruturação de importantes setores produtivos nacionais...

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Balsavau už ši pranešima.Kadangi tokiu būdu Komisijai suteikiami įgaliojimai peržiūrėti minėtąsias kvotas, kas lems geresnį šių kvotų administravimą.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), par écrit. – Le rapport Moreira est un rapport très technique. L'objet de ce rapport est d'adapter ce règlement aux évolutions induites par le Traité de Lisbonne, en particulier en matière de comitologie. J'ai soutenu ce rapport lors des votes en plénière le 12 septembre.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report. I strongly believe that the European Parliament must be involved in the preparation and implementation of delegated acts and support the prolongation of the period for possible objections to draft delegated acts from two to four months. I understand Mr Moreira’s position concerning the removal of references concerning the committee procedure to the future aligned Single CMO Regulation and the insertion of such provisions directly into this amending regulation because this will ensure that the right of scrutiny of implementing acts necessary for the administration of the quota arrangements mentioned in this regulation remains within the remit of the Committee on International Trade.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I support the rapporteur who urges the removal of references concerning the committee procedure to the future aligned Single CMO Regulation and insertion of such provisions directly into this amending regulation. This will mirror modifications to application of written procedure laid down in Trade Omnibuses. Furthermore, it will ensure that the right of scrutiny of implementing acts necessary for the administration of the quota arrangements referred to in this regulation remains within the remit of the Committee on International Trade.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – Ce rapport propose de donner à la Commission le pouvoir de modifier le volume des contingents agricoles, de viandes et de céréales notamment, importés en Europe. Vu la tendance à céder au chantage des USA dont la Commission européenne a fait preuve, comme dans le cas des quotas de viande bovine, il y a quelques mois, nous sommes fondés à douter de sa neutralité en la matière. Je vote contre par méfiance.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − Foi adiada a votação da proposta legislativa referente a este relatório que trata do Regulamento (CE) n.º 774/94 que confere à Comissão competências para adotar as medidas de execução necessárias e alterar esse regulamento, caso os volumes e outras condições relativas ao regime de contingentes sejam ajustados, nomeadamente por decisões de celebração de acordos com países terceiros. Esses poderes devem ser ajustados ao regime pós-Lisboa de atos delegados e atos de execução, o que se faz no presente relatório sobre o qual nada teria a opor.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), per iscritto. − Il regolamento (CE) n. 774/94 ha conferito alla Commissione il potere di adottare le misure di esecuzione necessarie e di modificare il regolamento nel caso in cui i volumi e le altre condizioni del regime contingentale tariffario di talune carni e cereali vengano adeguati, in particolare da decisioni relative alla conclusione di accordi con paesi terzi. Si rende ora necessario allineare tali poteri al regime degli atti delegati e di esecuzione successivo a Lisbona mediante il conferimento alla Commissione delle pertinenti competenze di esecuzione, adeguando il suddetto regolamento agli articoli 290 e 291 del trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione europea (TFUE). Inoltre, sottolineando l'importanza che il diritto di controllo degli atti di esecuzione necessari per la gestione del regime contingentale di cui al regolamento in esame continui ad essere di competenza della commissione per il commercio internazionale, esprimo il mio voto favorevole alla proposta.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − A proposta da Comissão pretende ajustar o Regulamento (CE) n.º 774/94 do Conselho, relativo à abertura e modo de gestão de determinados contingentes pautais comunitários de alguns produtos de carne e cereais, aos artigos 290.º e 291.º do Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia. O Regulamento referido confere à Comissão competência para adotar as medidas de execução necessárias e alterar esse regulamento, caso os volumes e outras condições relativas ao regime de contingentes sejam ajustados, nomeadamente por decisões de celebração de acordos com países terceiros. Esses poderes devem ser ajustados ao regime, instituído pelo Tratado de Lisboa, de atos delegados e atos de execução, pelo que, neste contexto, o Relator propõe um maior envolvimento do Parlamento, a limitação da delegação a períodos de cinco anos tacitamente prorrogáveis, o prolongamento do período para uma possível objeção para quatro meses e a modificação da execução do procedimento escrito. Para além disso, defende ainda uma compatibilização do texto do regulamento com o dos regulamentos denominados "Trade Omnibus".

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), na piśmie. − Zarządzaniem niektórymi wspólnotowymi kontyngentami na pewne produkty mięsne i zbożowe zajmuje się rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 774/94. Przedmiotowe rozporządzenie przyznaje Komisji Europejskiej uprawnienia w tej dziedzinie. Uprawnienia te powinny zostać wreszcie dostosowane do systemu aktów delegowanych i wykonawczych, jaki ustanowił Traktat z Lizbony. Dlatego jestem za przyjęciem rozporządzenia.

  Iva Zanicchi (PPE), per iscritto. − Con questa proposta, su cui ho espresso il mio voto favorevole, la Commissione mira ad adeguare il regolamento alle nuove norme del trattato sul funzionamento dell'Unione, riguardo ai poteri del Parlamento europeo in tema di modalità di gestione di contingenti tariffari comunitari di carni bovine di qualità pregiata, carni suine, carni di volatili, frumento e grano.

Il Parlamento europeo sarà dunque coinvolto nella preparazione e attuazione degli atti delegati, la limitazione della delega di potere a periodi di cinque anni tacitamente prorogabili, la proroga del termine per le possibili obiezioni a un progetto di atto delegato da due a quattro mesi e la modifica dell'applicazione della procedura scritta.

Έκθεση Vital Moreira (A7-0209/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Aprovo o presente Relatório, pois por razões de coerência da legislação em matéria de comércio, o relator propõe duas alterações à proposta da Comissão que refletem as alterações resultantes dos dois «regulamentos Omnibus», designadamente no que respeita ao aditamento de dois novos considerandos relativos aos atos de execução/atos delegados nos atos jurídicos de base e à participação do Parlamento Europeu. Para além disso, a proposta da Comissão refere-se, relativamente aos três regulamentos, ao procedimento de Comité previsto para o regulamento ajustado que estabelece uma organização comum dos mercados dos produtos agrícolas (Regulamento «OCM única»). O relator propõe que se elimine essa referência e que se adite uma nova disposição relativa ao procedimento de Comité a cada um dos regulamentos alterados. Deste modo, pode garantir-se a aplicação alterada do procedimento escrito, resultante dos regulamentos «Trade Omnibus». Por todas estas razões, uma vez mais aponto que um papel mais interventivo do Parlamento Europeu é sempre mais favorável aos cidadãos europeus e ao desenvolvimento harmonioso da União Europeia no seu todo.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Pritariau šiam pranešimui, kuriuo siekiama tris Tarybos reglamentus, susijusius su alyvuogių aliejaus ir kitų žemės ūkio produktų importu iš Turkijos, suderinti su po Lisabonos sutarties priėmimo taikomu įgyvendinimo teisės aktų ir deleguotųjų aktų režimu (SESV 290 ir 291 straipsniai.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea acestui raport, deoarece sunt de acord cu alinierea regulamentelor Consiliului din domeniul importurilor de ulei de măsline şi de alte produse agricole din Turcia cu regimul actelor delegate şi de punere în aplicare. Susţin şi eu amendamentele raportorului referitoare la introducerea unor considerente noi referitoare la actele de punere în aplicare şi la cele delegate, precum şi la o mai mare implicare a Parlamentului în pregătirea actelor delegate. De asemenea, consider pertinentă extinderea prelungirii perioadei pentru formularea de obiecţii pentru un act delegat, precum şi extinderea perioadei de control. Mai mult, limitarea acordării de competenţe delegate Comisiei reprezintă un demers pozitiv. Consider că, prin modificările vizate, legislaţia în domeniul politicii comerciale comune va putea fi aplicată şi supravegheată în mod corect.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), por escrito. − He apoyado este informe que tiene por objeto modificar tres Reglamentos del Consejo en el ámbito de las importaciones de aceite de oliva y otros productos agrícolas procedentes de Turquía, en lo que atañe a las competencias delegadas y de ejecución que se confieren a la Comisión en el Tratado de Lisboa.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau dėl šio pranešimo, kadangi siekiu prekybą reglamentuojančių teisės aktų nuoseklumo. Šiam tikslui pasiekti reikalingi pakeitimai dėl dviejų bendrųjų prekybos reglamentų, t. y. naujos konstatuojamosios dalys dėl teisės aktų įgyvendinimo turi būti įrašytos į pagrindinius teisės aktus, deleguotųjų aktų rengime turi dalyvauti Europos Parlamentas, turi būti apribotas įgaliojimų dėl deleguotųjų įgaliojimų suteikimo Komisijai laikotarpis, taip pat turi būti pratęstas prieštaravimų dėl deleguotojo akto projekto laikotarpis kartu su nagrinėjimo laikotarpio pratęsimu, be to, pakeistos rašytinės procedūros taikymo sąlygos. Kad būtų užtikrintas efektyvus rašytinės procedūros taikymas, į kiekvieną pakeistą reglamentą reikia įrašyti komitetų procedūrų nuorodą. Remiantis naujuoju reglamentu Europos Parlamente Tarptautinės prekybos komitetas turės teisę į tokių įgyvendinimo teisės aktų nagrinėjimą, ir tokiu būdu bus užtikrintas teisingas bendros prekybos politikos srities teisės aktų įgyvendinimo tolesnių veiksmų būdas (remiantis SESV 207 straipsniu).

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), par écrit. –J'ai voté en faveur de la modification des règlements du Conseil dans le domaine des importations d’huile d’olive et d’autres produits agricoles originaires de la Turquie en ce qui concerne les compétences déléguées et les compétences d’exécution à conférer à la Commission. Il était important en premier lieu que ces modifications suivent la loi Omnibus sur le commerce, mais également de s'assurer de la bonne association du Parlement à l'élaboration et à la mise en œuvre des actes délégués pour faciliter le contrôle de ces actes.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente relatório por considerar importante a harmonização e o reforço da coerência dos regulamentos da União Europeia.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), por escrito. − Votei a favor do presente relatório que tem como objetivo alinhar três regulamentos do Conselho em matéria de importação de azeite e outros produtos agrícolas da Turquia com o regime Pós-Lisboa, com o novo sistema de atos de execução e atos delegados (art. 290.° e 291.° do TFUE).

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − A questão do âmbito e da definição dos poderes delegados e competências de execução conferidas à Comissão vêm motivando repetidamente interpretações díspares por parte do Parlamento e da Comissão Europeia. É natural a tensão entre estes órgãos e normal que o Parlamento procure exigir o acompanhamento das ações da Comissão naquele quadro. A Turquia é um parceiro importante da União e as alterações a introduzir nos regulamentos não deverão conduzir a nenhum tipo de mudança no desenvolvimento privilegiado desta relação, antes colocarão os instrumentos jurídicos que regulam a importação de determinados produtos de acordo com o preceituado no Tratado de Lisboa.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − O relatório em análise, da responsabilidade de Vital Moreira, versa sobre a proposta de regulamento do Parlamento Europeu (PE) e do Conselho que altera os Regulamentos (CE) n.º 2008/97, (CE) n.º 779/98 e (CE) n.º 1506/98 do Conselho, em matéria de importação de azeite e outros produtos agrícolas da Turquia, no que diz respeito aos poderes delegados e às competências de execução a conferir à Comissão, de acordo com o regime pós-Tratado de Lisboa (TL), mais concretamente em relação aos atos de execução e aos atos delegados (artigos 290.º e 291.º do Tratado de Funcionamento da União Europeia - TFUE). As alterações propostas, entre outras medidas, implicam um maior envolvimento do PE na preparação e execução dos atos delegados, limitam a delegação de poderes a cinco anos tacitamente prorrogáveis, prolongam o período de objeção aos projetos de atos delegados de dois para quatro meses e obrigam ao procedimento escrito. Considerando que se trata de matéria jurídica que visa conformar os regulamentos supra referidos com o TFUE no que respeita aos atos delegados e aos atos de execução, competências que, agora, devem ser exercidas de acordo como Regulamento (UE) n.º 182/2011 do PE e do Conselho, voto favoravelmente o presente relatório.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Este relatório, à semelhança de outros relativos ao comércio internacional, tem como principal objetivo alinhar a legislação neste domínio com as alterações introduzidas pelo Tratado de Lisboa, com impacto neste domínio. O relator introduz algumas alterações que vão no sentido de limitar os poderes da Comissão em relação à delegação de poderes e defender um maior envolvimento do Parlamento Europeu na preparação e execução dos atos delegados. Valorizamos a disposição que garante mais tempo ao Parlamento para objetar a um ato delegado. Mas não podemos deixar de avaliar este relatório pelo seu significado mais profundo, tendo em conta posições de princípio relativamente ao Tratado e ao que nele é disposto sobre a política comercial. Com efeito, o Tratado de Lisboa estipula que a política comercial é uma competência exclusiva da UE. Os interesses no domínio comercial são, evidentemente, distintos de país para país, porque diferentes são as respetivas economias, as fragilidades e potencialidades de cada uma. A sobreposição dos interesses dos mais fortes aos mais fracos, neste como noutros domínios, acarreta prejuízos para economias mais débeis, como sucede com Portugal, que fica nas mãos dos interesses comerciais dos grupos económicos das potências da UE, em especial da Alemanha, tantas vezes opostos ao interesse do tecido produtivo nacional.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Pritariau pasiūlymui, kadangi pagrindinis Komisijos pasiūlymo tikslas buvo tris Tarybos reglamentus, susijusius su alyvuogių aliejaus ir kitų žemės ūkio produktų importu iš Turkijos, suderinti su po Lisabonos sutarties priėmimo taikomu įgyvendinimo teisės aktų ir deleguotųjų aktų režimu. Be to, šie iš dalies pakeisti reglamentai, o ne Bendras bendro žemės ūkio rinkų organizavimo reglamentas, bus ateityje priimamų įgyvendinimo teisės aktų pagrindiniai aktai. Atitinkamai nagrinėjimo teisę, susijusią su tokiais įgyvendinimo teisės aktais, turės Tarptautinės prekybos komitetas, o ne Žemės ūkio komitetas. Tuo bus padedama siekti prekybą reglamentuojančių teisės aktų nuoseklumo.

  Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), na piśmie. − W Unii Europejskiej funkcjonuje wiele instytucji, a każda z nich ma określone kompetencje. Ich podział pomagać ma w lepszym działaniu i funkcjonowaniu UE. Wraz z likwidacją struktury trójfilarowej konieczne było przeprowadzenie reformy w unijnym prawie pochodnym. Dokonał tego traktat z Lizbony, dzieląc kategorię aktów prawnych na akty ustawodawcze i akty nieustawodawcze. Przedmiotem mojej wypowiedzi są akty delegowane i akty wykonawcze, które są sklasyfikowane przez Traktat o Funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej jako akty nieustawodawcze, o czym stanowi art. 290 i 291 TFUE. Każdy z nich został ustanowiony w określonym celu. Akty delegowane służyć mają uzupełnieniu innych niż istotne elementy aktów ustawodawczych. Wydawane są przez KE na podstawie uprawnień przekazanych jej na podstawie aktu ustawodawczego. Akt ten zaś winien szczegółowo określać przekazywane Komisji uprawnienia.

Drugim wspomnianym przez mnie rodzajem są akty wykonawcze, które służą zapewnieniu jednolitych warunków wykonywania prawnie wiążących aktów Unii. Przede wszystkim odpowiedzialność za efektywne wykonanie prawa unijnego spoczywa na państwach członkowskich, jednak jeżeli konieczne są jednolite warunki wykonywania prawnie wiążących aktów Unii, akty te powierzają uprawnienia wykonawcze Komisji lub Radzie UE.

Przychylam się do wniosku, którego celem jest dostosowanie trzech wskazanych rozporządzeń Rady dotyczących przywozu oliwy z oliwek i innych produktów rolnych z Turcji do postanowień TFUE.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of Mr Moreira’s report and the proposed amendments to the Commission’s proposal. These reflect the changes brought about by the two Trade Omnibuses: insertion of new recitals on implementing acts/delegated acts into the basic legal acts; limitation of the conferral of the delegated powers on the Commission to the period of five years, tacitly extendable by a period of identical duration; and the extension of possible prolongation of the period for objection to a draft delegated act from two to four months, thereby extending the period of scrutiny from four months (2+2) to six months (2+4). I support the involvement of the European Parliament during the preparation of delegated acts.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this technical report. The objective of the Commission proposal consists in aligning three Council regulations in the field of imports of olive oil and other agricultural products from Turkey with the post-Lisbon regime of implementing acts and delegated acts (Articles 290 and 291 TFEU).

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − Foi adiada a votação desta proposta legislativa. De qualquer modo, sublinho que votei contra o presente relatório em que se ajusta ao regime pós-Lisboa de atos delegados e atos de execução os Regulamentos (CE) n.º 2008/97, (CE) n.º 779/98 e (CE) n.º 1506/98 do Conselho, em matéria de importação de azeite e outros produtos agrícolas da Turquia.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), per iscritto. − Visti i regolamenti CE n. 2008/97, n. 779/98 e n. 1506/98 del Consiglio, concernenti le importazioni di olio d'oliva e di altri prodotti agricoli dalla Turchia, e tenendo in considerazione che gran parte della legislazione di politica commerciale comune è in corso di allineamento agli articoli 290 e 291 del TFUE mediante due strumenti "Omnibus" in materia di scambi commerciali, si rende ora necessario allineare tali regolamenti al regime di atti di esecuzione e atti delegati introdotto dal trattato di Lisbona (articoli 290 e 291 TFUE). Auspicando che il diritto di controllo riguardante tali atti di esecuzione continui a essere della commissione per il commercio internazionale anziché passare alla commissione per l'agricoltura, esprimo il mio voto favorevole alla proposta.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − A proposta da Comissão visa a harmonização dos três regulamentos do Conselho no domínio das importações de azeite e outros produtos agrícolas da Turquia com o regime pós-Tratado de Lisboa relativo aos atos de execução e aos atos delegados, previsto nos artigos 290.º e 291.º do Tratado sobre o Funcionamento da União Europeia. Por razões de coerência da legislação em matéria de comércio, o relator propõe alterações que refletem as alterações resultantes dos dois «regulamentos Omnibus», como uma maior participação do Parlamento Europeu na elaboração dos atos delegados, a limitação da atribuição de poderes delegados na Comissão a um período de 5 anos, prorrogáveis tacitamente por um período de igual duração, a extensão da eventual prorrogação do prazo para apresentar objeções a um projeto de ato delegado de 2 para 4 meses, e a alteração das modalidades de aplicação do procedimento escrito. Pelos motivos expostos, votei a favor do documento.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), na piśmie. − Trzy rozporządzenia, które regulują przywóz oliwy z oliwek i innych produktów rolnych z Turcji, należy dostosować do systemu aktów delegowanych i wykonawczych wprowadzonych przez Traktat z Lizbony. W tym celu do każdego z tych rozporządzeń należy dodać przepisy dotyczące procedury komitetowej. Pozwoli to na kontrolę aktów wykonawczych bazujących na tych rozporządzeniach przez Komisję Handlu Międzynarodowego. Dlatego głosowałem za przyjęciem rozporządzenia.

Σύσταση Vital Moreira (A7-0211/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Aprovo o presente Relatório, considerando que o proposto acordo paralelo que altera o Acordo sobre Reconhecimento Mútuo (ARM) com a Austrália é importante por serem acordos sobre o reconhecimento mútuo da avaliação de conformidade de produtos regulamentados. Deste modo, a proposta deste Relatório vai no sentido dos ARM procurarem levantar os obstáculos técnicos ao comércio, salvaguardando, ao mesmo tempo, os objetivos de ambas as partes em matéria de saúde, segurança e ambiente. O ARM prevê, no seu corpo principal, regras gerais sobre a criação de organismos de avaliação da conformidade, bem como regras específicas aplicáveis aos vários setores abrangidos.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį pranešimą dėl susitarimo dėl abipusio pripažinimo (SAP) su Australija veikimo pagerinimo ir supaprastinimo. Šiuo susitarimu siekiama panaikinti technines kliūtis prekybai ir apsaugoti abiejų susitarimo šalių sveikatos, saugos ir aplinkos tikslus. Šiuo tikslu abiems susitarimo šalims suteikiami įgaliojimai savo teritorijoje prieš eksportą patikrinti ir patvirtinti, ar produktai atitinka kitos šalies reguliavimo reikalavimus. Sutinku su siūlomais susitarimo tobulinimais, įskaitant apribojimo, susijusio su pramonės produktų kilmės taisyklėmis išbraukiamu, kad SAP būtų taikomas visiems jame numatytiems produktams neatsižvelgiant į jų kilmę. Pritariu, kad siekiant supaprastinti SAP veikimą būtina nustatyti paprastesnę atitikties vertinimo įstaigų paskyrimo bei jų veiklos sustabdymo tvarką.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea acestui raport, întrucât consider că modificarea Acordului privind recunoaşterea reciprocă cu Australia are în vedere simplificarea şi ameliorarea funcţionării acestuia. Acest tip de acord urmăreşte eliminarea barierelor tehnice din calea comerţului şi are în vedere, totodată, protejarea sănătăţii, siguranţei şi a mediului. De aceea, sunt de părere că acordurile privind recunoaşterea reciprocă sunt extrem de importante, iar modificarea lor trebuie să vizeze clarificarea şi facilitarea funcţionarii. Ele trebuie să permită o mai mare flexibilitate şi, în acelaşi timp, să elimine restricţiile ce nu sunt necesare din calea comerţului internaţional, facilitând desfăşurarea sa în cele mai bune condiţii. Salut faptul că acordul se va aplica tuturor produselor vizate, indiferent de natura sau originea acestora. Totodată, susţin şi modificările instituţionale şi procedurale instituite.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), por escrito. − Os Acordos sobre Reconhecimento Mútuo (ARM) permitem a avaliação de conformidade de produtos regulamentados, que conferem a ambas as partes autoridade para testar e certificar produtos com base em requisitos regulamentares da outra parte, no seu território e antes da exportação. O seu objetivo é levantar os obstáculos técnicos ao comércio, salvaguardando ao mesmo tempo os objetivos em matéria de saúde, segurança e ambiente. O presente acordo que altera o ARM com a Austrália foi negociado pela Comissão Europeia com o objetivo de simplificar o funcionamento do ARM que entrou em vigor a 1 de janeiro de 1999. As suas alterações visam permitir um aumento da flexibilidade da estrutura dos anexos setoriais do ARM, eliminar restrições desnecessárias ao comércio entre as partes, reduzir os encargos administrativos relacionados com a gestão do Acordo e facilitar e clarificar o funcionamento do ARM. Pelo exposto, apoiei a presente recomendação que convida o Parlamento a aprovar o acordo.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), por escrito. − He apoyado este informe para modificar el Acuerdo sobre el reconocimiento mutuo con Australia que se ha negociado para mejorar y simplificar su funcionamiento.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Appoggio la relazione dell'on. Moreira sulla "Modifica dell'accordo sul reciproco riconoscimento in materia di valutazione della conformità, certificati e marchi di conformità tra la CE e l'Australia", accordo sottoscritto per la prima volta nel 1999 e che con essa viene aggiornato in maniera migliorativa, eliminando alcune restrizioni sugli scambi rivelatesi inutili e riducendo gli oneri amministravi relativi alla gestione dell'accordo stesso.

Tale accordo prevede che l'Australia si impegni a compiere sui prodotti destinati all'UE controlli secondo la normativa vigente nell'Unione e di contro l'UE si impegni a fare lo stesso; il tutto al fine di eliminare gli ostacoli di natura tecnica agli scambi fra i nostri paesi, tenendo ben presente che si fanno salvi i sempre fondamentali principi di tutela della salute, della sicurezza e dell'ambiente.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau dėl šio pranešimo, kadangi yra galimybė pagerinti 1999 m. sausio 1 d. įsigaliojusį Susitarimą dėl abipusio pripažinimo (SAP) su Australija. Pakeitimai padarys lankstesnę sektorinių priedų struktūrą, pašalins šalių tarpusavio prekybos apribojimus, sumažins administracinę naštą, susijusią su SAP, bei paaiškins SAP. Reikia pašalinti apribojimą, susijusį su pramonės produktų kilmės taisyklėmis, nes tik taip SAP bus taikomas visiems jame numatytiems produktams. Kadangi Jungtiniam komitetui šalys pirmininkauja bendrai, visos nuorodos į Jungtinio komiteto pirmininką turi būti išbrauktos. Svarbu pabrėžti, kad Jungtinis komitetas gali iš dalies keisti sektorinius priedus, kai atsižvelgiama į techninę pažangą ir kitus veiksmus. Kad SAP veikimas būtų supaprastintas, reikia palengvinti atitikties vertinimo įstaigų paskyrimo, jų paskyrimo atšaukimo ir jų veiklos stabdymo tvarką.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), par écrit. – Mercredi 12 septembre 2012, j'ai voté en faveur de la modification de l’accord sur la reconnaissance mutuelle en matière d’évaluation de la conformité entre la Communauté européenne et l’Australie. Cette modification permet, d'une part, la simplification du fonctionnement de l'accord, et d'autre part, l'élimination des restrictions inutiles au commerce. Ainsi, je soutiens la décision de supprimer la disposition limitant l'application de l'accord aux produits industriels originaires des parties conformément aux règles d'origine non préférentielles.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente relatório por considerar que o mesmo permite um aumento da flexibilidade da estrutura dos anexos setoriais do Acordo sobre Reconhecimento Mútuo com a Austrália, elimina restrições desnecessárias ao comércio entre as Partes, reduz os encargos administrativos relacionados com a gestão do Acordo e facilita e clarifica o funcionamento do ARM.

  Derek Roland Clark (EFD), in writing. − UKIP supports free trade and especially welcomes reductions in barriers to trade with our commonwealth friends. These reports remove technical barriers to trade and thus make it easier to trade with our commonwealth kith and kin, and thus we can support it.

  Mário David (PPE), por escrito. − Considero que a alteração ao Acordo de Reconhecimento Mútuo entre a Comunidade Europeia e a Austrália irá potenciar as relações comerciais entre estes dois grandes continentes, bem como eliminar barreiras a uma maior circulação de produtos. Pelo mesmo conjunto de argumentos que invoquei na minha declaração de voto referente ao Acordo sobre o Reconhecimento Mútuo com a Nova Zelândia, votei favoravelmente esta Recomendação (ver declaração de voto referente ao relatório A7-0211/2012).

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), par écrit. – J’ai soutenu l’adoption de ce rapport qui permettra de faciliter les échanges entre l’Union européenne et l’Australie. Il s’agit là d’une véritable opportunité pour les entreprises de nos territoires qui y voient de nouvelles perspectives commerciales. Faciliter réciproquement l’accès à nos marchés respectifs est une réelle chance pour nos PME, à nous de la saisir!

  Edite Estrela (S&D), por escrito. − Votei a favor do presente relatório referente ao "Acordo sobre Reconhecimento Mútuo em Matéria de Avaliação da Conformidade, de Certificados e de Marcações entre a Comunidade Europeia e a Austrália", por considerar que estas medidas vão melhorar e simplificar o funcionamento do acordo de Reconhecimento Mútuo, permitindo uma maior flexibilidade e eliminando restrições desnecessárias. Como resultado, o funcionamento do acordo é facilitado e esclarecido.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − Pelas afinidades históricas e civilizacionais que tem com a Europa, pela sua posição geoestratégica e pelo seu potencial económico, a Austrália é um parceiro natural da União. Atendendo a que a Austrália se rege por princípios e normas semelhantes às europeias em termos de saúde, segurança e ambiente e que o comércio entre ambas as partes deve ser incentivado e libertado de restrições inúteis, saúda-se a vigência de um Acordo sobre o Reconhecimento Mútuo em diversas matérias. Considero que a sua alteração visando uma maior simplificação do comércio respeita o objetivo que presidiu à celebração do Acordo e abre novas oportunidades para os produtos europeus na Austrália. Faço votos para que as alterações introduzidas cumpram o propósito a que se destinam.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − O documento em apreciação, da responsabilidade do colega Vital Moreira, versa sobre uma proposta de decisão do Conselho relativamente à conclusão de um Acordo entre a União Europeia (UE) e a Austrália que altera o Acordo sobre o Reconhecimento Mútuo (ARM) em matéria de Avaliação da Conformidade, de Certificados e de Marcações entre a Comunidade Europeia e a Austrália. O Acordo agora negociado pela Comissão visa simplificar o ARM que se encontra em vigor desde o dia 1 de janeiro de 1999, cujo objetivo é que as Partes possam avaliar a conformidade dos produtos regulamentados. Com as alterações introduzidas, teremos um aumento da flexibilidade da estrutura dos anexos setoriais eliminando restrições desnecessárias ao comércio entre as Partes. Além disso, verificar-se-á a supressão da restrição relativa às regras de origem dos produtos industriais, considerada desnecessária, bem como atualizações do texto no que se refere a alterações institucionais e processuais, revogação do reconhecimento e suspensão dos organismos de avaliação de conformidade, etc., sem descurar as matérias relacionadas com a saúde, segurança e ambiente. Votei favoravelmente esta recomendação uma vez que, além de não ter implicações financeiras, traz um conjunto significativo de melhoramentos à aplicabilidade do Acordo sobre Reconhecimento Mútuo em vigor.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Balsavau už susitarimo, kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas Europos bendrijos ir Australijos susitarimas dėl atitikties įvertinimo, sertifikatų ir žymėjimų abipusio pripažinimo, projekto sudarymą. Tai susitarimai dėl reglamentuojamų produktų atitikties įvertinimo abipusio pripažinimo. Pagal SAP abiems susitarimo šalims suteikiami įgaliojimai savo teritorijoje prieš eksportą patikrinti ir patvirtinti, ar produktai atitinka kitos šalies reguliavimo reikalavimus. Taigi, SAP siekiama panaikinti technines kliūtis prekybai ir apsaugoti abiejų susitarimo šalių sveikatos, saugos ir aplinkos tikslus. SAP su Australija pagrindinėje dalyje numatytos taisyklės, reglamentuojančios atitikties vertinimo įstaigų įkūrimą, bei specialios taisyklės, taikytinos įvairiems aptariamiems sektoriams.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this recommendation because I am confident that the agreement amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) will lift technical barriers to trade between the EU and Australia while safeguarding our health, safety and environmental objectives. In 2010, EU exports equalled EUR 26.7 billion while EU imports from Australia were worth EUR 9.8 billion. Trade between our economies had been growing steadily until 2009 when this trend was reversed due to the global economic crisis. For this reason, we need to do everything in our power to remove unnecessary restrictions on trade. It would also be beneficial for both sides if we could reduce the administrative burden related to management of the Agreement.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this proposal. The agreement amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) with Australia has been negotiated by the Commission with the stated objective of improving and simplifying the functioning of the MRA, which entered into force on 1 January 1999. MRAs are agreements on the mutual recognition of conformity assessment of regulated products. An MRA gives each of its parties the authority to test and certify products against the regulatory requirements of the other party, in its own territory and prior to export. Hence, MRAs seek to lift technical barriers to trade while safeguarding the health, safety and environmental objectives of each party. The MRA with Australia provides, in its main body, for general rules governing the setting up of conformity assessment bodies, as well as specific rules applicable to the various sectors covered (in sectoral annexes).

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), par écrit. – Les modifications apportées à cet accord ont pour but d'en simplifier le fonctionnement et d'éliminer des restrictions commerciales inutiles entre les parties. L'accord modifié sur la reconnaissance mutuelle concernera tous les produits relevant de son champ d'application, quelle que soit leur origine.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), per iscritto. − Il mio voto è favorevole. Le modifiche apportate al testo principale dell'ARR consentiranno una maggiore flessibilità nella struttura degli allegati settoriali. Verranno eliminate inutili restrizioni agli scambi tra le parti. Inoltre verranno ridotti gli oneri amministrativi relativi alla gestione dell'accordo.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − Congratulando o relator, votei favoravelmente o presente relatório em que se pretende simplificar o funcionamento do Acordo sobre Reconhecimento Mútuo com a Austrália que entrou em vigor em 1 de janeiro de 1999. É também proposto um acordo paralelo que altera o Acordo sobre Reconhecimento Mútuo com a Nova Zelândia e que é idêntico pelo que mereceu igualmente o meu voto favorável.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), per iscritto. − Tenendo conto che gli ARR, accordi sul reciproco riconoscimento in materia di valutazione della conformità dei prodotti disciplinati, conferiscono a ciascuna delle parti l'autorità di controllare e di certificare i prodotti conformemente ai requisiti regolamentari dell'altra parte, sul suo territorio e prima dell'esportazione, e considerando che l'ARR con l'Australia è entrato in vigore il 1° gennaio 1999, si sente ora l'esigenza di migliorare e semplificare il funzionamento di tale accordo. Con l'obiettivo di consentire una maggiore flessibilità nella struttura degli allegati settoriali, eliminare inutili restrizioni agli scambi tra le parti, e ridurre gli oneri amministrativi relativi alla gestione dell'accordo, nonché agevolare e chiarire il funzionamento dell'accordo, esprimo il mio voto favorevole alla proposta.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de cette modification technique de l'accord sur la reconnaissance mutuelle en matière d'évaluation de la conformité entre la Communauté européenne et la Nouvelle-Zélande car elle permettra d'éliminer les restrictions inutiles aux échanges commerciaux entre les parties, de réduire les charges administratives liées à la gestion de l'accord et de faciliter et clarifier son fonctionnement. Aujourd'hui, c'est ce type de barrières, plus techniques que tarifaires, qu'il faut s'appliquer à supprimer pour faciliter les échanges commerciaux.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − O acordo que altera o Acordo sobre Reconhecimento Mútuo com a Austrália foi negociado com o objetivo de simplificar o funcionamento do Acordo em vigor desde 1 de janeiro de 1999. As alterações principais visam permitir um aumento da flexibilidade da estrutura dos anexos setoriais do Acordo sobre Reconhecimento Mútuo, eliminar restrições desnecessárias ao comércio entre as Partes, reduzir os encargos administrativos relacionados com a gestão do Acordo e facilitar e clarificar o funcionamento do próprio Acordo. Pelos motivos apresentados, votei a favor do documento.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. − Am votat pentru Raportul privind modificarea Acordului privind recunoaşterea reciprocă în materie de evaluare a conformităţii, de certificate şi de marcaje dintre Comunitatea Europeană şi Australia. Acordurile privind recunoaşterea reciprocă vizează să elimine barierele tehnice din calea comerţului, protejând totodată obiectivele privind sănătatea, siguranţa şi mediul ale fiecărei părţi. Acordurile privind recunoaşterea reciprocă cu Australia prevăd norme generale privind înfiinţarea organismelor de evaluare a conformităţii, precum şi norme specifice care se aplică diverselor sectoare reglementate.

Salut simplificarea funcţionării Acordului de recunoaştere reciprocă, în urma căreia se stabileşte o procedură mai simplă pentru recunoaştere reciprocă în materie de evaluare a conformităţii. Salut eliminarea normelor pentru produsele de origine industriale. De asemenea, salut revizuirea anexei sectoriale privind medicamentele şi cea privind dispozitivele medicale pentru a se ţine cont de evoluţiile tehnice şi practicile administrative.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD), na piśmie. − Głosowałem za, ponieważ celem tych zmian jest ulepszenie i uproszczenie stosowania umowy z Australią. Wprowadzone zmiany zwiększą elastyczność umowy, a także zniosą niepotrzebne ograniczenia w handlu między stronami. Zmiany pozwolą zmniejszyć obciążenia administracyjne związane ze stosowaniem umowy, a także ułatwią i wyjaśnią jej stosowanie. Nie są również przewidziane żadne skutki finansowe wynikające z wprowadzonych zmian.

Σύσταση Vital Moreira (A7-0210/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Aprovo o presente Relatório, porque se tratam de importantes acordos que melhoram o reconhecimento mútuo da avaliação de conformidade de produtos regulamentados. É fundamental levantar os obstáculos técnicos ao comércio, salvaguardando, ao mesmo tempo, os objetivos de ambas as partes em matéria de saúde, segurança e ambiente. Aprovo o relatório porque se prevê regras gerais sobre a criação de organismos de avaliação da conformidade, bem como regras específicas aplicáveis aos vários setores abrangidos.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį pranešimą dėl susitarimo dėl abipusio pripažinimo (SAP) su Naująją Zelandiją veikimo pagerinimo ir supaprastinimo. Šiuo susitarimu siekiama panaikinti technines kliūtis prekybai ir apsaugoti abiejų susitarimo šalių sveikatos, saugos ir aplinkos tikslus. Šiuo tikslu abiems susitarimo šalims suteikiami įgaliojimai savo teritorijoje prieš eksportą patikrinti ir patvirtinti, ar produktai atitinka kitos šalies reguliavimo reikalavimus. Sutinku su siūlomais susitarimo tobulinimais, įskaitant apribojimo, susijusio su pramonės produktų kilmės taisyklėmis išbraukiamu, kad SAP būtų taikomas visiems jame numatytiems produktams neatsižvelgiant į jų kilmę.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea acestui raport, deoarece susţin îmbunătăţirea şi simplificarea funcţionării acordurilor privind recunoaşterea reciprocă. Sunt de părere că toate barierele inutile trebuie eliminate din calea comerţului internaţional cât mai curând posibil. Totodată, consider că sănătatea, mediul şi siguranţa sunt deosebit de importante în acest context şi ele trebuie avute în vedere şi trebuie să fie cât mai bine protejate. Prin modificarea acordurilor se va asigura o mai mare flexibilitate şi se vor reduce sarcinile administrative în ceea ce priveşte gestionarea lor. În acelaşi timp, prin această adaptare se vizează facilitarea şi clarificarea modului de funcţionare a acordului. De asemenea, aş dori să subliniez faptul că, pe parcursul acestui proces, trebuie să se ţină cont de evoluţiile tehnice şi de actualizările sau modificările din legislaţie survenite.

  Regina Bastos (PPE), por escrito. − Os Acordos sobre Reconhecimento Mútuo (ARM) permitem a avaliação de conformidade de produtos regulamentados, que conferem a ambas as partes autoridade para testar e certificar produtos com base em requisitos regulamentares da outra parte, no seu território e antes da exportação. O seu objetivo é levantar os obstáculos técnicos ao comércio, salvaguardando, ao mesmo tempo, os objetivos em matéria de saúde, segurança e ambiente. O presente acordo que altera o ARM com a Nova Zelândia foi negociado pela Comissão com o objetivo de simplificar o funcionamento do ARM que entrou em vigor a 1 de janeiro de 1999. As suas alterações visam permitir um aumento da flexibilidade da estrutura dos anexos setoriais do ARM, eliminar restrições desnecessárias ao comércio entre as partes, reduzir os encargos administrativos relacionados com a gestão do Acordo e facilitar e clarificar o funcionamento do ARM. Pelo exposto, apoiei a presente recomendação que convida o Parlamento a aprovar o acordo.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), por escrito. − Al igual que en el caso de Australia, este informe, que tiene mi apoyo, modifica el Acuerdo sobre el reconocimiento mutuo en relación con la evaluación de la conformidad entre la Comunidad Europea y Nueva Zelanda.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Sostengo la relazione Moreira sul mutuo riconoscimento in materia di valutazione di conformità fra UE e Nuova Zelanda: il suo obiettivo è di conferire ad entrambe le parti l'autorità di controllare i prodotti destinati all'esportazione secondo reciproche regole; indubbio è il vantaggio per il commercio e per la competitività per il mercato sia dei paesi membri sia per la Nuova Zelanda.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau dėl šio pranešimo, kadangi yra galimybė pagerinti 1999 m. sausio 1 d. įsigaliojusį Susitarimą dėl abipusio pripažinimo (SAP) su Naująja Zelandija. Pakeitimai padarys lankstesnę sektorinių priedų struktūrą, pašalins šalių tarpusavio prekybos apribojimus, sumažins administracinę naštą, kuri susijusi su SAP, supaprastins bei paaiškins SAP. Norint SAP taikyti visiems jame numatytiems produktams, nepaisant jų kilmės, turėtų būti pašalintas nereikalingas apribojimas, susijęs su pramonės produktų kilmės taisyklėmis. Verta paminėti, kad Jungtiniam komitetui šalys pirmininkauja bendrai, tai visos nuorodos į Jungtinio komiteto pirmininką privalo būti išbrauktos. Svarbu pabrėžti, kad Jungtinis komitetas gali iš dalies keisti sektorinius priedus, kai atsižvelgiama į techninę pažangą ir kitus veiksmus. Taip pat reikia palengvinti atitikties vertinimo įstaigų paskyrimo, jų paskyrimo atšaukimo ir jų veiklos stabdymo tvarką, nes tik taip SAP veikimas bus supaprastintas.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), par écrit. – Mercredi 12 septembre 2012, j'ai voté en faveur de la modification de l’accord sur la reconnaissance mutuelle en matière d’évaluation de la conformité entre la Communauté européenne et la Nouvelle-Zélande. Cette modification vise à éliminer les restrictions inutiles aux échanges commerciaux entre les parties, à simplifier le fonctionnement de l'accord, mais également à réduire les charges administratives liées à la gestion de l'accord.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente relatório por considerar que o mesmo simplifica o funcionamento do Acordo sobre Reconhecimento Mútuo com a Nova Zelândia, levanta os obstáculos técnicos ao comércio – salvaguardando, ao mesmo tempo, os objetivos de ambas as partes em matéria de saúde, segurança e ambiente –, permite um aumento da flexibilidade da estrutura dos anexos setoriais do Acordo sobre Reconhecimento Mútuo, elimina restrições desnecessárias ao comércio entre as Partes, reduz os encargos administrativos relacionados com a gestão do Acordo e facilita e clarifica o funcionamento do ARM.

  Tadeusz Cymański (EFD), na piśmie. − Unia Europejska musi być otwarta nie tylko na regiony bliskie geograficznie, ale także na państwa z bardziej odległych zakątków globu. Z tego powodu podpisywane są liczne umowy bilateralne pomiędzy UE a państwami trzecimi. Umowa z Nową Zelandią jest przykładem takiej skutecznej współpracy. Zniesienie barier w handlu jest dobrym rozwiązaniem i otwiera dla UE nowe możliwości wymiany gospodarczej. Co więcej, nowa umowa nie powoduje dla UE żadnych nowych kosztów finansowych. Tym bardziej jest więc pozytywnym rozwiązaniem i otwiera wiele możliwości dla państw UE.

  Mário David (PPE), por escrito. − Os Acordos de Reconhecimento Mútuo (ARM) são acordos sobre o reconhecimento mútuo da avaliação de conformidade de produtos regulamentados. Estes Acordos conferem às partes signatárias autoridade para testar e certificar produtos com base em requisitos regulamentares da outra parte, no seu território e antes da exportação. Estes ARM são de substancial importância para o enquadramento e estabilidade das relações comerciais UE-Nova Zelândia, pois procuram eliminar entraves técnicos ao comércio, salvaguardando, ao mesmo tempo, os objetivos de ambas as partes em matéria de saúde pública, segurança e proteção do meio ambiente. Esta revisão do ARM com a Nova Zelândia introduz uma maior flexibilidade na implementação dos acordos por ambas as partes, reduz os custos administrativos relacionados com a gestão e aplicação dos acordos, facilitando ainda e clarificando os termos operacionais do Acordo. Votei a favor desta recomendação, pois sei que esta revisão ao Acordo irá contribuir para o reforço das boas relações comerciais com um país que, embora nos nossos antípodas, se encontra histórica e culturalmente ligado ao nosso continente.

  Christine De Veyrac (PPE), par écrit. – J’ai soutenu l’adoption de ce rapport qui permettra de faciliter les échanges entre l’Union européenne et la Nouvelle-Zélande. Il s’agit là d’une véritable opportunité pour les entreprises de nos territoires qui y voient de nouvelles perspectives commerciales. Faciliter réciproquement l’accès à nos marchés respectifs est une réelle chance pour nos PME, à nous de la saisir !

  Edite Estrela (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o relatório referente ao "Acordo sobre reconhecimento Mútuo em Matéria de avaliação da Conformidade entre a Comunidade Europeia e a Nova Zelândia", uma vez que visa melhorar e simplificar o funcionamento do Acordo de Reconhecimento Mútuo, permitindo uma maior flexibilidade, eliminar restrições desnecessárias e facilitar o funcionamento do mesmo.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − Tal como quanto à Austrália, a alteração do Acordo de Reconhecimento Mútuo entre a Comunidade Europeia e a Nova Zelândia procura potenciar as relações comerciais entre ambos e eliminar barreiras inúteis à circulação de produtos. Desejo que estas alterações permitam que o objetivo pretendido seja cumprido e que, apesar da distância, a proximidade civilizacional e os interesses comuns aproximem cada vez mais a União Europeia e a Nova Zelândia. Todos teríamos a ganhar com esta maior aproximação.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − O documento em apreciação, da responsabilidade do colega Vital Moreira, versa sobre uma proposta de decisão do Conselho relativa à conclusão de um Acordo entre a União Europeia (UE) e a Nova Zelândia, que altera o Acordo sobre o Reconhecimento Mútuo em Matéria de Avaliação da Conformidade entre a Comunidade Europeia e a Nova Zelândia. O Acordo agora negociado pela Comissão visa simplificar o ARM que se encontra em vigor desde o dia 1 de janeiro de 1999, cujo objetivo é que as Partes possam avaliar a conformidade dos produtos regulamentados. Com as alterações introduzidas, teremos um aumento da flexibilidade da estrutura dos anexos setoriais eliminando restrições desnecessárias ao comércio entre as Partes. Além disso, verificar-se-á a supressão da restrição relativa às regras de origem dos produtos industriais, considerada desnecessária, bem como atualizações do texto no que se refere a alterações institucionais e processuais, revogação do reconhecimento e suspensão dos organismos de avaliação de conformidade, etc., sem descurar as matérias relacionadas com a saúde, segurança e ambiente. Votei favoravelmente esta recomendação uma vez que, além de não ter implicações financeiras, aduz um conjunto significativo de melhoramentos à aplicabilidade do Acordo sobre Reconhecimento Mútuo em vigor.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Balsavau už EB ir Naujosios Zelandijos susitarimą dėl abipusio pripažinimo, skirto atitikties vertinimui. SAP – tai susitarimai dėl reglamentuojamų produktų atitikties įvertinimo abipusio pripažinimo. Pagal SAP kiekvienai susitarimo šaliai suteikiami įgaliojimai savo teritorijoje prieš eksportą patikrinti ir patvirtinti, ar produktai atitinka kitos šalies reguliavimo reikalavimus. Taigi, SAP siekiama panaikinti technines kliūtis prekybai ir apsaugoti abiejų susitarimo šalių sveikatos, saugos ir aplinkosaugos tikslus.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this recommendation. The EU remains an important trading partner for New Zealand. Our exports are mainly cars, medicaments, machinery, telecommunication equipment, transport material, and chemicals and in 2010 EU goods exports to New Zealand amounted to EUR 2.7 billon. Goods imports from New Zealand equalled EUR 2.8 billion. Because of the global recession, we must place particular emphasis on improving existing agreements in order to foster our trade. I voted in favour of this recommendation because I am confident that the agreement amending the Mutual Recognition Agreement (MRA) will lift technical barriers to trade between the EU and New Zealand while safeguarding our objectives in terms of health, environment, and safety.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I welcome this agreement with New Zealand. A parallel agreement amending the MRA with Australia, which is identical, has also been proposed.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), par écrit. – Les modifications apportées à cet accord ont pour but d'en simplifier le fonctionnement et d'introduire plus de flexibilité dans les annexes sectorielles. Il supprime par ailleurs les restrictions commerciales inutiles entre les parties ainsi que des charges administratives.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − Atento o relatório favorável da Comissão do Comércio Internacional, votei positivamente a presente resolução legislativa do Parlamento Europeu sobre a proposta de decisão do Conselho relativa à conclusão do Acordo entre a União Europeia e a Nova Zelândia, que altera o Acordo sobre Reconhecimento Mútuo em Matéria de Avaliação da Conformidade entre a Comunidade Europeia e a Nova Zelândia.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), per iscritto. − Parallelamente alla proposta di modifica dell'accordo sul reciproco riconoscimento con l'Australia, è stato proposta una modifica dell'ARR con la Nuova Zelanda entrato in vigore il 1° gennaio 1999. Considerando che gli ARR sono accordi sul reciproco riconoscimento in materia di valutazione della conformità dei prodotti disciplinati, che conferiscono a ciascuna delle parti l'autorità di controllare e di certificare i prodotti conformemente ai requisiti regolamentari dell'altra parte, sul suo territorio e prima dell'esportazione, e auspicando una maggiore flessibilità nella struttura degli allegati settoriali, eliminando inutili restrizioni agli scambi tra le parti, e riducendo gli oneri amministrativi relativi alla gestione dell'accordo, esprimo il mio voto favorevole alla proposta.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de cette modification technique de l'accord sur la reconnaissance mutuelle en matière d’évaluation de la conformité entre la Communauté européenne et la Nouvelle-Zélande car elle permettra d'éliminer les restrictions inutiles aux échanges commerciaux entre les parties, de réduire les charges administratives liées à la gestion de l'accord et de faciliter et de clarifier son fonctionnement. Aujourd'hui, c'est ce type de barrières, plus techniques que tarifaires, que nous devons nous appliquer à supprimer pour faciliter les échanges commerciaux.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de cet accord. Il n'est que la suite logique du premier accord de reconnaissance mutuelle conclu avec la Nouvelle­Zélande. L'objectif en est de simplifier le fonctionnement de l'accord sur la reconnaissance mutuelle, entré en vigueur le 1er janvier 1999. Ce texte permet par exemple de lever les obstacles techniques aux échanges commerciaux tout en précisant les objectifs de chacune des parties dans les domaines de la santé, de la sécurité et de l'environnement.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − O acordo que altera o Acordo sobre Reconhecimento Mútuo com a Nova Zelândia foi negociado com o objetivo de simplificar o funcionamento do Acordo em vigor desde 1 de janeiro de 1999. As alterações principais visam permitir um aumento da flexibilidade da estrutura dos anexos setoriais do Acordo sobre Reconhecimento Mútuo, eliminar restrições desnecessárias ao comércio entre as Partes, reduzir os encargos administrativos relacionados com a gestão do Acordo e facilitar e clarificar o funcionamento do próprio Acordo. Pelos motivos apresentados, votei a favor do documento.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. − Am votat pentru proiectul de decizie a Consiliului privind încheierea Acordului dintre Uniunea Europeană şi Noua Zeelandă de modificare a Acordului dintre Comunitatea Europeană şi Noua Zeelandă privind recunoaşterea reciprocă în materie de evaluare a conformităţii. Proiectul de modificare a Acordului privind recunoaşterea reciprocă (ARR) cu Noua Zeelandă a fost negociat de către Comisie cu obiectivul de a îmbunătăţi şi simplifica funcţionarea Acordului de recunoaştere reciprocă.

Acordurile de recunoaştere reciprocă vizează să elimine barierele tehnice din calea comerţului, protejând, totodată, obiectivele privind sănătatea, siguranţa şi mediul ale fiecărei părţi. Acordul de recunoaştere reciprocă cu Noua Zeelandă prevede, în partea sa principală, normele generale privind înfiinţarea organismelor de evaluare a conformităţii. Scopul modificărilor aduse este acela de a permite o mai mare flexibilitate a structurii şi de a elimina restricţiile inutile din calea comerţului între părţi, de a reduce sarcina administrativă şi de a facilita şi clarifica funcţionarea acordului. Este necesară stabilirea unei proceduri mai simple pentru recunoaşterea, retragerea recunoaşterii şi suspendarea organismelor de evaluare a conformităţii.

Έκθεση Pat the Cope Gallagher (A7-0146/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Aprovo o presente Relatório, primeiramente por uma questão de justiça, pois não considero justo que, enquanto há regiões como a minha que praticam uma pesca sustentável, ao mesmo tempo outros Estados-Membros não cumprem os mesmos requisitos e podem até colocar em causa as unidades populacionais de diferentes regiões marinhas europeias. Qualquer flagrante falta de boa vontade para se trabalhar em obediência a medidas acordadas tem de ter como contrapartida uma ação firme. Uma vez que é um lucrativo mercado de destino para os produtos da pesca, a UE tem uma responsabilidade especial na salvaguarda da sustentabilidade do setor e na observância da gestão partilhada das populações de peixes transzonais e altamente migratórias. Afigura-se, por isso, necessário dotar a UE de meios eficazes para agir contra qualquer Estado refractário à assunção dessa responsabilidade, ou que não coopere na adoção e aplicação das medidas de gestão acordadas para desincentivar a pesca desprovida de sustentabilidade. Por conseguinte, apoio sem reservas a proposta da Comissão no sentido de se usar o comércio e outro tipo de medidas em situações análogas às descritas, mas que seja igualmente enviada uma inequívoca mensagem política que inclua uma abordagem mais clara e medidas mais fortes e eficazes.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį pasiūlymą dėl priemonių, susijusių su valstybėmis, kurios leidžia vykdyti netausią žvejybą, taikymo. Dėl nuolatinių JT jūrų teisės konvencijos ir susitarimo dėl žuvų išteklių pažeidimų, bei dėl veiksmų, kurių imamasi pažeidžiant nustatytus reikalavimus valstybėms bendradarbiauti valdant migruojančių žuvų rūšių išteklius, būtina priimti teisinę priemonę, pagal kurią ES galėtų imtis veiksmų prieš nenorinčias bendradarbiauti valstybes. Siekiant mažinti neigiamą poveikį žuvų ištekliams būtina valstybėms narėms nustatyti atitinkamas sankcijas, todėl pritariu išdėstytiems siūlymams dėl žuvininkystės produktų kiekybinių importo į ES apribojimų nustatymo valstybėms, kurios leidžia vykdyti netausią žvejybą. Taip pat reikėtų uždrausti žvejybos laivų bei žvejybos įrangos eksportą į tokias valstybes, bei uždrausti tokių valstybių piliečiams sudaryti privačius prekybos susitarimus su kitomis valstybėmis.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE), por escrito. − He votado a favor porque este Reglamento ayudará a cumplir el objetivo de conseguir una cooperación entre los Estados a fin de tener una pesca sostenible, con el instrumento destinado a sancionar a aquellos que sobreexploten las poblaciones y no contribuyan al mantenimiento de las mismas.

Por ello, comparto la necesidad de control sobre Islandia y las Islas Feroe, debido a su comportamiento en la pesca de la caballa. Con la modificación no podrán utilizar puertos de la UE para el desembarque de sus capturas, y dicha modificación también supone la imposibilidad de importaciones.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Ho votato a favore della relazione del collega Gallagher, perché sono d’accordo sull’imposizione di misure d’intervento più severe verso quei Paesi terzi che ripetutamente violano gli accordi circa l’attuazione di una pesca non sostenibile, che di conseguenza causano danni ingenti agli stock ittici transnazionali, cioè quelli “di interesse comune”. Perciò condivido le restrizioni, suggerite in questa relazione, in merito alla quantità delle importazioni consentite, all’uso dei porti europei e al divieto di pesca congiunta tra i pescherecci di Paesi che attuano una pesca non sostenibile e quelli dei Paesi membri.

  Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau dėl šio pranešimo, kadangi būtina priimti teisinę priemonę, pagal kurią ES galėtų imtis veiksmingų, nuo netausios žvejybos atgrasančių veiksmų prieš valstybes, kurios nenori bendradarbiauti priimant ir įgyvendinant sutartas valdymo priemones, kurios pakartotinai pažeidinėja JT jūrų teisės konvenciją ir JT susitarimą dėl žuvų išteklių, taip pat kurios imasi vienašalių veiksmų, neatsižvelgiant į nustatytus reikalavimus. Privaloma imtis griežtų veiksmų bet kokio pažeidimo atveju, nes kitaip nebus sustabdytas daromas neigiamas poveikis ES žuvininkystės veiklai ir bus smarkiai išeikvoti žuvų ištekliai. Taigi, vienareikšmė politinė pozicija, įskaitant aiškią koncepciją ir veiksmingas priemones, yra būtina.

  Vito Bonsignore (PPE), per iscritto. − Secondo il rapporto FAO del 2010, il consumo medio pro capite di prodotti ittici è raddoppiato dagli anni 60 ad oggi: il pesce è la prima materia prima dell'industria alimentare per volume di scambio, per un valore stimato nel 2008 a 102 miliardi di dollari.

Non deve sorprendere quindi che una quota di stock ittici sia sotto ricorrente minaccia di impoverimento e che la questione degli equilibri ambientali e alimentari richieda la massima responsabilità e concrete attività di contrasto alla pesca illegale, il cui giro d'affari, secondo alcune organizzazioni ambientaliste, supererebbe il 25% del valore del mercato globale.

Come stakeholder primario in questo mercato, l'Unione ha il dovere (per un fatto di autotutela e di equità) di far leva sui mercati per incentivare paesi meno sensibili ad ottemperare agli obblighi di gestione degli stock stabiliti dalle convenzioni. Approvo pertanto la relazione.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), par écrit. – La Commission européenne doit tenir compte, lorsqu’elle souhaite sanctionner un pays qui pratique une pêche non durable, du niveau de développement de celui-ci. En effet, au nom du principe de la cohérence des politiques avec les objectifs du développement, il est crucial, selon moi, que les mesures adoptées en matière de pêche ne remettent pas en cause les plans et stratégies de développement mis en place par l’Union européenne dans ces pays. J'ai apporté mon soutien à ce rapport car il reprend cette idée importante pour notre commission du développement en prévoyant que les mesures ne doivent pas être injustifiées, ni même discriminatoires.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente relatório por considerar que a UE tem uma responsabilidade especial na salvaguarda da sustentabilidade do setor das pescas e na observância da gestão partilhada das populações de peixes transzonais e altamente migratórias.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), per iscritto. − La gestione di stock ittici altamente migratori, richiede la costante cooperazione e la consultazione diretta tra i paesi le cui flotte sfruttano tale stock, scongiurando il rischio di misure unilaterali potenzialmente dannose per la sostenibilità a lungo termine delle risorse. D'altro canto, è sulla UE che ricade la responsabilità di garantire che quest'obbligo di cooperazione venga rispettato e che gli Stati Membri non adottino azioni unilaterali in contrasto con l'interesse generale alla conservazione dell'ecosistema marittimo. Tuttavia, oltre a misure efficaci, per poter assolvere a questo compito, è necessario dotare la UE di strumenti di controllo adeguati. Come per altri settori, la concorrenza sfrenata tra gli Stati membri può determinare conseguenze negative. Per questo si è scelto di sostenere le misure previste dalla direttiva, in particolare, quelle finalizzate a imporre restrizioni quantitative delle importazioni nell'Unione di pesce, qualora pescato sullo stock di interesse comune sotto il controllo di un Paese terzo. Analogamente si plaude all'introduzione di strumenti per garantire che le misure adottate siano efficaci, proporzionate e compatibili con le norme internazionali, oltre che rispettose degli standard ambientali, commerciali, economici e sociali.

  Diane Dodds (NI), in writing. − I voted for this report in the hope that the sanctions that this report will enable will help to bring an end to the disgraceful situation that is ongoing between the EU, Iceland and the Faroe Islands over the issue of the mackerel catch. The EU has in its reform of the CFP spent the past three years talking about sustainable fishing and the rebuilding of fish stocks. Mackerel is a very sustainable stock, in fact it was so well managed that it was awarded accreditation for sustainable management. Following the unilateral hike in the mackerel catch by Iceland and the Faroe Islands the stock has been overfished and has had its accreditation suspended and we are now in danger of destroying the fishery and the industry around it. All reasonable attempts at mediation over the past two years have simply failed. We need to be able to employ reasonable sanctions against those who ignore negotiations. I hope this report will strengthen the Commission’s hand and I will be monitoring the Commission’s actions closely following today’s vote.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o relatório sobre as "Medidas em relação aos países que desenvolvem uma pesca não sustentável para efeitos da conservação das unidades populacionais de peixes", por considerar necessário dotar a UE de meios para que possa tomar medidas eficazes contra os Estados que não adotem as medidas de gestão acordadas, e deste modo, desincentivar a continuação desta pesca insustentável.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − A organização e o funcionamento dos mercados dos produtos da pesca e da aquicultura tem implicações quer na sustentabilidade dos recursos haliêuticos e dos ecossistemas marinhos, quer na saúde pública e segurança alimentar das populações. As novas disposições pretendem reforçar o papel das organizações de produtores e suavizar as normas de comercialização para os produtos frescos. As exigências atuais de informação ao consumidor para os produtos frescos (o nome comercial, nome científico, a indicação da zona de captura ou de produção, as palavras capturados ou cultivados, menção descongelado se houver) são completadas com a indicação da data da captura ou da produção; ou a palavra fresco ou congelado.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − Todos sabemos que os recursos do Planeta não são inesgotáveis. Este aspeto torna-se muito mais relevante quando estamos a falar de recursos diretamente ligados à alimentação humana. O aumento da população mundial exige cada vez mais recursos e não podemos permitir a delapidação dos ecossistemas. O relatório em análise da responsabilidade de Pat the Cope Gallagher aborda a proposta de regulamento do Parlamento Europeu (PE) e do Conselho sobre a aplicação de certas medidas aos estados que praticam (ou permitem) uma pesca ambientalmente não sustentável, pondo em causa a manutenção das unidades populacionais de peixes. Está em causa a ausência de uma política de pesca sustentável, sobretudo no que respeita à captura do carapau. Não é aceitável o que aconteceu com a Islândia (e não só) que aumentou, unilateralmente, as suas capturas. Tem de haver um acordo entre os Estados-Membros pois cada um não pode fazer o que lhe apetece. Votei favoravelmente as propostas do relator pois concordo que a pesca, tanto dentro como fora do espaço da União Europeia, deve ser sustentável.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − A Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre o Direito do Mar, bem como o Acordo das Nações Unidas relativo às populações de peixes, impõem que os Estados costeiros e os Estados cujas frotas pesquem nas unidades populacionais de peixes nas águas do alto mar adjacentes cooperem para gerir, de uma forma responsável, as populações de peixes transzonais e altamente migradores e as unidades populacionais que se encontram nas ZEE adjacentes, a fim de assegurar a sua sustentabilidade a longo prazo, quer através da consulta mútua direta, quer através das organizações regionais de gestão das pescas (ORGP). Sendo um mercado de destino relevante e lucrativo para os produtos da pesca, a UE tem uma responsabilidade especial para garantir o cumprimento desta obrigação de cooperação. A presente proposta visa instituir um mecanismo rápido e eficaz que permita utilizar as medidas ligadas ao comércio e outros tipos de medidas em relação aos Estados que não respeitem as suas obrigações. Acompanhamos as propostas do relator. As medidas comerciais a implementar não devem circunscrever-se às importações de "unidades populacionais de interesse comum" e de "espécies associadas", mas aplicar-se a todas as importações de peixe e produtos da pesca da totalidade das espécies originárias de países que pactuam com a existência de uma atividade pesqueira não sustentável.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. − The EU’s controversial policy of allowing dead fish caught over-quota to be thrown back in the sea, so-called fish discards, is finally being brought to an end through a number of reforms to its common fisheries policy. However, unsustainable fishing practices are likely to continue outside the EU. This report therefore calls for the EU to use sanctions against countries who fish unsustainably on fish stocks that are of importance to the EU. This would allow it to prohibit imports of fish that have been caught unsustainably. Given the recent actions taken by Iceland and the Faroe Islands, where they have set themselves mackerel quotas that are way above their historical levels, I can add my support to this proposal.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Balsavau už Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentą dėl priemonių, susijusių su valstybėmis, kurios leidžia vykdyti netausią žvejybą, taikymo siekiant išsaugoti žuvų išteklius. Dokumentu siekiama nustatyti apribojimus naudotis Sąjungos uostais su valstybių, kurios leidžia vykdyti netausią žvejybą, vėliavomis plaukiojantiems žvejybos laivams, tačiau šie apribojimai netaikomi susiklosčius force majeure aplinkybėms ar ištikus nelaimei, kai reikia teikti su šių situacijų pasekmių šalinimu tiesiogiai susijusias paslaugas. Taigi naujuoju reglamentu prisidedama prie tausios ir atsakingos žvejybos skatinimo ir įgyvendinimo tarptautiniu mastu, o taip pat jis yra glaudžiai susijęs su reglamentu dėl neteisėtos, nedeklaruojamos ir nereglamentuojamos žvejybos.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), par écrit. – La Convention des Nations unies sur le droit de la mer et l'accord des Nations unies sur les stocks de poissons imposent aux États côtiers et aux États dont les flottes pêchent dans les zones de haute mer adjacentes de coopérer pour gérer de manière responsable l'ensemble des stocks afin d'assurer leur viabilité à long terme. Le rapport de mon collègue Gallagher a été adopté en séance plénière le 12 septembre et je m'en félicite. Il s'agit de répondre à la surexploitation massive des maquereaux en Islande et dans les îles Féroé. Au vu des violations répétées commises, l'UE a décidé de mettre en place un nouvel arsenal de mesures afin de décourager la poursuite des activités de pêche non durables.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because I believe that the European Union should have the means to take appropriate measures against those countries that fish unsustainably. This should even include the ability to impose quantitative restrictions on imports of fish into the EU from these countries. When imposing these restrictions, the Commission should evaluate environmental, trade, economic and social effects of the measures to ensure that they are proportionate and compatible with international trade. The Parliament should be informed of this evaluation.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I supported this proposal. The aim of which is for a Commission regulation is to promote cooperation between States in order to establish truly sustainable fishing practices which conserve fish stocks and ensure their optimal use. To achieve this, the European Union needs to have suitable and effective tools so it can impose sanctions on States which are responsible for measures and practices that lead to over-exploitation of stocks or which do not cooperate in good faith by taking agreed management measures.

  Véronique Mathieu (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur du rapport sur des mesures relatives aux pays autorisant une pêche non durable. Suite au constat d'une surexploitation des stocks, notamment de maquereaux, dans les mers de l'Atlantique du Nord-Est, ce rapport a pour objectif d'adopter des sanctions commerciales à l'encontre des États qui ne s'engageraient pas dans une gestion responsable des stocks, et mettent ainsi en péril une viabilité à long terme.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), per iscritto. − Le ripetute violazioni della convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sul diritto del mare e dell'accordo delle Nazioni Unite sugli stock ittici, rendono urgente la creazione di un appropriato strumento giuridico che consenta all'UE di rispondere alla mancanza di cooperazione di cui gli Stati interessati hanno dato prova. Concordo appieno con il relatore su questo punto, il mio voto è pertanto favorevole.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – Ce rapport propose de prendre des mesures drastiques pour faire respecter la Convention des Nations unies sur le droit de la mer et l'Accord des Nations unies sur les stocks de poisson. Il rappelle que ces mesures ne doivent en aucun cas être prises de façon discriminatoire ou arbitraire. Bien que je n'aie pas confiance en la neutralité de la Commission européenne en la matière, je vote pour ce texte, en soutien à son idée centrale.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea raportului, însă consider că Parlamentul ar fi trebuit să fie mult mai insistent în a cere măsuri ferme. UE are o responsabilitate deosebită nu numai în a asigura un pescuit durabil, ci şi în a proteja pescarii europeni, supuşi unor reguli stricte şi costisitoare. Pescarii europeni sunt grav defavorizaţi în cazul competiţiei neloiale a pescarilor din statele care refuză sistematic să respecte orice regulă.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − A gestão responsável e a exploração sustentável dos recursos haliêuticos devem ser imperativos da UE e de todos os Estados-Membros. Neste contexto, a proteção e conservação das unidades populacionais assume um papel crucial. Em particular, a UE tem uma responsabilidade especial na salvaguarda da gestão partilhada de populações piscícolas transzonais e altamente migratórias. Por este motivo, a UE necessita dispor de meios eficazes para agir contra os Estados que não cooperem na adoção e aplicação das medidas de gestão acordadas para desincentivar as actividades pesqueiras irresponsáveis e não sustentáveis. Por concordar com os motivos expostos, votei favoravelmente este relatório sobre a adoção de medidas em relação aos países que permitem uma pesca não sustentável.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), per iscritto. − Considerando le ripetute violazioni della convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sul diritto del mare e dell'accordo delle Nazioni Unite sugli stock ittici, nonché le azioni unilaterali intraprese in spregio dei requisiti di cooperazione imposti dalle organizzazioni regionali di gestione della pesca (ORGP) agli Stati costieri per la gestione responsabile degli stock ittici transzonali e degli stock ittici altamente migratori, si rende necessaria la creazione di un appropriato strumento giuridico che consenta all'UE di rispondere alla mancanza di cooperazione di cui gli Stati interessati hanno dato prova. Sottolineando la responsabilità dell'UE nel garantire un'attività di pesca sostenibile e il rispetto degli obblighi derivanti dalla gestione comune degli stock ittici transzonali e migratori e, dunque, l'importanza di fornirle i mezzi che le consentano di adottare misure efficaci nei confronti degli Stati che non sono disposti ad assumersi una tale responsabilità, esprimo il mio voto favorevole alla proposta.

  Maurice Ponga (PPE), par écrit. – En tant que rapporteur pour avis de la commission du développement sur le rapport de M. Gallagher, il me paraissait important de rappeler que la Commission européenne doit tenir compte, lorsqu’elle souhaite sanctionner un pays qui pratique une pêche non durable, du niveau de développement de celui-ci. En effet, au nom du principe de la cohérence des politiques avec les objectifs du développement, il est crucial, selon moi, que les mesures adoptées en matière de pêche ne remettent pas en cause les plans et stratégies de développement mis en place par l’Union européenne dans ces pays. Le projet de rapport de M. Gallagher reprend cette idée importante pour notre commission du développement en prévoyant que les mesures ne doivent pas être injustifiées, ni même discriminatoires. J’invite donc la Commission européenne, quand elle adoptera de telles mesures, à respecter ce principe de cohérence des politiques avec les objectifs du développement et que le niveau de développement et la vulnérabilité des pays soient dûment pris en compte.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), per iscritto. − Oggi, durante la sessione plenaria di Strasburgo, si è votata la relazione dell'on. Gallagher.

Il regolamento adottato permette l'utilizzo di sanzioni commerciali nei confronti dei paesi terzi che consentono una pesca non sostenibile e dei prodotti ittici provenienti da stock d'interesse comune. Queste misure dovrebbero scoraggiare l'eccessivo sfruttamento di talune specie di pesci nel nord Atlantico.

Anche se la normativa può essere applicata contro i paesi terzi, la situazione nel nord Atlantico è anche nostro interesse. L'Islanda ha unilateralmente aumentato la sua cattura di sgombri da 363 tonnellate nel 2005, a 147 000 nel 2012. La quota delle Isole Faroe per gli sgombri è salita da 27 830 tonnellate nel 2009 a 149 000 tonnellate nel 2012.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I voted in favour. The EU, on the one hand, and Iceland and the Faroes, on the other, have been waging a (mostly) diplomatic war over quotas for mackerel in the North Atlantic.

Following changes in the migration route of mackerel, first Iceland and then the Faroes have asserted that the stock comes into their waters and so are claiming a quota. The EU, the largest fisher of the stock, is willing in principle to agree to this, but negotiations have stalled for several years over the actual amount. As a result, mackerel is being severely over-fished because the EU and Norway maintain their historical quotas and Iceland and the Faroes have declared large unilateral quotas. Total catches thus far exceed the scientific advice.

The EU’s room for manoeuvre is limited, especially since most of the Commission and the CSL do not consider fish important enough to derail the accession negotiations with Iceland. Virtually all it can do is to prohibit landings of mackerel by Iceland-flagged vessels in EU ports, but that amounts to almost nothing, as alternative ways into the EU are easily available.

  Licia Ronzulli (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho votato a favore di questo documento perché ritengo necessario che la Commissione europea abbia maggiori poteri per vietare le importazioni di pesce nell'UE proveniente da stock ittici eccessivamente sfruttati.

Attraverso le nuove norme sarà possibile scoraggiare il sovrasfruttamento di pesci come lo sgombro, a danno soprattutto dell'Islanda e delle Isole Faroe. Ora sarà necessario portare avanti una riforma globale della politica della pesca che sia in grado di renderla più sostenibile a livello ambientale.

  Oreste Rossi (EFD), per iscritto. − Questa relazione è finalmente una risposta a quei paesi terzi che si affacciano sul Mediterraneo e non solo e che continuano a violare gli accordi sugli stock ittici e la Convenzione delle Nazioni Unite sul diritto del mare.

È impensabile continuare a vessare i pescatori europei con norme e limitazioni che da una parte riducono il reddito, dall'altra obbligano gli Stati membri a finanziare le flotte danneggiate quando altri paesi a noi vicini, non rispettando le regole, pescano in modo non sostenibile.

Quindi il fatto di vietare l'importazione del pescato dai paesi terzi che si comportano in modo non corretto tutela i nostri pescatori e disincentiva i trasgressori.

  Νικόλαος Σαλαβράκος (EFD), γραπτώς. – Υπερψήφισα την έκθεση του κυρίου Gallagher καθώς προτείνει μέτρα για την ενίσχυση της αποτελεσματικότητας της ΕΕ για την εφαρμογή των συμφωνημένων μέτρων διαχείρισης των ιχθυαποθεμάτων εις τρόπον ώστε να δημιουργηθούν αντικίνητρα για τη μη βιώσιμη αλιεία.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – J'ai voté totalement en faveur de ce texte. Il est important que l'Union se dote d'un instrument juridique approprié lui permettant de réagir au manque de coopération des États qui s'obstinent à violer les règles de quotas, par exemple, et mettent ainsi en péril notre avenir. Des sanctions hautement dissuasives doivent également être prévues contre les contrevenants.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − A União Europeia deve ter um instrumento jurídico adequado que lhe permita reagir aos comportamentos dos Estados que não cooperem com as normas da Convenção das Nações Unidas sobre o Direito do Mar e do Acordo das Nações Unidas sobre as Unidades Populacionais de Peixes, bem como com os requisitos impostos pelas Organizações Regionais de Gestão das Pescas para a gestão responsável de unidades populacionais de peixes. A União Europeia tem uma responsabilidade especial na salvaguarda da sustentabilidade do setor e na observância da gestão partilhada das populações de peixes transzonais e altamente migratórias e deve, por isso, ser dotada de meios eficazes para agir. Tais medidas devem aplicar-se a todas as importações de peixe e produtos da pesca da totalidade das espécies originárias de países que pactuam com a existência de uma atividade pesqueira não sustentável.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur du rapport sur les mesures prises à des fins de conservation des stocks halieutiques relatives aux pays autorisant une pêche non durable. Le contenu de ce rapport est crucial, car il vise notamment à assurer une concurrence loyale entre pêcheurs européens et pays tiers. Face à une législation européenne ambitieuse pour préserver la ressource halieutique, il est impératif de nous assurer que notre activité de pêche ne devienne pas une activité délocalisable à moindre coûts environnementaux. On évoque donc dans ce rapport la possibilité de limiter l'importation des produits de la pêche provenant des pays autorisant une pêche non durable, de limiter la fourniture de services portuaires pour les navires battant pavillon de ceux-ci, ou bien d'empêcher les navires de pêche de l'Union d'exploiter les stocks d'intérêt commun sous la responsabilité du pays autorisant une pêche non durable. Je note cependant avec regret que ce rapport est entièrement au conditionnel, j'espère donc que la Commission européenne fera prochainement une proposition juridiquement contraignante en la matière.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. − Am votat pentru Raportul privind măsurile aplicabile ţărilor care permit pescuitul nedurabil, în scopul conservării stocurilor de peşte. Prezentul regulament stabileşte un cadru pentru adoptarea anumitor măsuri cu privire la activităţile şi politicile legate de pescuit ale ţărilor terţe, pentru a asigura conservarea pe termen lung a stocurilor de interes comun pentru Uniune şi ţările terţe respective. Măsurile aplicabile ţărilor care permit pescuitul nedurabil trebuie să fie proporţionale cu obiectivele urmărite şi compatibile cu obligaţiile impuse de acordurile internaţionale la care Uniunea este parte şi cu orice alte norme relevante ale dreptului internaţional.

Consider necesară impunerea unor restricţii cantitative la importurile de peşte din orice specie asociată şi de produse pescăreşti obţinute din sau care conţin astfel de peşte, atunci când acesta este capturat în cadrul unor activităţi de pescuit care vizează stocul de interes comun, sub controlul ţărilor care permit pescuitul nedurabil. Pentru a se asigura că măsurile respectă mediul şi sunt durabile, eficiente, proporţionale şi compatibile cu normele internaţionale, Comisia trebuie să evalueze efectele comerciale, de mediu, economice şi sociale ale acestor măsuri atât pe termen scurt, cât şi pe termen lung, precum şi sarcina administrativă asociată punerii în aplicare a acestora.

  Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − I have voted in favour of this important resolution, which will allow the Commission to take action against countries who fail to cooperate with the EU in its pursuit of preserving sustainable fish stocks. This is a particular necessity in light of the current dispute over the overfishing of mackerel in the North East Atlantic, and will empower the EU to ban imports of fish originating from stocks it considers to have been fished in an unsustainable manner. At a time when many species are under threat, it is imperative that we take this opportunity to work towards the common goal of preserving fish stocks for the future.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − In the past repeated infringements of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement took place. The European Union is responsible for ensuring sustainable fishing, and therefore an appropriate legal rule is needed to give the EU the ability to react to uncooperative behaviour by States.

  Glenis Willmott (S&D), in writing. − This is an important piece of legislation as it will allow the EU to impose sanctions on countries that fish unsustainably on fish stocks that are important to the EU. The EU will now be able to prohibit imports of fish that it considers to have been fished unsustainably by the exporting country. Certain states have so far been unwilling to enact internationally agreed measures to preserve fish stocks but, as a major market for fish products, the EU is well placed to challenge them. This legislation will enable us to do that.

Έκθεση Struan Stevenson (A7-0217/2012)

  Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Aprovo o presente Relatório, considerando que a PCP reformada deve reforçar as Organizações de Produtores de modo a desempenharem um papel mais significativo na gestão corrente das pescas no âmbito dum sistema mais regionalizado, bem como deve ser incentivada a criação de Organizações de Produtores transnacionais com vista à criação de condições de igualdade para todos os envolvidos no setor da pesca. A OCM futura tem também de contribuir de forma positiva para um desenvolvimento dinâmico do setor da aquicultura da UE para melhor responder ao aumento da procura de peixe num contexto de diminuição das populações de peixes selvagens. A utilização da tecnologia moderna para melhorar a inteligência de mercado deve ser promovida no quadro do futuro Fundo Europeu das Pescas e dos Assuntos Marítimos. O mecanismo de intervenção no mercado da UE proposto está limitado a um único sistema de armazenagem. Contudo, qualquer sistema que interfira com o mercado livre deve ser tratado com muito cuidado e deve ser aplicado numa base de cooperação envolvendo todas as OP e permitindo a maior flexibilidade possível, sempre protegendo os interesses das regiões marinhas e insulares fortemente dependentes da pesca, nomeadamente as Regiões Ultraperiféricas.

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL), in writing. − Whilst there are certainly some positive aspects to this report, I have abstained on the final vote. The CFP must have small fishing industries at its heart and not become a tool of big business. Whilst addressing some important concerns, such as that of discards, I believe that there should be more of an emphasis on small communities and ensuring the future of the sector and coastal communities.

  Marta Andreasen (EFD), in writing. − I voted against this proposal and legislative resolution because I believe the common fisheries policy cannot be reformed, least of all by its authors (the Commission). It has caused such damage to the industry and to fish that it is irreformable. I believe that power on this policy, as on others, should be returned to the Member States.

  Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį pasiūlymą dėl bendro žuvininkystės ir akvakultūros produktų rinkų organizavimo. Atsižvelgiant į Bendros žuvininkystės politikos reformos tikslus bei siekiant skatinti tvarią gamybinę veiklą organizacijos įgaliojimai turėtų būti peržiūrėti. Pritariu siūlymams labiau įtraukti gamintojų organizacijas į žuvininkystės valdymą, stiprinti jų ekonominį gyvybingumą, skatinti kurti tarptautines gamintojų organizacijas. Kitas labai svarbus šio pranešimo klausimas yra susijęs su žuvininkystės produktų ženklinimu. Labai svarbu užtikrinti ir didinti vartotojų informuotumą apie žuvininkystės produktus. Vartojai privalo gauti išsamesnę informaciją apie perkamą žuvininkystės produktą, todėl turėtų būti nurodoma krovinio iškrovimo data, o tausiai sužvejotiems produktams turėtų būti suteiktas ES ekologinis ženklas.

  Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), în scris. − Organizarea comună a pieţei produselor piscicole şi de acvacultură presupune şi stabilirea unui preţ de orientare înaintea fiecărui sezon de pescuit, întemeiat pe media preţurilor de pe pieţele cu ridicata şi din porturile reprezentative în cursul ultimelor trei sezoane şi orientat în funcţie de tendinţele producţiei şi ale cererii, precum şi de necesităţile stabilizării pieţei, susţinerii veniturilor producătorilor şi apărării intereselor consumatorilor.

Un al doilea preţ comunitar, cel de retragere de pe piaţă a produselor ce nu pot fi vândute peste sau cel puţin la nivelul lui, este stabilit în funcţie de calitatea peştelui, dar el trebuie să reprezinte între 90% şi 70% din preţul de orientare. În interiorul acestei benzi, organizaţiile producătorilor pot ele însele stabili preţuri de retragere sub care nu vor vinde produsele furnizate de membrii lor, caz în care cantităţile excedentare vor fi retrase de pe piaţă, iar producătorilor le este plătită o indemnizaţie, acordată din fondul de intervenţie constituit de către ele din cotizaţiile producătorilor, stabilite în funcţie de cantităţile deduse de fiecare spre vânzare.

  Philippe Boulland (PPE), par écrit. – Mardi 11 septembre 2012, j'ai voté en faveur de la proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil portant organisation commune des marchés dans le secteur des produits de la pêche et de l'aquaculture. Cette proposition est de bon augure : il est en effet important de consolider le rôle des organisations de producteurs dans la gestion de la production et de la commercialisation des produits de la pêche et de l'aquaculture et de les impliquer au maximum dans la régulation économique de leur secteur d'activité. Par ailleurs, je soutiens la volonté d'afficher un étiquetage plus complet à destination du consommateur: la date de capture ou de production sera dorénavant mentionnée.

  John Bufton, Derek Roland Clark and William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), in writing. − UKIP abstained on the final vote of this report. Although there are elements to CFP reform which will give a small bit of relief to the fishing industry – and any changes to the current disastrous CFP rules is a step forward for the industry which the EU itself has destroyed – the only way we can save our stocks and fishing industry is to scrap the CFP altogether and repatriate it back to national governments accountable by the ballot box. The EU has no democratic mandate to create law in the UK and we cannot legitimise the process. UKIP did support amendments which decentralised power back to Member States and those which would cut red tape and costs to our fishing industry.

  Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente relatório por considerar fundamental o reforço e internacionalização das organizações de produtores (OP) que contrabalançam o poder dos retalhistas e são eficazes em assegurar preços realistas para as capturas desembarcadas pelos seus membros.

  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), per iscritto. − La relazione rappresenta uno dei cardini della riforma della PCP, aumentandone la competitività, in particolare dei produttori e, tuttavia, essa presenta aspetti di primaria importanza anche per la salute e per la fiducia dei consumatori nel settore. Sotto questo aspetto, l'interesse dei consumatori e il soddisfacimento delle loro esigenze di chiarezza e di trasparenza devono diventare il faro delle nostre politiche comuni, perché possono rappresentare uno strumento di stimolo all'acquisto, tanto più in un momento di crollo delle vendite, quando, come dimostrano tutti gli indicatori, si tende a privilegiare un acquisto consapevole e informato, inteso come sinonimo di acquisto di qualità. Per questo siamo fortemente convinti della necessità di inserire sulla confezione del prodotto non la data di sbarco del peschereccio, ma la data di effettiva cattura del pescato. Viceversa, la data di sbarco, sostenuta dalle forze moderate e conservatrici, rappresenta, oltre che un'informazione fuorviante per il consumatore, anche un'indebita intromissione a vantaggio delle grandi flottiglie - capaci di restare in mare più giorni - rispetto alle piccole imbarcazioni che restano in mare solo poche ore. Ancora una volta, ci saremmo aspettati un comportamento più razionale da parte delle forze moderate, che sono parse piegarsi agli interessi dei grandi gruppi.

  Mário David (PPE), por escrito. − Em primeiro lugar, gostaria de salientar a importância deste Relatório de Iniciativa, como espelho da opinião do Parlamento Europeu (PE) sobre a Reforma da Política Comum das Pescas (PCP) atualmente em curso. De facto, apenas em novembro próximo (previsivelmente) será votado em sede de Comissão o Regulamento do PE e do Conselho sobre a reforma da PCP. Contudo, este método que consubstancia a apresentação de "Relatórios prévios", embora mais trabalhoso e potencialmente mais demorado, parece-me bastante eficaz na Europa "pós-Lisboa", onde a busca de consensos intra e interinstitucionais se tornou preponderante para que os documentos legislativos produzidos possam efetivamente ver a "luz do dia" num prazo razoável. Dito isto, gostaria de congratular o Relator pelo excelente trabalho efetuado e desejar à colega Ulrike Rodust (relatora do regulamento conjunto) as melhores venturas para o complexo trabalho que tem em mãos. Como nota pessoal relativamente a esta reforma, e embora não faça parte da Comissão das Pescas, gostaria apenas de destacar: a absoluta importância da busca do objetivo "equilíbrio entre as três dimensões da PCP" – social, ambiental e económica; a manutenção dos apoios à renovação da frota e a busca de um modelo mais regionalizado para a gestão da PCP.

  Edite Estrela (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente este relatório sobre "Organização comum de mercados no setor dos produtos da pesca e da aquicultura", por considerar importante que a futura OCM, no quadro de uma Política Comum das Pescas, contribua de forma positiva para um desenvolvimento dinâmico do setor da aquicultura da UE. Consequentemente, haverá uma melhor resposta da OCM ao aumento da procura de peixe num contexto de diminuição de peixe selvagem. Por último, é fundamental que sejam mantidas as condições equitativas entre os produtos da pesca da UE e os produtos importados de países fora da UE.

  Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − Para a União Europeia e, sobretudo, para um país como Portugal, com vocação marítima e pesqueira, com uma forte indústria pesqueira e conserveira, é fundamental manter a pesca como uma atividade económica viável e sustentável. Portugal precisa da pesca e, como tal, precisa que o mar mantenha a sua capacidade de nos dar peixe e que as espécies mantenham intactas as suas capacidades de reprodução. Por isso mesmo, parece-me claro que deve existir um instrumento jurídico adequado para evitar comportamentos que terão como efeito um considerável esgotamento das populações de peixes, com perdas assinaláveis para a atividade da pesca na União.

  José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − O cidadão europeu, fruto da sua consciencialização ambiental, é um consumidor exigente e conhecedor dos seus direitos. Por isso, é imprescindível que a União Europeia, também neste setor, adote medidas que vão de encontro às suas normas de comercialização. O relatório em apreço, elaborado por Struan Stevenson, analisa a proposta de regulamento do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho que define a organização comum do mercado no setor dos produtos da pesca e da aquicultura. Em primeiro lugar, deve ser conferida uma atenção muito especial à informação que é prestada ao consumidor através de uma rotulagem clara, simples mas esclarecedora. O cidadão deve saber a origem do produto, data de captura, descongelamento, conhecer as cadeias de fornecimento e que a sua captura respeita as práticas sustentáveis de pesca; em segundo lugar, devem ser apoiadas as organizações de pescadores e premiadas as práticas sustentáveis de pesca; além disso, é necessário promover uma gestão sustentável dos recursos haliêuticos evitando a captura de espécies ainda jovens e a sua consequente devolução ao meio marinho. Por último, mas não menos importante, deve ser assegurado um rendimento justo aos pescadores, os quais devem ser apoiados na estabilização dos estoques com um elevado grau de previsibilidade.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − A atual OCM da pesca está longe de garantir a estabilidade dos mercados dos produtos da pesca e rendimentos justos aos produtores. Neste contexto, exigia-se uma reforma profunda e ambiciosa da OCM, que reforçasse os instrumentos públicos de intervenção e regulação dos mercados, tendo em vista garantir o rendimento do setor, a estabilidade dos mercados, a melhoria da comercialização dos produtos da pesca e o aumento do seu valor acrescentado, com uma elevação dos preços de primeira venda do pescado. Este relatório aponta para um enfraquecimento da actual OCM, desmantelando alguns dos (poucos) instrumentos de regulação ainda existentes. O objetivo é uma crescente liberalização e “orientação para o mercado”. No atual contexto do setor, este caminho revelar-se-á desastroso para inúmeros segmentos da frota, em especial para os segmentos da pesca de pequena escala. Lamentamos a rejeição de muitas das propostas que apresentámos, como sejam: • Adoção de medidas que aumentem o preço de primeira venda do pescado, tais como a instauração de margens máximas de intermediação ao longo da cadeia de valor do setor; • Instituição de uma "Opção Gestão", que possibilite aos Estados-Membros manter o poder de tomada de decisões essenciais (agora acometidas às organizações de produtores) ao nível da respectiva administração. Obviamente, votámos contra.

  Ashley Fox (ECR), in writing. − This report forms part of the EU’s legislative proposals to reform its common fisheries policy. By encouraging greater decentralisation of fisheries policy, through its regionalisation proposals, this report shall bring an end to Brussels’ flawed micromanagement of our fish stocks. This report specifically looks at the role of producer organisations and their ability to counteract the power of big retailers, whose monopoly has helped to contribute to the over-fishing of our stocks. By empowering producer organisations, we will encourage sustainable practices. Producer organisations will also be encouraged to promote an end to fish discards through using selective gear, and any financial reward for landing fish caught over-quota will be kept at a level that disincentivises a new market for by-catch. Furthermore, new labelling measures will help consumers to be better informed, allowing them to vote with their feet when it comes to sustainable fishing. This report is therefore to be strongly welcomed.

  Brice Hortefeux (PPE), par écrit. – Le Parlement européen était appelé à se prononcer, mercredi 12 septembre, sur l'organisation commune des marchés dans le secteur des produits de la pêche et de l'aquaculture dont la réforme est en cours. La politique européenne de la pêche est un enjeu important pour la France tant elle est sensible aux aléas qui touchent les pêcheurs français. Au Parlement européen, les députés de l'UMP ont dû batailler avec des députés d'autres nationalités, parfois même avec des membres de leur propre groupe politique, qui ont une vision de la pêche bien différente de la leur. Mais la position adoptée par le Parlement est à la hauteur de nos attentes. Le Parlement demande l'introduction d'un écolabel européen public et unique des produits de la pêche et de l'aquaculture d'ici 2015 qui pourra permettre aux consommateurs d'être mieux informés sur ce qu'ils consomment. Ainsi, les consommateurs devront disposer d'indications sur la zone de capture, l'appellation commerciale du produit, la date de débarquement, la mention "décongelé" si le produit est vendu parmi les produits frais. Par ailleurs, le Parlement recommande de renforcer le rôle des organisations de producteurs afin qu'ils contribuent à la stabilité du marché et à la régulation des prix.

  Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Balsavau už šį dokumentą dėl bendro žuvininkystės ir akvakultūros produktų rinkų organizavimo. Kadangi bendras žuvininkystės ir akvakultūros produktų rinkos organizavimas ateityje taip pat turi daryti teigiamą poveikį dinamiškam ES žemės ūkio sektoriaus vystymuisi, kad senkant natūralioje aplinkoje gyvenančių žuvų ištekliams būtų galima geriau patenkinti Europoje didėjančią žuvies paklausą. Akvakultūros produktų gamintojų organizacijos taip pat turėtų turėti galimybę naudotis priemonių, kuriomis būtų galima įgyvendinti skatinimo ir ryšių veiksmus nacionaliniu ir tarptautiniu lygmenimis ir užtikrinti pridėtinę vertę jų nariams, rinkiniu.

  Philippe Juvin (PPE), par écrit. – Le rapport de mon collègue Struan Stevenson a été adopté à une large majorité: 620 voix pour, 27 contre et 27 abstentions. L'OCM (Organisation commune des marchés) est la première composante de la politique commune de la pêche. Les dispositions de ce rapport visent notamment à renforcer le rôle des organisations de producteurs et à assouplir les règles de commercialisation pour les produits frais.

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report since, among other things, it helps clarify the necessary information that must be given to the consumer on fisheries products, introduces the requirement for the Commission to develop an EU wide eco-label for sustainable fishery products and creates a new regional advisory council for the outermost regions. I support efforts to reward sustainable fishing practices with an EU eco-label. For this reason, the Commission should establish minimum rules for eco-labelling and possibly introduce its own eco-label, to make it more recognisable and acceptable to the sector and to the public. It is important for consumers to be able to make an informed choice and they should be clear about which fisheries products have been frozen and defrosted, particularly with regard to ‘fresh fish’ products.

  Giovanni La Via (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho espresso voto favorevole alla relazione dell’on. Stevenson perché sono fermamente convinto dell’utilità competitiva della maggiore efficienza sui mercati delle organizzazioni comuni e di produttori nel settore ittico e dell’acquacoltura. Gli obiettivi della Politica Comune della Pesca vanno verso una maggiore tutela dell’ambiente attraverso un'efficace regolamentazione in tal senso. Tuttavia, così come rilevato dalla relazione, occorre anche tenere in forte considerazione gli operatori del settore, e le conseguenze sulla loro attività, in modo da evitare, quindi, che le nuove normative ne soffochino l’imprenditorialità e la capacità di rendersi competitivi sul mercato. Inoltre, sono d’accordo con l’iniziativa che prevede una maggiore concertazione tra organizzazioni di produttori transnazionali con caratteristiche commerciali ed esigenze comuni. E’ in questa direzione, tenendo però anche conto delle peculiarità delle specifiche zone di pesca, che si deve lavorare anche nella stesura della PCP.

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE), în scris. − În elaborarea viitoarei organizări comune a pieţelor în sectorul produselor obţinute din pescuit şi din acvacultură consider că principalul rol trebuie să îl aibă organizaţiile de producători, deoarece aceştia sunt principalii responsabili pentru aplicarea corespunzătoare a politicii comune în domeniul pescuitului şi pentru organizarea comună a pieţelor. Astfel, recomand Comisiei să ia măsuri ca aceste organizaţii să aibă obiective bine stabilite şi să desfăşoare numai activităţi de pescuit şi de acvacultură sustenabile.

În plus, trebuie să ne asigurăm că organizaţiile de producători vor ţine seama de condiţiile impuse de către UE în sectorul pescuitului şi acvaculturii, o atenţie specială fiind acordată pescuitului la scară mică. Astfel vom contribui constructiv la dezvoltarea dinamică a sectorului acvaculturii din UE şi vom face faţă creşterii cererii de peşte, pe fondul diminuării stocurilor de peşte la nivel mondial.

  David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report which among other things states that sustainable fishing practices should be rewarded with an EU eco-label.

  Mario Mauro (PPE), per iscritto. − La pesca possiede un ruolo importantissimo nelle economie delle regioni costiere dell'Unione, comprese le regioni ultraperiferiche. E’ la fonte del reddito dei pescatori in queste regioni, per cui occorre favorire la stabilità del mercato e una migliore corrispondenza tra offerta e domanda. Il mio voto è favorevole.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – Je suis d'accord avec la majeure partie de ce rapport. L'information des citoyens européens sur les poissons qu'ils consomment doit être améliorée afin de les guider vers des produits issus de la pêche durable et, si possible, locale. Réduire notre dette écologique en consommant moins de poissons importés est nécessaire, tout comme il est nécessaire d'élever la qualité des produits de la pêche mis sur le marché et de promouvoir l'emploi dans le secteur de le pêche en Europe. Je dénonce cependant l'ambigüité du texte quant à son soutien ou non au système de concessions de pêche transférables (CPT). Je m'abstiens donc, par méfiance.

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), în scris. − Organizarea comună a pieţelor este prima componentă a politicii comune în domeniul pescuitului, dar şi una dintre cele mai importante. Salut adoptarea acestui raport, care este primul element din pachetul mai larg de reformă a pescuitului european. În întreaga Uniune, cetăţenii care trăiesc din pescuit şi din prelucrarea peştelui aşteaptă ca această reformă să aducă modificări de substanţă, care să aducă un plus de calitate în viaţa lor şi un plus de calitate a produselor care ajung pe mesele consumatorilor europeni.

  Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − A Organização Comum de Mercado (OCM) é uma componente fundamental da Política Comum das Pescas (PCP). No presente relatório, foi dado particular destaque ao papel futuro e objetivos das organizações de produtores, as quais devem desempenhar um papel mais significativo na gestão das pescas, pelo que necessitam de ferramentas que lhes permitam regular a atividade dos seus membros de forma mais eficiente. A rotulagem é outra questão fundamental no presente relatório, com o argumento de que o consumidor tem o direito de ter informações melhores e mais claras sobre os produtos da pesca que adquire, nomeadamente sobre as datas de captura e de desembarque. Votei favoravelmente este relatório, mas discordei com a inclusão da data de captura do pescado. Com efeito, considero que mais importante que a data de captura é a adequada conservação do pescado e a manutenção da sua qualidade, tanto a bordo como após o desembarque.

  Aldo Patriciello (PPE), per iscritto. − Dal 1970 l'organizzazione comune dei mercati (OCM) è il primo componente della politica comune della pesca (PCP). Nel quadro di una vera riforma della PCP, è auspicabile un ruolo più significativo delle organizzazioni di produttori nella gestione quotidiana delle attività del settore della pesca nel quadro di un sistema maggiormente regionalizzato; è necessario promuovere l'uso della tecnologia moderna per migliorare la conoscenza dei mercati, nel quadro del futuro Fondo europeo per gli affari marittimi e la pesca; è importante garantire ai consumatori il diritto a informazioni migliori e comprensibili riguardanti i prodotti della pesca che acquistano, tramite un'adeguata etichettatura. Con tali obiettivi e sottolineando l'importanza di premiare pratiche di pesca sostenibili con un marchio di qualità ecologica UE, esprimo il mio voto favorevole alla proposta.

  Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. This is the first of three legislative reports on the reform of the CFP, dealing with the market in fisheries and aquaculture products. The other two are the basic regulations governing the CFP and the EMFF (subsidies). A Common Market Organisation (CMO) for fisheries and aquaculture products has been in place since 1970. It is one of the pillars of the CFP. Its legal basis is Regulation 104/2000, adopted in 1999, which will be replaced by the current proposal. In its preparation, the COM has concluded that the market has not sufficiently contributed to sustainable production; many EU fisheries are not exploited in a sustainable way and there are few market mechanisms to discourage unsustainable practices and to provide market premiums for sustainable ones. Similarly, it has proved difficult or impossible to anticipate or manage market fluctuations. A very limited consumer label was introduced in 2000 and has been much expanded in the report (now to include better explanation of where the fish comes from - which body of water, the flag of the vessel, inside or outside the EU, etc. )- though we failed to get included the gear type used to catch the fish and an indication of whether the stock is overexploited or not.

  Antolín Sánchez Presedo (S&D), por escrito. − He apoyado las medidas contra los países que autorizan la pesca no sostenible; también los primeros informes de reforma de la PPC que incluyen el nuevo Reglamento OCM de la pesca y la acuicultura.

Es la primera vez que el Parlamento Europeo participa como colegislador en el establecimiento de la nueva PPC. Comparto los objetivos de la reforma de la OCM: mejorar los incentivos de mercado para las prácticas de producción sostenibles, mejorar la posición en el mercado de la producción comunitaria, contribuir a que los productores den respuesta a cambios estructurales y fluctuaciones del mercado, consolidar el potencial de mercado de los productos UE y mejorar la gobernanza.

El informe final sobre la OCM recoge buena parte de mis enmiendas y contiene avances para la sostenibilidad de los recursos, la competitividad de la industria y la mejora de la información al consumidor. Lamento que no se haya apoyado que la pesca de litoral con mareas de 24 horas ponga en valor sus productos de primor mediante la indicación de la fecha de captura. La singularidad y el trato especial para la pesca y acuicultura de pequeña escala, incluyendo el marisqueo, así como el desarrollo de políticas de calidad de los productos, quedan recogidos.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce texte. En tant que député en charge de la protection du consommateur, il me paraissait important d'insister sur l'aspect de l'étiquetage. Les consommateurs ont le droit de disposer d'informations de meilleure qualité et intelligibles sur les produits de la pêche qu'ils achètent en vue de faire des choix en connaissance de cause. Néanmoins, les produits congelés visés devraient être dispensés de cette disposition, car ils portent déjà la mention de la date de congélation (ou de la date de première congélation) ainsi que la mention "à consommer de préférence avant le..." pour éviter le matraquage de dates qui serait déroutant pour le consommateur. Les étiquettes devraient également comporter des informations sur des zones de pêche facilement identifiables auxquelles le consommateur pourrait se référer, contrairement aux zones d'étiquetage actuellement utilisées. Les espèces de poissons devraient également être identifiées grâce à des noms familiers au niveau local sur toutes les étiquettes. Les consommateurs devraient pouvoir savoir avec certitude quels produits de la pêche ont été congelés puis décongelés, en particulier dans le cas des produits de la pêche dits "frais".

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − No âmbito da reforma da Organização Comum dos Mercados dos produtos da pesca e da aquicultura, é dado um destaque especial ao papel futuro e aos objetivos das organizações de produtores. As organizações de produtores devem desempenhar um papel mais significativo na gestão corrente das pescas, no âmbito de um sistema mais regionalizado e a sua internacionalização ou a criação de associações transnacionais deve ser incentivada. A futura Organização Comum dos Mercados tem também de contribuir de forma positiva para um desenvolvimento dinâmico do setor da aquicultura da UE para melhor responder ao aumento da procura de peixe num contexto de diminuição das populações de peixes selvagens, e a utilização da tecnologia deve ser promovida no quadro do futuro Fundo Europeu das Pescas e dos Assuntos Marítimos. Por estas razões, votei a favor do documento.

  Isabelle Thomas (S&D), par écrit. – J'ai voté pour le rapport sur l'Organisation commune des marchés dans le secteur des produits de la pêche et de l'aquaculture, même s'il aurait été plus pertinent de le soumettre au vote après adoption du règlement de base de la réforme de la PCP. Les avancées obtenues grâce au vote sont inégales. Point négatif: ce rapport prévoit un marché des captures accessoires débarquées, débarquement qui n'a cependant pas encore été acté dans le Règlement de base. Il est néanmoins nécessaire d'avoir un cadre juridique à disposition, ne préemptant cependant pas des moyens qui seront mis en œuvre pour limiter, voire éliminer, les captures accessoires. J'étais, à l'inverse, très favorable au fait que le Parlement européen reconnaisse la nécessité de pérenniser le financement européen du mécanisme de stockage et acte la création d'un écolabel. Les organisations de producteurs se voient également donner plus de pouvoir et de reconnaissance, elles pourront notamment devenir transnationales. Enfin, le rapport soutient le développement de l'aquaculture, développement auquel je suis favorable à condition que nous rappelions que cette activité est complémentaire à la pêche et doit être encadrée par des normes environnementales strictes, sans favoriser la création d'un marché de farine de poisson.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. − Am votat pentru Rezoluţia referitoare la propunerea de regulament privind organizarea comună a pieţelor în sectorul produselor obţinute din pescuit şi din acvacultură. Regulamentul urmăreşte ca organizarea comună a pieţelor să contribuie la îndeplinirea obiectivelor stabilite prin Regulamentul privind politica comună în domeniul pescuitului şi, în special, la asigurarea unor stimulente de piaţă în sprijinul unor practici de producţie mai sustenabile, la ameliorarea poziţiei pe piaţă a produselor din Uniune, la elaborarea de strategii de producţie în vederea adaptării acesteia la schimbările structurale şi la fluctuaţiile pe termen scurt ale pieţelor, precum şi la consolidarea potenţialului comercial al produselor Uniunii.

Organizarea comună a pieţelor este ghidată de principiile bunei guvernanţe, obţinute pe baza unei definiţii clare a responsabilităţilor la nivelul Uniunii şi la nivel naţional, regional şi local, a unei perspective pe termen lung, a unei participări ample a operatorilor, a responsabilităţii statului de pavilion, precum şi pe baza unei coerenţe cu politica maritimă integrată, cu politica comercială şi cu celelalte politici ale Uniunii.

  Γεώργιος Τούσσας (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Η ευρωκοινοβουλευτική ομάδα του ΚΚΕ καταψήφισε την έκθεση και την πρόταση κανονισμού, γιατί εντάσσεται στο πλαίσιο της αναθεώρησης της αντιλαϊκής Κοινής Αλιευτικής Πολιτικής. Στόχος της μεταρρύθμισης είναι η παραπέρα καπιταλιστική αναδιάρθρωση του κλάδου της αλιείας με την καταστροφή των μικρών ψαράδων - που σε μεγάλο βαθμό έχει ήδη συντελεστεί με την ισχύουσα ΚΑλΠ - και την ενίσχυση των μεγάλων αλιευτικών στόλων και των μονοπωλιακών επιχειρήσεων στις υδατοκαλλιέργειες. Η πρόταση για την αναδιάρθρωση της κοινή αγοράς προϊόντων αλιείας και υδατοκ