Index 
 Előző 
 Következő 
 Teljes szöveg 
Eljárás : 2009/0155(NLE)
A dokumentum állapota a plenáris ülésen
Válasszon egy dokumentumot : A7-0289/2012

Előterjesztett szövegek :

A7-0289/2012

Viták :

PV 23/10/2012 - 11
CRE 23/10/2012 - 11

Szavazatok :

PV 23/10/2012 - 13.22
CRE 23/10/2012 - 13.22
A szavazatok indokolása
A szavazatok indokolása

Elfogadott szövegek :

P7_TA(2012)0385

Viták
2012. október 23., Kedd - Strasbourg Lektorált változat

11. Az EK és Izrael között társulást létrehozó euromediterrán megállapodáshoz csatolt, az ipari termékek megfelelőségértékeléséről és elfogadásáról szóló jegyzőkönyv (CAA) (vita)
A felszólalásokról készült videofelvételek
PV
MPphoto
 

  Πρόεδρος. - Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η σύσταση του κ. Vital Moreira, εξ ονόματος της Επιτροπής Διεθνούς Εμπορίου, όσον αφορά τη σύναψη πρωτοκόλλου στην ευρωμεσογειακή συμφωνία σύνδεσης μεταξύ των Ευρωπαϊκών Κοινοτήτων και των κρατών μελών τους, αφενός, και του Κράτους του Ισραήλ, αφετέρου, σχετικά με τη διαπίστωση της συμμόρφωσης και την αποδοχή των βιομηχανικών προϊόντων (ΔΣΑ) [12428/2012 - C7-0205/2012 - 2009/0155(NLE)] (A7-0289/2012)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vital Moreira, relator. − Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, caros Colegas, sou o relator deste processo, mas não é este o meu relatório, visto que votei contra ele na comissão INTA, a que aliás presido. Feita esta declaração apresento brevemente as várias questões envolvidas com o máximo de objetividade. A questão de fundo está em saber se devemos aprovar o acordo comercial com Israel sob o reconhecimento mútuo da verificação da conformidade e da aceitação de produtos industriais, que este protocolo aplica desde já aos produtos farmacêuticos, mas que permite que seja estendido a todos os outros produtos sujeitos a aceitação e verificação da conformidade.

A comissão INTA dividiu-se entre duas visões inconciliáveis. Primeiro, uma posição contrária à aprovação, em nome da coerência das políticas externas da União em relação a Israel. Não faz sentido, argumenta esta posição, por um lado, condenar firmemente a política israelita em relação aos territórios ocupados e, por outro lado, reforçar as relações comerciais com Israel. Não faz sentido assistir ao desprezo com que Israel desafia a nossa condenação e, depois, dar a Israel o valioso prémio na política comercial. Não faz sentido ficarmos chocados com a deliberada política de destruição das condições para uma solução a dois Estados, como a União defende, e depois coonestar e encorajar Israel em relação a essas mesmas políticas.

A outra posição na INTA foi a de que, primeiro, o protocolo limita-se a concretizar o mecanismo comercial já previsto no acordo de associação e que não devemos misturar o plano da política externa e da política de comércio externo. Foi esta a posição que venceu na INTA, contra o meu projeto de relatório, embora com pequena maioria. Cabe agora ao plenário e a cada um de nós decidir definitivamente a questão de fundo.

Além desta questão de fundo, há mais duas questões complementares. A primeira respeita ao âmbito territorial de aplicação do protocolo. Infelizmente, o protocolo não foi negociado com cuidado e não é claro quanto a saber se exclui ou não os produtos oriundos dos territórios ocupados. Importa clarificar esse ponto sob pena de estarmos a quebrar uma linha vermelha da União Europeia que é a de não-reconhecimento da integração israelita desses territórios. Por isso, a proposta de pedir ao Conselho uma declaração interpretativa sobre o assunto justifica-se. Só o Conselho o pode fazer, porque é o Conselho que, em nome da União, se vincula a este protocolo. O nosso papel aqui é apenas assentir nessa decisão do Conselho. Portanto, nós só podemos pedir ao Conselho que o faça. Todavia, sem o compromisso claro do Conselho hoje e aqui (e, a propósito, não vejo aqui o Conselho) de que vai fazer essa declaração interpretativa, o nosso voto sobre esta questão é irrelevante e ineficaz. De qualquer modo, somos chamados a votar essa declaração interpretativa, ou esse pedido de votação interpretativa.

O terceiro ponto está relacionado com o artigo 3.° do projeto de decisão do Conselho que concluiu o acordo em nome da União. Nesse preceito, o Conselho delega na Comissão o poder para modificar o acordo, incluindo quanto aos produtos beneficiários, sem nenhuma aprovação posterior do Parlamento nem do Conselho. Trata-se de uma verdadeira autorização da alteração de um acordo internacional, que nós aqui votamos. Todavia, o Conselho ainda quer manter o controlo sobre essas modificações através de um comité ad-hoc, enquanto o Parlamento não terá nenhum papel doravante sobre a alteração do acordo que aqui vamos votar.

Há aqui três problemas, primeiro, faz sentido autorizar a Comissão a modificar um acordo comercial de forma tão substantiva? Segundo, qual é a base legal no Tratado para o comité ad-hoc que o Conselho propõe para controlar a Comissão nesta matéria. Terceiro, e com isto concluo, é admissível que o Parlamento seja ignorado quer na delegação, quer no controlo do exercício do poder delegado, quer na apreciação das modificações ao protocolo que a Comissão venha a negociar com Israel? O grupo socialista já anunciou que vai pedir a baixa deste processo à Comissão para analisar esta questão. E esta é uma questão importante, não podemos deixar, a meu ver, criar um precedente nesta matéria.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Madam President, I would like to thank you and my colleagues for the opportunity to say a few words regarding the Agreement on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance, the so-called ACAA between Israel and the EU, which is a fiercely debated issue.

Let me start by recalling what an ACAA is about. Its objective is to eliminate barriers to trade, by allowing products covered by the agreement to enter the markets of the parties without additional conformity assessment procedures. So we are basically talking about mutual recognition of conformity assessment and inspection, results which will reduce costs and time for economic operators.

ACAA is a Protocol to the EU-Israel Association Agreement and its scope of application is therefore the same as set out in Article 83 of the Association Agreement. As follows from the international obligations of the EU and as confirmed by the European Court of Justice in the Brita case, the EU does not recognise Israeli jurisdiction over the territories placed under Israeli administration after 1967. Rest assured that the Commission will observe this position in the implementation of the ACAA.

As you know, when the agreement enters into force, the Commission will have to acknowledge under Article 9 of the ACAA the responsible Israeli authority which will have to deliver conformity certificates. This acknowledgement will not entail any recognition of Israeli jurisdiction over territories placed under Israeli administration after 1967. You can also rest assured that, upon receipt of the Israeli notification of its responsible authority, the Commission will expressly state that acknowledgement is granted only on the basis that the territory covered by the responsible authority does not include the territories brought under Israeli administration in 1967.

In the light of this, Palestinian products cannot be discriminated against in the certification process in Israel because Israel will have to apply the EU acquis. Like any EU Member State, Israel must carry out inspections irrespective of the origin of the product, when a request is received. If there were to be cases of discrimination, the Palestinian manufacturer could lodge a complaint with the Israeli judicial authorities. Of course, the Commission could also use existing means under the Association Agreement to ensure that Israel implements the ACAA.

There could be a link between the certification process and the origin of the products in a situation where the Israeli responsible authority goes into the occupied territories in order to certify products made in the settlements. And we need to be aware of this.

I would also like to react to recent concerns about Parliament’s role in the context of procedures to amend this ACAA, including by adding annexes for other industrial products in future. The matter seems to be in line with the Lisbon Treaty. Moreover, the Commission will also abide by its obligations under the Framework Agreement to keep Parliament fully informed before approving modifications to an agreement under Article 218(7) of the Lisbon Treaty.

Lastly, we have other ACAAs in the pipeline with other countries where we would expect to face similar, though not identical, concerns. Our experience with the present consent procedure will serve as a useful guide.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Véronique De Keyser, rapporteure pour avis de la commission des affaires étrangères. − Madame la Présidente, aujourd'hui, pour nous, le projet ACAA présente trois problèmes majeurs.

Le premier est institutionnel. En effet, il reste choquant de découvrir qu'une fois l'accord du Parlement européen obtenu pour le secteur pharmaceutique, le Parlement n'aurait plus voix au chapitre pour d'autres secteurs qu'Israël déciderait d'ouvrir. Pour nous, cela s'appelle acheter un chat dans un sac ou, si vous préférez, prendre le Parlement européen pour un pigeon.

Nous nous battrons toujours pour que les prérogatives du Parlement soient respectées. C'est la raison pour laquelle, pour éclaircir ce point-là, mon groupe a demandé le renvoi de ce rapport en commission pour obtenir des garanties sur cette question.

Le deuxième problème est juridique et concerne la compétence de l'autorité israélienne sur les produits des colonies, colonies illégales au regard du droit international. Nous avons présenté une déclaration interprétative qui couvre cet aspect. Vous venez d'évoquer cet aspect, d'ailleurs, Monsieur De Gucht mais cette déclaration est un vœu pieux si elle n'est pas entérinée par les trois institutions et, notamment, par le Conseil et, à ce jour, nous n'avons pas de garantie sur ce point.

Le troisième problème est politique et il n'est pas le moindre. Cet accord, qui faisait partie de la proposition d'upgrading d'Israël, gelée en 2008, même s'il peut juridiquement se conclure dans le cadre actuel, est un upgrading de facto. Or, rien n'a changé sur le terrain depuis 2008, sinon en pire. Le blocus de Gaza perdure, la colonisation s'est étendue de manière dramatique, en violation du droit international et les pourparlers de paix sont au point mort. Le plan Lieberman annoncé en août dernier au ministre des affaires étrangères européen et à Mme Ashton, qui prévoit des cantons palestiniens autour des villes israéliennes, explose tout projet de solution à deux États et Benjamin Netanyahou vient, il y a quelques jours, de tenter de faire appliquer partiellement le rapport Levy qui légaliserait les colonies que les Israéliens eux-mêmes jusqu'ici décrétaient illégales.

Ce n'est pas notre ligne politique. Ce n'est pas la position du droit international. Et est-ce à cette position du gouvernement Netanyahou que nous voulons faire cadeau de l'ACAA? C'est inacceptable, en tout cas pour les socialistes et les démocrates, inacceptable en fonction de nos valeurs, inacceptable en fonction du traité de Lisbonne et de la nouvelle politique de voisinage qui prévoit plus pour plus. Et c'est sur cette base, aujourd'hui que, si le rapport n'est pas renvoyé en commission, notre groupe des socialistes et démocrates en tous cas votera contre l'ACAA.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Madam President, the PPE Group is in favour of the ACAA and we look forward to the vote in order to give our consent to this important agreement between the EU and Israel.

After a deliberation of more than two and a half years, we are finally having this discussion in the plenary session on ACAA. I am happy that there has been enough common sense among our colleagues in the INTA Committee to vote in favour of this agreement, which is good for both the EU and Israel and is part of the EU Association Agreement. Israel is the first country in the Mediterranean Region to achieve the basic conditions that enable it to reach an ACAA with the EU. The ACAA, together with the additional protocol on pharmaceutical products, aims at facilitating market access by eliminating technical barriers to trade in industrial products.

In order to make the framework of the ACAA operational, it has to be implemented into specific sectors, practices and regulations. As we know, once adopted, the ACAA would cover mutual recognition of regulatory and verification procedures for pharmaceutical products in the EU and Israel. Such mutual recognition would certainly benefit European consumers and they would get quicker access to Israeli pharmaceutical products, as there would no longer be a need for a second testing in the EU – something that normally takes from one to three years.

Colleagues, it should be mentioned that it took Israel more than six years to adopt the necessary standards in the field of good manufacturing practice for pharmaceutical products. In other words, in order to conclude this agreement, and the additional protocol, Israel had to substantially approximate its regulatory framework on pharmaceutical products to that of the EU. So we are spreading our acquis communautaire to Israel, with a spill-over effect to other areas as well. In other words, it is in the EU’s interest to get Israel’s legislation and standards closer to the EU’s. I would, therefore, like to encourage my colleagues to give our consent to the ACAA later today.

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

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vital Moreira (S&D), blue-card question. – Mr President, my question is a very simple one. Article 2 of the Association Agreement to which this protocol is an additional arrangement says ‘relations between the two parties are based on respect for human rights’. Does the House believe that Israel is respecting the human rights of Palestinians – stealing their lands, expelling them from their homes, preventing them from free circulation in their own land? Is this respect for human rights? Does the House feel that the conditions for an Association Agreement are being fulfilled by Israel?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE), Blue-card answer. – Human rights are universal and we should not have double standards – one for Palestinians and another for Israelis. Human rights are very important, but this agreement we are discussing today is purely technical in nature. It is part of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. Once we have concluded the Association Agreement, we should take the necessary steps in order to implement it. Of course it is always our duty also to address human rights, whether we are speaking about Israel or Palestine.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bernd Lange, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Dieses Abkommen muss in der Tat sehr sorgfältig geprüft werden, weil sehr starke politische Implikationen damit verbunden sind. In Israel wird die Diskussion geführt, ob das ein Abkommen ist, mit dem wir Israel letztendlich unterstützen oder die rote Karte zeigen. Ich glaube, diese Diskussion führt zu nichts. Wir haben hier keine Haltung gegenüber dem Staat Israel und seinen Menschen zu beziehen, sondern alleinig gegenüber der jetzigen israelischen Regierung.

Wenn wir Verträge schließen, dann ist es mehr als recht und billig, die Wertmaßstäbe, die wir innerhalb der Europäischen Union gelten lassen, auch gegenüber Partnerländern zur Geltung zu bringen. Daher kann man eigentlich nur in aller Deutlichkeit sagen, die jetzige israelische Regierung handelt in ihrem Verhalten gegenüber den besetzten Gebieten und den Menschen, die da leben, nicht entsprechend der Wertorientierung der Europäischen Union. Deswegen können wir nicht ohne Weiteres ein Abkommen mit dieser Regierung schließen.

Zum Zweiten gibt es noch viele Unklarheiten. Meine Vorrednerin hat gesagt, es gäbe einen Konsens hier. Nein, es gibt keinen Konsens! Im Ausschuss ist mit 13 zu 15 Stimmen abgestimmt worden. Ich glaube, wir sollten künftig die Frage der Herkunft von Generika klären und sicherstellen, dass sie eben nicht aus den besetzten Gebieten und nicht aus den illegalen Siedlungen kommen. Wir müssen auch klären, wie die Kommission zukünftig das Recht wahrnimmt, dieses Abkommen auf weitere Produkte auszuweiten. Deswegen brauchen wir mehr Zeit, das gründlich zu beraten, und deswegen unterstütze ich ausdrücklich Véronique De Keyser mit der Forderung: Lasst uns die Angelegenheit nochmals zur intensiven Beratung in den Ausschuss zurücküberweisen!

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

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Caspary (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Präsident! Mehrere Vorredner, Herr Kollege Lange, sind auf die Menschenrechtssituation eingegangen. Dieses CAA-Abkommen wurde dem Parlament vor zwei Jahren gemeinsam mit einem Landwirtschaftsabkommen mit den Palästinensergebieten übermittelt. Das erste Abkommen haben wir heute hier, das zweite ging problemfrei durch. Ich frage Sie: Welchen Unterschied macht es, ob die Israelis aus unserer Sicht den ein oder anderen Fehler machen? Und die Palästinenser? Halten Sie es für mit unseren Menschenrechtsstandards vereinbar, dass die Hamas die Todesstrafe exekutiert, Menschen im Zweifel foltert? Warum haben wir denn das erste Abkommen vor eineinhalb Jahren problemfrei durchlaufen lassen, und warum packen Sie jetzt alle möglichen Argumente aus, die komischerweise vor eineinhalb Jahren nicht gegolten haben? War das ein Erkenntniszugewinn, oder habe ich hier etwas falsch verstanden?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bernd Lange (S&D), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Unsere Werte gelten natürlich universell, da machen wir überhaupt keinen Unterschied. Warum Sie sich vor zwei Jahren so verhalten haben, wie Sie sich verhalten haben, kann ich nicht sagen. Für uns gilt ganz klar, dass wir keine Argumente aus der Kiste holen, sondern sicherstellen wollen, dass das Abkommen, das ja auch ein Modell für zukünftige Abkommen ist, keine Pferdefüße hat. Und deswegen brauchen wir mehr Zeit zur Beratung, Herr Kollege.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, human rights are essential for this Parliament and for the EU. This is the essence of our values and is also reflected in our trade policies, where we find conditionalities for respect for human rights in relation to all countries across the world with which we have trade relations. This also applies to Israel in the context of the Association Agreement.

The vote today concerns the Protocol that stems from that Association Agreement and deals with the pharmaceuticals sector, and with technical requirements and mutual recognition of quality standards. As such, it should be seen as a technical dossier. But, of course, MEPs on both the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on International Trade believed it was important to seek legal guarantees, because we do not want to, directly or indirectly, allow the territorial jurisdiction of Israeli authorities over the Occupied Territories. Nor do we want to allow products from the settlements to enter the EU market. We sought legal certainty and we believe that we have acquired the requisite assurances now.

We also, as Members of this Parliament, attach a statement where we reiterate how important we think it is that Israel respect human rights. This is not only important for us and for the Palestinian people but, most of all, for Israel’s future. The Israeli Government is actually on a path to self-isolation which is not working, making bold statements that the EU should solve its own problems before addressing others.

In fact, it is important that the EU show its strength and its muscle, and this Protocol does not provide a very effective tool for that purpose. If we want to address human rights violations in Israel – and I think we should – we should do so on the basis of the conditionalities provided for under the Association Agreement.

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

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL), Blue-card question. – I would just like to ask the speaker this: the words of support for the Palestinian people and the words of opposition to the oppression of the Palestinians, what good are they if we are just going to allow this agreement to go through? How can it seriously be described as a technical agreement? It was a Commission report in 2009 that said that the ACAA’s entry into force would mark the first step in Israel’s integration into the EU single market. The single market is not a technical issue, it is a political issue. If Israel’s entry into the single market is a political endorsement of its policies, how can anyone who opposes the oppression of the Palestinians allow it to happen?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marietje Schaake (ALDE), Blue-card answer. – Mr Murphy, as I mentioned, human rights are essential for the European Union. I work on human rights on a daily basis and it is a key driver for the work that I do here at Parliament.

To prepare myself for the vote today and for the text and the work on this Protocol, I have spoken to a number of organisations, representing mostly those who care about the human rights of Palestinians. We have to ask ourselves whether rejecting this Protocol would actually improve the lives of Palestinians – and I do not think it will. So I think we must actually use the tools that we have which are stronger – the conditionality agreements that we find in the Association Agreement with Israel – and take this up onto the level that gives us the basis to address matters.

The credibility of this Parliament is important in order for it to be a broker of real solutions in the Middle East peace conflict, and bending the procedures in utterly creative ways actually harms the credibility of this Parliament and will not do us any good when seeking solutions that work for the Palestinian people.

(The President cut off the speaker)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Yannick Jadot, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, on vit parfois dans ce Parlement des choses étonnantes. Quand on parle des droits de l'homme en Chine, on nous dit: "Il faut commercer avec la Chine, car cela va permettre l'émergence des droits de l'homme en Chine". Quand des révolutions se produisent dans les pays arabes, on nous dit: "Organisons des accords de libre-échange avec les pays arabes, car c'est comme cela que nous allons soutenir l'émergence de la démocratie dans les pays arabes". Et, d'un seul coup, le commerce ne serait plus qu'une question absolument technique, très compliquée, qui n'aurait plus aucun rapport avec la politique. Nous savons, malheureusement, qu'avec cet accord, on ne garantit pas l'origine des produits qui entreront sur le marché européen; d'abord, les produits pharmaceutiques, et après, les autres produits industriels.

Il n'y a même pas une semaine, le gouvernement Netanyahou a annoncé la légalisation de colonies sauvages, a annoncé l'extension des implantations en Cisjordanie, tout cela dans la perspective des élections du 22 janvier.

Au moment où l'Europe va recevoir le prix Nobel de la paix, pour son passé et surtout pour l'histoire qu'elle doit construire, notamment dans son voisinage, il serait totalement aberrant que l'Europe envoie un signal de rehaussement politique des relations avec Israël, récompensant le gouvernement Netanyahou pour toute sa politique qui est, en permanence, critiquée par toutes les instances de l'Union européenne, Mme Asthon en premier. Et là ce que nous envoyons, c'est un signal à Israël: "Il faut voter Netanyahou pour qu'il continue sa politique de colonisation, de non-respect des droits de l'homme!"

Nous soutenons le renvoi en commission pour tout ce qu'a dit M. Moreira au sujet de ce rapport. Il n'est pas question que l'Europe interfère avec les élections en Israël et envoie un message de soutien à M. Netanyahou!

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

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Charles Tannock (ECR), Blue-card question. – Madam President, Mr Jadot very clearly pointed out the total inconsistency within this House. The Left is opposed to certain human rights motions condemning China, and was very supportive of the third-generation agreement with Pakistan, where there are clearly human rights abuses against Christians, Hindu minorities and women. But when it comes to Israel-bashing they are the first to try and conflate two completely separate issues: the policies of the Government of Israel and an issue to do with trade and the quality and safety of pharmaceutical goods to be consumed by European Union citizens.

Do they not agree that this is completely ridiculous, and are they aware that, as far as I know– and have had confirmed – there are no manufacturers of medicine in the Occupied Territories or the settlements? They come entirely from within Israel itself. So there is no question as to provenance, even if that were relevant to this issue. Can they not agree that there are no medicines coming out of the Occupied Territories?

(The President cut off the Speaker)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Yannick Jadot (Verts/ALE), réponse "carton bleu". – Comme vous le savez, il est extrêmement difficile de tracer les productions de l'ensemble des produits qui viennent d'Israël. Donc, de toute façon si, aujourd'hui, il n'y a pas la preuve avérée d'une production de produits pharmaceutiques dans certains territoires, cela n'empêche pas que le cas pourrait se présenter dans l'avenir, surtout qu'il y a volonté d'extension des colonies, et qu'on pourrait trouver d'autres produits industriels qui n'offriraient pas la garantie de n'être pas fabriqués dans les territoires occupés.

Monsieur, n'hésitez donc pas à reprendre, à chaque fois que nous avons un vote sur un accord commercial, la liste de vote des écologistes, vous verrez que nous sommes constants sur le respect des droits de l'homme, de l'environnement et des droits sociaux.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jan Zahradil, on behalf of the ECR Group. – There is unfortunately too much politicking sometimes over trade issues, not only in the INTA Committee, but in this House as well. So let me just repeat once again that those who say that this is mostly a technical framework agreement are right; it is. It aims purely at facilitating the elimination of technical barriers to trade; also, it is something that should be judged on its trade merits alone. It is simply a protocol to an existing agreement between the EU and Israel. I do not need to stress how beneficial it could be to the EU; it would significantly reduce the cost of pharmaceutical products imported into the EU, for instance.

Secondly, the EU has already concluded and agreed a similar agreement with the Palestinian Authority. It has been a number of months since it was concluded and agreed, and it would be quite hypocritical of the EU side to reject the agreement.

Thirdly, the Commission has also offered concrete assurances that this agreement is in conformity with legal commitments. I have to add that it was made clear that no products originating from the so-called Occupied Territories will be accepted. That is prohibited under Community law, so nothing that comes from places that have been under Israeli administration since 1967 is entitled to benefit from preferential tariffs.

The time has come to move forward. Let me stress, last but not least, that Israel is a normal country; it is a democratic country, a European-like country. We should treat it as such, and not like some kind of feudal dictatorship.

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

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vital Moreira (S&D), Blue-card question. – Madam President, I appreciate the experience of Mr Zahradil in this Parliament and his serene and usually very balanced participation. I would like to put to him an objective question regarding the qualification of this agreement as a technical one.

This is a not a technical agreement because, while it is about the removal of technical barriers to trade, the removal of some technical barriers is quite political. It will mean, for example, the removal of assessment controls and mutual recognition, which constitutes a high level of partnership and means that Israeli exports will be fully integrated into the internal market.

Let me ask Mr Zahradil whether he does not agree that the benefits that Israeli exporters will reap from this agreement will give them a significant edge over other exporters to the Union. Is that not a privilege?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jan Zahradil (ECR), Blue-card answer. – Thank you Mr Moreira, I highly value your chairmanship of the INTA Committee, and I can stress again that I consider your chairmanship also to be very well-balanced and I like it. At the same time, I have to admit that we simply do not agree as to our assessment of certain particular issues, and this is precisely the one on which we simply cannot find common ground. I do not consider your assessment to be correct. I really do think that it is mostly a technical matter and I do not see any simple and serious reason why we should block it further.

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

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nicole Kiil-Nielsen (Verts/ALE), question "carton bleu". – Je vous remercie de m'accorder cette possibilité de vous demander si vous avez pris connaissance des rapports des ambassadeurs et des délégations de l'Union européenne à Jérusalem qui, ces dernières années, disent clairement que nous ne pouvons pas être en mesure d'assurer la traçabilité des produits qui viennent d'Israël et donc de séparer les produits des colonies et de les identifier.

Je voudrais savoir si vous connaissez ces rapports, parce que je suis étonnée que vous disiez que les produits des colonies ne sont pas concernés. De plus, avez-vous aussi entendu parler du fait que, dans beaucoup de pays, le mien en particulier, les consommateurs identifient régulièrement des produits venant des colonies sur nos marchés?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jan Zahradil (ECR), Blue-card answer. – I can only tell you that I have no knowledge of any reports you are referring to, nor about the sources they might come from.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Paul Murphy, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Madam President, two days ago the Israeli army engaged in yet another act of piracy in international waters. This time by attacking a ship, the MV Estelle, carrying thirty activists from Europe, including many European MPs, hijacking their ship, tasering and beating up to 14 of these activists, and now 14 people are still in prison.

Why did this wonderful European-like, model democracy country that Mr Zahradil would have us believe is the State of Israel, do this? It was because these people were simply trying to bring humanitarian aid to the people of Gaza, thereby breaking the illegal blockade imposed on the almost two million people in Gaza, who are forced to live in what is in effect an open air prison camp. I have been on a similar ship; I have been attacked by the Israeli military; I have spent a week in Israeli prisons in inhumane conditions, and I have been to Gaza and seen the reality of the conditions that are imposed on the people of Gaza by the choices made by the right-wing Israeli Government. I have seen the hospitals that do not have even basic medicines. I have seen the mass poverty – up to 80 % of people rely on humanitarian aid to survive – and now the European Commission and the right wing in this Parliament would like us to pat Israel on the back, to congratulate it, to welcome it into the single market.

Let us drop the pretence that this is a technical agreement: that is absolute rubbish. It is completely disingenuous to suggest that. Entry into the single market is not a technical question. Let us also drop the pretence that it is anything to do with access to pharmaceutical products: what about the right of the people in Gaza to access pharmaceutical products? If this Parliament agrees to give consent, it will be a continuation of a two-faced EU policy which on the one hand speaks about the rights of the Palestinians, gives out about the oppression of the Palestinians and verbally gives support to a Palestinian State, but in reality backs up the actions of Israel and the oppression of the Israeli State against the Palestinians.

Regardless of what declaration is passed – and we are in favour of the strongest possible declaration excluding Israeli settlements – we will be voting against consent. Consent will be interpreted by the Netanyahu Government as an endorsement of the oppression of the Palestinians. It will embolden them to continue with forcing Palestinians out of East Jerusalem and demolishing their homes, and to continue with the inhumane blockade of Gaza. There should be no consent while this oppression persists.

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

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marek Siwiec (S&D), Blue-card question. – I would like to ask Mr Murphy whether he knows about the Israeli people who are being attacked by Qassam rockets from the Gaza territory? These people, including innocent children who are hiding in bunkers in the daytime, are under permanent attack from this territory.

The second question is: what kind of aid was delivered by this ship you have described in recent days. How much and what kind of products were going to be delivered to the Gaza strip? According to my knowledge, there was nothing.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL), Blue-card answer. – Madam President, unfortunately the speaker is absolutely correct: no aid got through to Gaza because the Israeli army intercepted and hijacked the ship and took it to Ashdod, as they did with our ship. My understanding is that there were medicines on board that ship, which hopefully will be delivered to the people in Gaza.

Am I aware of the Qassam rockets? Yes.

Am I aware of the fact that ordinary Israeli working people, small farmers and others suffer from attacks from a small section of right-wing Islamic fundamentalists? Yes, I am on record as repeatedly opposing and condemning those attacks, but I do not think such attacks justify putting two million people in an open-air prison. That is a war crime. An entire people are being punishing because of the actions of a section of right-wing Islamic fundamentalists.

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

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Charles Tannock (ECR), blue-card question. – Mr Murphy, would you agree that Israel is a democracy with free and fair elections and people can throw their government out, whereas Gaza is actually a dictatorship led by an EU-banned terrorist organisation called Hamas, in which people are hanged from lamp posts?

Would you also agree that lifting the Gaza blockade, no matter how desirable you might think that is, has got absolutely nothing to do with the issue before us today, which is about supplying cheap, safe and effective medicines to sick Europeans?

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL), blue-card answer. – Again Mr Tannock seems to have confused the issue, as the right wing in this Parliament persists in doing. The issue before us today is the entry of Israel, de facto, into the single market. It is an endorsement of the oppression that the Israeli state metes out to the Palestinian people. That is the issue, and that is why we should refuse to agree to it. Israel is not a properly-functioning democracy – you ask the Arabs who live within Israel if it is a properly-functioning democracy.

I fundamentally disagree with Hamas. Hamas won an election, and then US imperialism and EU imperialism were not happy with that result and consented to the imposition of a horrific blockade from which the people in Gaza suffer.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Bastiaan Belder, namens de EFD-Fractie. – Te lang, veel te lang heb ik uitgezien naar de plenaire behandeling en goedkeuring van de handelsovereenkomst over farmaceutische producten tussen de EU en Israël. Het wederzijdse voordeel voor beide partijen is immers evident, met de Europese burger/patiënt als grote winnaar. Kom daar eens om in deze tijd van economische malaise.

Vanwaar dan deze extreme vertraging bij de behandeling van dit belangrijke Europese handelsdossier, terwijl Raad en Commissie zich hierover allang positief hebben uitgesproken? Het antwoord kan onthutsend kort zijn. De tegenstanders in dit Parlement, onder wie de voorzitter van de Commissie internationale handel annex rapporteur, zijn daarvoor verantwoordelijk. Zij blijken moeite te hebben met een elementair democratisch principe. Over uiteenlopende standpunten stemt een serieus parlement nu eenmaal inclusief een loyale aanvaarding van de uitslag.

Ik hoop van harte dat de plenaire stemming van deze avond hetzelfde resultaat oplevert als die in de Commissie internationale handel. Ja, want als voorzitter van de Delegatie voor de betrekkingen met Israël van dit Parlement streef ik naar eerlijke, evenwichtige en goede betrekkingen tussen de EU en de joodse staat!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Madam President, it is deeply regrettable that the implementation of the Protocol establishing the EU-Israel Agreement on Conformity, Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products has been stalled in recent months through, quite frankly, the careless politicisation of the issue through Members of this House.

I, for one, am keen to stress the overwhelming potential of this Agreement for EU citizens – I speak on behalf of many of my constituents in Northern Ireland who have been in contact with me on the matter. There has been much speculation as to the potential impact of the ACAA on the human rights of Palestinians living in the occupied territories. However, as indicated by the Commissioner, this has been dealt with in the conditionalities in the Association Agreement between the EU and Israel.

Focus must therefore turn to the rights of EU citizens to effective and reasonably priced health care. By allowing mutual recognition of goods certificates, the EU-Israel ACAA would erode several barriers to exporting pharmaceuticals from Israel to the EU and vice versa, allowing advanced medical supplies to reach those who need them most, in a reduced timeframe. In the light of the global economic climate, eliminating the need for extensive product testing would also positively impact the operating costs of EU pharmaceutical manufacturers, leading to savings in national health care services, including the National Health Service in the United Kingdom. As a result, the Agreement represents an avenue through which I can remain true to two of my personal priorities as an elected representative for Northern Ireland – consolidating public health and safeguarding jobs – and for these very human reasons I am in support of it.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Caspary (PPE). - Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Vor zwei Jahren sind zwei Abkommen zeitgleich in das Parlament gekommen: Dieses Abkommen, über das wir heute sprechen, und das Landwirtschaftsabkommen mit den Palästinensergebieten. Dieses Israel-Abkommen hat das ein oder andere Problem aufgeworfen. Wir hatten das Thema des Ausschlusses von Produkten aus den umstrittenen Gebieten. Die Kommission ist auf dieses Thema sehr gut eingegangen. Wir hatten den Artikel 3, den wir überarbeitet haben wollten. Der Rat ist auf Bitten unseres Berichterstatters auf alle Kritikpunkte eingegangen. Jetzt wird plötzlich das gleiche Thema wieder aufgegriffen, wofür ich kein Verständnis habe. Jetzt wird eine Erklärung des Rates gefordert, die ich inhaltlich ausdrücklich teile. Aber was ist denn das für ein Politikstil, dass wir als Parlament mal kurz Überlegungen zu einem Text anstellen, Fraktionen Texte verhandeln und wir mit dem Rat, der diese Erklärung abgeben soll, nicht ein einziges Mal in den Austausch treten? Das ist ein Politikstil, den wir nicht teilen! Deswegen werden wir gegen diesen Änderungsantrag stimmen.

Das Nächste: Wir halten zudem nach Artikel 81 unserer Geschäftsordnung für fragwürdig, ob dieser Änderungsantrag überhaupt zulässig ist. Ich wäre der Präsidentin sehr dankbar, wenn man das noch einmal prüfen könnte.

Was mich ärgert – und es wurde hier schon mehrfach deutlich –, ist: Wir sind als Europäische Union doch einer von wenigen anerkannten Vermittlern in diesem Streit. Dann geht es doch darum, dass wir nicht eine der beiden Seiten bevorzugen oder benachteiligen. Wenn wir ein anerkannter Vermittler bleiben wollen, dann müssen wir mit beiden Seiten fair umgehen. Vor eineinhalb Jahren haben wir das Abkommen mit den Palästinensergebieten trotz Hamas, trotz Vollzugs der Todesstrafe in allem durchlaufen lassen. Und bei diesem Abkommen gelten plötzlich völlig andere Maßstäbe. Ich würde mir einfach wünschen, dass wir uns hier gemeinsam an die Prinzipien halten.

Aber ich habe leider den Eindruck, dass das einzige Prinzip, das hier einige Kollegen haben, darin besteht, dass sie kein Prinzip haben, sondern dass sie sich die Dinge immer gerade so hindrehen, wie es ihnen passt. So kann man keine glaubwürdige Politik machen. Ich bitte Sie deshalb, Ihre Position hier noch einmal zu überdenken und genauso wie bei dem Abkommen für die Palästinensergebiete auch heute Abend diesem Abkommen zuzustimmen, denn es geht um genau den gleichen Sachverhalt.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  David Martin (S&D). - Madam President, Daniel Caspary knows full well that he is not equating like with like. Firstly, the Palestinians are the occupied, not the occupiers. Secondly, the agricultural upgrade was relatively minor compared to the millions, if not billions, that could eventually be available to Israeli companies if we approve this so-called ‘technical upgrade’.

It is not a ‘technical upgrade’. It will immediately benefit Israeli pharmaceutical companies. It is also not something being done in the interest of the European Union, Mrs Dodds, because there is no evidence that it would save the UK National Health Service a single penny. This is not the time, in my opinion, to be upgrading our relationship with Israel.

If we believe in policy cohesion, we have to have some interaction between our trade policy, our human rights policy and our foreign policy. Mr Murphy has rightly said that Israel is engaged in the collective punishment of Gaza, against all human rights norms, against all international norms. There is no question about it; even the Israelis do not deny it. For the misdemeanours of a few, the whole of Gaza is being punished.

We also know, of course, that Israel has continued to expand its settlements in the Middle East. These settlements are illegal under international law and threaten to make a two-state solution impossible. The EU has repeatedly urged the Israeli Government to immediately end all settlement activities on the West Bank, including in East Jerusalem, in line with its obligations under the roadmap. These are not my words, but those of the High Representative of the European Union. So how can the High Representative put out a press release like that, and the Trade Commissioner then come along and say we should approve the rewarding of Israel for its policies?

There is no cohesion there, there is no logic to such a position in the European Union. Let me make it clear, and other speakers have made it clear: this is not about being anti-Israel. This is about being anti the current Israeli Government and anti the current Israeli Government’s policies. That is why initially I hoped to postpone a decision, so that if we do get a better Israeli Government, if we do get better Israeli policies, we could pass this protocol and we could enhance our relationship with Israel.

 
  
  

IN THE CHAIR: LÁSZLÓ SURJÁN
Vice-President

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Signor Commissario, di per sé l'ACAA è un ottimo accordo: va nella direzione della semplificazione, che certamente auspico, ma pensare che sia un accordo tecnico mi pare ingenuo, o forse siamo in malafede. C'è una lunghissima lista di richieste nei confronti dell'autorità israeliana da parte dell'Unione europea, da parte dell'alto rappresentante, da parte dei nostri consoli a Gerusalemme Est, e da parte di questo Parlamento sulle colonie in Cisgiordania, sulla continua annessione di Gerusalemme Est, sulla situazione a Gaza e sulla ripresa del processo di pace.

Se noi vediamo che cosa siamo riusciti a ottenere con queste richieste come Unione europea, non constatiamo nessun progresso reale e nessuna seria concessione. Per questa ragione penso che questo sia tutto fuorché un provvedimento politicamente neutrale. La mia delegazione voterà contro l'ACAA e chiedo alla Commissione, qualora l'ACAA venga approvato, il massimo grado di sorveglianza, sia per la tracciabilità dei prodotti delle colonie, che è un problema, che non riguarda la buona fede della Commissione ma Israele, sia per quanto riguarda l'estensione ad altri prodotti senza il ruolo del Parlamento europeo.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Franziska Katharina Brantner (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, it is interesting that we are having this vote right after the Israeli Foreign Minister insulted our High Representative Baroness Ashton and the EU on Saturday, saying that the EU should focus on its own problems before making suggestions on how to resolve the crisis and the terrible situation with Palestine. This is clearly mocking the fact that the EU has taken a stance on this issue, and its involvement in the problem.

Commissioner, I think you have been trying to work on the question of the settlement products, but this is not the only thing that will help us out. The question we are dealing with in this Agreement on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAA) is a territorial question: who decides the boundaries of Israel and our trade relations – Israel according to its own law, or the EU according to international law?

In the Foreign Affairs Committee, we had asked for an interim report to clarify the legal questions. It is true, Mr Caspary, that the INTA chair at first decided not to go for that approach. We were quite sad to hear that, but it is interesting that we are now returning to that option. I consider that option is still the best one we can take – to clarify the legal questions and get an interim report that clarifies the outstanding issues. It is our task as parliamentarians to check the legal validity. This is not only a legal question but a political one also.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Cristiana Muscardini (ECR). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, Signor Commissario, per anni questo Parlamento non è stato in grado di superare il divario ideologico tra chi è pro Palestina e chi è pro Israele, anche quando il dibattito è squisitamente tecnico.

L'accordo ACAA prevede l'estensione di alcuni benefici del mercato interno a settori che sono già allineati ma che richiedono una ulteriore regolamentazione per facilitare l'accesso al mercato di prodotti industriali ed eliminare gli ostacoli tecnici. L'accordo va inquadrato su base commerciale, perché permette di agevolare l'accesso europeo sui mercati dei prodotti farmaceutici e procedere al completamento della politica dello scambio che l'Unione sta portando a termine con i paesi mediterranei.

Su base commerciale dovrebbe essere inserito il dibattito sugli eventuali problemi legati al dubbio d'origine per alcuni prodotti esportati, un rischio che non avremmo se il Consiglio avesse approvato il regolamento sulla denominazione di origine, che invece è bloccato e rischia di essere accantonato per incomprensioni politiche e interessi contrastanti. Invitiamo l'Aula a saper scindere le valutazioni commerciali da quelle politiche e chiediamo che non si continui con una sterile strumentalizzazione e che si voti l'accordo.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Κυριάκος Τριανταφυλλίδης (GUE/NGL). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, συζητάμε σήμερα τη συμφωνία ΔΣΑ. Μια συμφωνία που αν εγκριθεί θα δίδει πρόσβαση σε ισραηλινά προϊόντα, που ενδεχομένως να παράγονται και στα κατεχόμενα από το Ισραήλ παλαιστινιακά εδάφη, στις ευρωπαϊκές αγορές.

Μια τέτοια εξέλιξη θα ήταν αντίθετη προς τους νόμους της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και το διεθνές δίκαιο, δεδομένου ότι θα αναγκάσει την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση να αναγνωρίσει την επέκταση της κυριαρχίας του Ισραήλ πέρα από εδάφη που κατέλαβε το 1967, συμπεριλαμβανομένης της ανατολικής Ιερουσαλήμ, τα όρη του Γκολάν, καθώς και τον οικισμό στη Δυτική Όχθη. Θα ήταν επίσης αντίθετη προς το γράμμα και πνεύμα της συμφωνίας σύνδεσης της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης - Ισραήλ, που καθαρά προβλέπει την προσήλωση των μερών στο σεβασμό των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων, μια υποχρέωση που το Ισραήλ αποτυγχάνει παταγωδώς να εκπληρώσει διαχρονικά. Το απέδειξε περίτρανα το περασμένο Σάββατο, όταν, όπως ανέφερε και ο συνάδελφος Paul Murphy, βίαια ανέκοψε την πορεία του πλοίου "Estelle" σε διεθνή ύδατα. Το αποδεικνύει και σήμερα με τη συνεχιζόμενη κατοχή των παλαιστινιακών εδαφών.

Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση έχει υποχρέωση να υπερασπιστεί τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα ενός λαού που βρίσκεται υπό κατοχή και όχι να αναβαθμίσει τις σχέσεις της με το κατοχικό κράτος. Και αν το Συμβούλιο και η Επιτροπή δεν σέβονται αυτή τη θεμελιώδη αρχή, ας το πράξουμε εμείς, ως Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, με την ψήφο μας καταψηφίζοντας το πρωτόκολλο.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Matteo Salvini (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, alla faccia del premio Nobel all'Unione europea: mi piacerebbe che i cittadini sentissero alcuni interventi in quest'Aula! Alla faccia del dialogo e del rispetto dei diritti umani e della tolleranza.

Mi auguro che la Commissione vada avanti su questo progetto che tecnicamente, economicamente e socialmente è utile al dialogo, è utile ai consumatori, è utile alle aziende, è utile ai lavoratori – e non mi interessa che siano ebrei, cristiani o musulmani – che lavorano per Israele, che da un punto di vista della ricerca farmaceutica è un modello a cui arrivare e con cui competere.

La tristezza è però che in quest'Aula non sentiamo un'identica indignazione da parte di una sinistra ipocrita, ipocrita, ipocrita quando vengono ignorati i diritti umani in altre parti del mondo, in Nordafrica, in Medio Oriente. Se volete continuare il derby Israele-Palestina, non vince nessuno. Mi auguro che questo sia un pezzetto di pace che questo Parlamento porterà in quella terra e chi voterà contro, per quanto mi riguarda, si dovrebbe vergognare.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniël van der Stoep (NI). - Vandaag bespreken wij een prachtig protocol bij de samenwerkingsovereenkomst EU-Israël. Israël is een technologisch land met een geweldige industriële structuur die het land maakt tot de technologische parel van het

Midden-Oosten. Het is wel de parel van het Midden-Oosten op meer gebieden.

Het is qua certificering en standaardisatie volledig te vergelijken met westerse landen. Alleen daarom al is dit protocol natuurlijk van enorm belang voor de EU. Het enorme potentieel van hoogstaande producten uit Israël komt zo meer binnen het bereik van de Europese burgers. Het is niet voor niets dat alle computers op de wereld wel iets Israëlisch in zich hebben en dat het online contact houden met elkaar er nooit was gekomen zonder de Israëlische computerindustrie.

Een andere reden om de handelsbetrekkingen met de joodse staat Israël aan te halen is natuurlijk haar niet-aflatende strijd tegen terreur uit de Gazastrook en terreur in Israël zelf. Dagelijks worden Qassam-raketten afgevuurd naar Israëlische burgers en kinderen en vrouwen, en in Judea en Samaria worden joodse inwoners met brandbommen bestookt.

Voorzitter, verder zou ik nogmaals de Commissie willen vragen om Jeruzalem te erkennen als enige en ongedeelde hoofdstad van de joodse staat Israël en de Commissie te verzoeken om de EU-ambassade daar te vestigen waar zij thuishoort, in Jeruzalem, dat van oost tot west Israëlisch is en moet blijven.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ioannis Kasoulides (PPE). - Mr President, the ACAA agreement is not an upgrading of relations between the EU and Israel. It is based on the alignment of the legislative system of a country and its infrastructure with the EU. It is a process emanating from the Barcelona Process, extended now to Neighbourhood Policy countries, as stipulated in the association agreements; and it is a process that will apply to all partners as soon as the conformity assessment is completed.

The main purpose of the Union for the Mediterranean, formerly known as the Barcelona Process, is not to deal with, judge or attempt to resolve the partners’ political issues, such as the Middle East problem. Its purpose is to create, through the association agreements and cooperation between partners, an environment of trust, détente and understanding within which the parties to a dispute can try to resolve their differences themselves.

It would therefore be inappropriate to introduce political considerations in giving our assent once our question, addressed to the Commissioner and agreed by all, has been answered: this agreement applies only to Israel within its 1967 borders.

The EU, a soft power, should exercise its influence in the Middle East, avoiding what would appear as sanctions – which we know in advance will not work with Israel, which has enough backing from the United States – through which we ourselves create a void. Yes to more policy but not, as in this case, at the cost of achieving less.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Emer Costello (S&D). - Mr President, I want to thank the rapporteur for his considered, reasonable and very balanced approach to this report. I would support the view that he puts forward.

I believe that support for ACAA at this point in time runs contrary to all recent EU policy statements, including the conclusions by the European Council of 14 May, recent statements by the High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Baroness Ashton, and, indeed, resolutions by this Parliament. All of these have been strong in their admonishment of Israeli policies in relation to settlements, the Gaza blockade and the ensuing humanitarian crisis in the region, the evictions of Palestinians from their lands, the demolition of homes and vital infrastructure, the restrictions on freedom of movement, the isolation of East Jerusalem and the lack of progress on the peace process.

The EU has expressed the view time and time again that the actions by the Israelis threaten to make the two-state solution impossible. If we are to achieve a lasting solution, there must be consequences for Israel for the flagrant breaches of international law. While I accept that approval for ACAA is not technically an upgrading, given that it is based on an existing Association Agreement, in practice it does allow access for Israeli pharmaceuticals to one of the most lucrative markets in the world.

Enhancing the EU’s partnership with Israel at this time serves only to undermine our own EU’s firm condemnation of Israeli policy. Our words must be followed up with actions if they are to have any real meaning or effect. I call on Members to act for peace and a lasting solution and to reject this Agreement at this point in time.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Frédérique Ries (ALDE). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, cela fait deux ans et demi que cet accord technique est dans les mains du Parlement. Aujourd'hui, malgré les réponses concrètes apportées, il y a quelques instants encore, par le commissaire De Gucht, et aussi par tous les services juridiques, l'obstruction continue. M. Moreira, qui n'est décidément jamais à court d'imagination, est donc maintenant sur le point de demander un énième et nouveau report.

Rappelons tout de même que, voter l'ACAA, c'est faciliter la libre circulation des médicaments entre l'Union européenne et Israël, des médicaments génériques surtout qui, grâce à l'accord, soigneront plus rapidement les citoyens européens, tout en permettant à nos budgets nationaux de faire des économies dont ils peuvent difficilement se passer aujourd'hui.

Notre métier à tous, ici, c'est d'évaluer, de juger et de voter pour ou contre, en âme et conscience. C'est ce qu'une poignée de collègues dans ce Parlement nous empêchent de faire depuis maintenant deux ans et demi. Cela a assez duré. Shimon Peres avait coutume de dire: "At one point, let's agree to disagree, obviously this is the time".

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nicole Kiil-Nielsen (Verts/ALE). - Monsieur le Président, l'ACAA n'est pas un simple accord technique. C'est le renforcement des relations UE-Israël et un accès libre au marché unique européen bien que l'UE ait décidé, en juin 2009, de suspendre le rehaussement de ses relations économiques avec Israël.

Donner son consentement à cet accord, c'est admettre et encourager la colonisation illégale des territoires palestiniens; c'est admettre et encourager le blocus illégal et inhumain de Gaza. Dans les rapports de nos ambassadeurs à Jérusalem, il est recommandé d'adopter des mesures contraignantes pour mettre fin à la colonisation. L'Union européenne ayant déclaré que la colonisation israélienne était un obstacle à la paix, l'adoption de l'ACAA devra, par souci de cohérence, nous amener à refuser le prix Nobel de la paix.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR). - Wydawałoby się, że umowa, o której dzisiaj dyskutujemy, jest przecież oczywiście w interesie obywateli Unii Europejskiej. Jest umową techniczną i powinniśmy za nią głosować, bo przynosi ona oszczędności, a nikt nie ma wątpliwości, że zwłaszcza produkty medyczne z Izraela są najwyższej jakości i żadnych problemów z techniczną ich jakością nikt nigdy nie zgłaszał. Przy okazji tej debaty znowu jednak wylewa się fala antyizraelskiej retoryki – bardzo często zresztą kłamstw – fala, która w żaden sposób nie ma związku z rzeczywistością.

Izrael jest demokracją, Izrael nikogo nie okupuje, Żydzi mają prawo budować swoje osiedla na swojej ziemi, do której wracają po tylu latach wygnania. Nikt z nas nie powinien tego prawa kwestionować. Chcę powiedzieć bardzo wyraźnie, że za szczególną hipokryzję uważam i szczególnym oburzeniem napawa mnie fakt, że atakujemy kraj i czynimy zarzut z tego, że chcemy wspierać kraj, który broni naszej cywilizacji, który broni przed islamskim terroryzmem także Europę. Chcę powiedzieć, że zwłaszcza szczególnym oburzeniem napawa mnie fakt, że chcą pouczać Izrael ci, którzy nie dostrzegają prześladowań praw człowieka na Kubie, którzy są w stanie bić brawo Fidelowi Castro, którzy nie widzą problemu w Wenezueli, którzy wreszcie nie widzą problemów z prawami człowieka na Białorusi. Izrael jest demokracją i często największą krytykę tego państwa wygłasza się w jego własnym parlamencie. Jestem całym sercem za przyjęciem tego porozumienia.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Fiorello Provera (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ancora una volta quando discutiamo delle relazioni tra Unione europea e Israele la nostra Aula si divide in maniera ideologica e trasferisce un accordo di natura tecnica sul terreno dello scontro politico, a prescindere dal contenuto.

Questo accordo non è un upgrade delle relazioni tra Unione europea e Israele; non è un testo di diritto internazionale che delimita frontiere e definisce diritti di sovranità. A sostenerlo sono i servizi giuridici del Parlamento e della Commissione, che hanno sottolineato come l'ACAA con Israele non vada al di là dell'esistente quadro giuridico. Si tratta di un accordo di natura tecnica, che permetterà a molti cittadini europei un accesso più facile a medicinali di ottima qualità e a basso costo, con notevoli risparmi per i nostri servizi sanitari nazionali. L'Italia risparmierà circa 1 miliardo di euro l'anno, che in questa situazione economica difficile non è certo poco. È per queste ragioni che ritengo si debba approvare questo accordo.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). - Señor Presidente, la Unión Europea, sus 27 Estados miembros, la Comisión y este Parlamento –cuando aprobó las directivas de negociación– tienen un compromiso adquirido con Israel desde el año 2005.

Israel es un socio de la Unión Europea, es un actor insoslayable en el proceso de paz, aunque no nos gusten las decisiones que se hayan tomado en el ámbito de los asentamientos y aunque algunas de las decisiones tomadas por ese Gobierno se sitúen en franca contradicción con los derechos que asisten al pueblo palestino.

Después de las elecciones en los Estados Unidos, señor Presidente, va a haber un relanzamiento de las negociaciones del proceso de paz, y es evidente que la Unión Europea no puede quedarse fuera de este proceso. Por lo tanto, la Unión Europea y este Parlamento tienen que ser coherentes con sus compromisos y aprobar este Acuerdo.

Por cierto, señor Presidente, la enmienda interpretativa que se ha presentado a la resolución legislativa constituye una violación flagrante del Reglamento de este Parlamento, ya que, verdaderamente, el artículo 83 dice con toda claridad que no se pueden presentar enmiendas a la resolución legislativa.

El Parlamento tiene derecho a expresar su punto de vista a través de las resoluciones no legislativas y, en todo caso, la admisión de esta enmienda constituye y sienta un grave precedente, es susceptible de ser recurrida, si no se corrige esta decisión, ante el Tribunal de Justicia y, desde luego, señor Presidente, deja a los pies de los caballos a los que han presentado y admitido esta enmienda.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Maria Badia i Cutchet (S&D). - Señor Presidente, señor Comisario, colegas, cuando un asunto despierta estas profundas sensibilidades y plantea importantes desafíos para la eficacia, la coherencia y la credibilidad de la Unión como actor global, no resulta fácil tomar decisiones de forma sosegada ni lograr los deseables consensos, máxime cuando se trata de Oriente Medio, con un proceso de paz estancado, y en vísperas de elecciones en Israel.

En este momento creo que desde el Parlamento tenemos que mantener la cabeza fría y asumir plenamente nuestras responsabilidades, asegurando que la Unión Europea negocia y aplica sus acuerdos de forma eficaz, coherente y, desde luego, respetando los Tratados, la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Justicia y la legalidad internacional.

El Protocolo relativo a la evaluación de la conformidad y aceptación de productos industriales que debatimos hoy, plantea, desde mi punto de vista, problemas legales, técnicos e institucionales para la Unión Europea que deben ser suficientes para aunar un consenso en esta Cámara.

El Servicio Jurídico del Parlamento nos ha confirmado que si Israel nombra a una autoridad responsable para la aplicación de este Protocolo, con competencia en todo Israel, la Unión Europea no podrá reconocerla y el Protocolo no podrá aplicarse, porque no podemos desconocer que, de acuerdo con la legislación israelí, el territorio de Israel incluye territorios más allá de las fronteras de 1967.

Por este motivo, nuestro grupo, Socialistas y Demócratas, ha impulsado y apoya enmiendas que piden que el Consejo realice una declaración interpretativa que permita evitar un reconocimiento implícito de la soberanía israelí sobre esos territorios; lo que ocurre es que el mismo Consejo nos dice que esta declaración interpretativa no puede tener todas las garantías de que esta exclusión quede clara.

Por otra parte, si fuera aprobado este Protocolo en las condiciones actuales, podrían modificarse y ampliarse para incluir otros productos industriales sin consultar al Parlamento, con lo cual volveríamos a encontrarnos otra vez con un problema de legalidad internacional.

Por estas dos cuestiones básicamente, yo creo que estamos ante una situación en la que hay que pedir la devolución de este Protocolo a la Comisión de Comercio Internacional y, en caso de que…

(El Presidente interrumpe a la oradora)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alexandra Thein (ALDE). - Herr Präsident! Ich möchte heute hier nicht politisch gegen das CAA-Zusatzprotokoll argumentieren, dass wir damit Israel für seine Menschenrechtsverletzungen belohnen, ein falsches Signal aussenden würden, sondern juristisch. Im Protokoll ist vorgesehen, dass der territoriale Zuständigkeitsbereich der israelischen Zertifizierungsbehörde für Pharmaka, im konkreten Fall des Gesundheitsministeriums, durch Israel definiert wird – natürlich nach eigenem nationalem Recht. Danach sind aber die völkerrechtlich illegalen Siedlungen im Westjordanland sowie die illegal annektierten Gebiete in Ostjerusalem und den Golanhöhen israelisches Gebiet. Mangels einer entgegenstehenden Vorschrift im Protokoll steht zu befürchten, dass Israel die Hoheitsgewalt der Zertifizierungsbehörde auf die besetzten Gebiete ausdehnt. Bei Umsetzung des Protokolls in die Praxis würde die EU somit gezwungen, Israels Souveränitätsanspruch über Teile der besetzten Gebiete erstmals anzuerkennen. Daher appelliere ich an die Mitglieder dieses Hauses, heute gegen das CAA-Protokoll zu stimmen. Als demokratisch gewählte Mitglieder dieses Hauses sind wir dazu verpflichtet, EU- und Völkerrecht in unserem Wertekatalog zu beachten.

Der Friedensnobelpreis wurde der EU verliehen, weil wir die Prinzipien der Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Demokratie anwenden – nicht nur in Bezug auf die EU selbst. Wie können wir dieses wichtige ...

(Der Präsident entzieht der Rednerin das Wort.)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jill Evans (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I would like to echo the call from the rapporteur and from other colleagues to refer this agreement back to committee for further debate. I have been contacted by many constituents from Wales opposing this agreement, so it is a matter of grave concern that goes way beyond the walls of this Chamber.

I visited the West Bank earlier this month with my European Free Alliance colleagues in this Parliament. It was not my first visit, but it was no less shocking for that. We had many meetings and, whether we discussed education, freedom of movement, planning, prisoners, housing, land, water or transport – in fact whatever subject we discussed – we heard the same story of discrimination and ill-treatment of the Palestinian people.

What we heard too, and what we saw very clearly for ourselves, was that the situation is worsening all the time. We are not just talking about a technical agreement; we are talking about human rights, justice and international law, and we cannot put those issues aside when making this decision.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE). - Het extern optreden van de Europese Unie moet gebaseerd zijn op het internationale recht en stroken met de normen en waarden die de EU uitdraagt. Dat moet zeker ook gelden voor bilaterale betrekkingen met een belangrijke partner als Israël.

Vanuit de Commissie buitenlandse zaken hebben wij drie zaken geformuleerd. Als eerste, de Israëlische verantwoordelijke autoriteit heeft geen bevoegdheid in de gebieden die sinds 1967 bezet zijn. Twee, geen enkel industrieel product geproduceerd in Israëlische nederzettingen op de westelijke Jordaanoever en in Oost-Jeruzalem mag gecertificeerd worden onder de bepalingen van het protocol. Ten derde, Palestijnse producten uit de bezette Palestijnse gebieden moeten door de Israëlische autoriteiten gelijk behandeld worden.

Wij hebben in juli een debat gehad met commissaris De Gucht en die zei letterlijk:

"What I have been doing is giving you the assurances that in good faith I can give you. They are not watertight."

Voorzitter, ik zou wél die waterdichte garanties willen hebben en daarom zou ik ook graag steun willen verlenen aan iets dat bij het protocol gevraagd wordt. Maar op een moment dat er een amendement is bij een protocol waarover wij alleen met ja of nee kunnen stemmen, heb ik een probleem. Daarom zou ik graag hebben dat de Raad dezelfde verantwoordelijkheid op zich neemt als commissaris De Gucht.

Ik weet echter niet hoe dat moet gaan als ik voor een amendement moet stemmen, terwijl wij bij een protocol toch geen amendementen kennen, maar alleen een simpel ja of nee. Als u mij die garanties kunt geven, weet ik ook precies hoe ik mij in de stemming moet gedragen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gianluca Susta (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, non sfugge a nessuno in quest'Aula che la portata del provvedimento che voteremo questa sera va ben al di là dell'oggetto specifico che stiamo discutendo. Mi considero un amico di Israele da sempre e non ho personalmente alcun dubbio sul fatto che il conflitto che da decenni contrappone larga parte del mondo arabo a Israele sia dovuto principalmente – se non esclusivamente – al fatto che troppi nel mondo arabo non vogliono ammettere il diritto all'esistenza dello Stato di Israele.

Detto questo, però, non possiamo non denunciare con forza che le ripetute violazioni del diritto internazionale e gli accordi sottoscritti da parte del governo israeliano hanno nel tempo innescato una spirale che anche Israele deve – proprio perché rivendica per sé la qualifica di unica democrazia del Medio Oriente – contribuire a interrompere con decisione.

Chiediamo quindi che questo dossier sia rinviato in commissione INTA e sia congelato fino a quando non ci saranno segnali decisivi da parte di Israele per lo smantellamento degli insediamenti nei Territori palestinesi occupati illegittimamente e per un maggiore rispetto del diritto all'esistenza del popolo palestinese, segnali che vanno incoraggiati anche da una più efficace politica estera europea in quell'area, oggi del tutto insufficiente.

In subordine, pur non potendo arrivare comunque a votare a favore del provvedimento, riteniamo che quanto meno quest'Aula debba sostenere l'emendamento dei colleghi Moreira, De Keyser, Schaake, volto ad escludere che i vantaggi previsti per Israele da questo regolamento si estendano anche ai prodotti provenienti dai territori illegittimamente occupati.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). - Arvoisa puhemies, eurooppalaisina päätöksentekijöinä meidän täytyy aina muistaa eurooppalaiset arvot, joita ovat demokratia, ihmisoikeudet, mielipiteenvapaus, oikeusvaltioperiaatteet.

Myös Euroopan unionissa on yksi keskeinen ajatus sisämarkkinoista, neljästä vapaudesta. Meille on erittäin tärkeää myös huolehtia siitä, että kaupan esteitä poistetaan. ACAA-sopimus on puhtaasti tekninen kauppasopimus, jolla poistetaan kaupan esteitä. Minusta on huolestuttavaa, että täällä jotkut haluavat politisoida tämän sopimuksen. Ei näin. Ymmärrän sen, että täällä on liikkeellä juutalais- ja israelilaisvastaisia voimia, jotka haluavat tehdä politiikkaa tällä asialla, mutta palataan perustaan – kysymys on teknisestä ja kaupallisesta sopimuksesta, josta on suuri eurooppalainen hyöty. Eurooppalaiset veronmaksajat ja kansalaiset tarvitsevat edullisempia ja huippulaadukkaita lääkkeitä, hyviä hoitotarvikkeita, ja me tarvitsemme tämän sopimuksen, jotta näihinkin haasteisiin voidaan vastata.

Toivon, että tämä sopimus saadaan tänään äänestettyä läpi. Olen todella huolissani tästä poliittisesta ilmapiiristä. Muistetaan, että Euroopalla on sellainen historia, että kun juutalaisvastaisuutta alettiin lietsomaan joskus 1930-luvulla, ensimmäinen ajatus oli, ettei juutalaisilta saa ostaa, ja mihin se johtikaan. Jotkut haluavat tuoda esiin vähän samanlaista ajattelua, että Israelin kanssa pitäisi lopettaa kaupankäynti, vaikka kysymys on teknisestä, kaikkia eurooppalaisia hyödyntävästä sopimuksesta. Siksi toivon, että tänään äänestämme selvästi ACAAn puolesta.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Μαριέττα Γιαννάκου (PPE). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, στην προκειμένη περίπτωση πρόκειται για ένα πρωτόκολλο που συνδέεται με την ευρωμεσογειακή συνεργασία μεταξύ Ευρωπαϊκής Κοινότητας και Ισραήλ. Δεν πρόκειται ασφαλώς για μια ευθέως πολιτική υπόθεση. Ορισμένοι ισχυρίζονται στο Κοινοβούλιο, βέβαια, ότι αποτελεί την πρώτη αναβάθμιση των σχέσεων με το Ισραήλ και κατά τούτο μπορεί να επηρεάσει τη διένεξη.

Ως μέλος της Επιτροπής Εξωτερικών Υποθέσεων εργάστηκα κι εγώ μαζί με τους συναδέλφους για να αντιμετωπίσουμε τα προβλήματα που θα προέκυπταν από τις περιοχές που έχουν καταληφθεί από το Ισραήλ και που δεν αναγνωρίζονται από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, δηλαδή τα μετά το 1967 εδάφη, και υποβάλαμε ερώτηση διά του προέδρου κ. Brok στον Επίτροπο De Gucht και ο Επίτροπος De Gucht ήρθε εδώ και ξεκαθάρισε, ότι το ένα μέρος μπορεί κάλλιστα να επιβάλει στο άλλο, μέσω του πρωτοκόλλου, ότι δεν αναγνωρίζονται σε συγκεκριμένες περιοχές τα προϊόντα που προέρχονται από εκεί. Επομένως και το τεχνικό θέμα ουσιαστικά έχει λυθεί.

Η σύγκρουση μεταξύ Ισραήλ και Παλαιστινίων, κύριε Πρόεδρε, είναι κάτι πολύ πιο βαθύ, δεν είναι κάτι που θα επηρεαστεί από τη συγκεκριμένη συμφωνία, η οποία βεβαίως αφορά και προϊόντα τα οποία είναι υψηλής ποιότητας και προσφέρονται σε πολύ καλές τιμές απ' την πλευρά του Ισραήλ.

Είναι αφελές να πιστεύουμε ότι μια τέτοια συμφωνία μπορεί να έχει σχέση με την ουσία της επίλυσης του ζητήματος. Το ζήτημα είναι πολύ πιο πολύπλοκο και όλοι γνωρίζουμε εδώ και τις ευθύνες που υπάρχουν γενικότερα και τα προβλήματα πάνω στα οποία προσκρούει η επίλυση και γνωρίζουμε βεβαίως και τις προσπάθειες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης για την πλήρη στήριξη της Παλαιστινιακής πλευράς.

Επομένως, δεν έχουμε κανένα λόγο να το συνδέσουμε με την επίλυση του προβλήματος. Και απ' την άλλη οι δύο τροπολογίες νομικά δεν υφίστανται και, επομένως, δεν μπορούν παρά να έχουν απορριφθεί.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). - Acordul dintre Uniunea Europeană şi Israel privind evaluarea conformităţii şi acceptarea produselor industriale este benefic pentru relaţiile dintre cele două părţi, însă ridică două probleme de ordin juridic. Prima se referă la întinderea teritorială a Autorităţii israeliene ce urmează a fi înfiinţată, iar pentru a respecta dreptul european şi internaţional, trebuie să permitem Israelului să deosebească între teritoriile sale şi cele ocupate. A doua problemă vizează tipurile de produse ce vor putea fi adăugate acestui acord, din păcate fără consensul Parlamentului European. Produsele cosmetice vor succeda probabil celor farmaceutice, în contextul în care Parlamentul va fi lipsit de dreptul său de colegislator. Forul democratic al Uniunii are datoria de a atrage atenţia asupra acestor lacune juridice şi de a vota cu responsabilitate, oferind Comisiei Europene şansa de a clarifica aceste aspecte problematice ale propunerii sale.

De aceea, consider necesară atât cererea de retransmitere a dosarului la comisia de fond, cât şi adoptarea declaraţiei care propune delimitarea corectă a întinderii teritoriale a viitoarei Autorităţi israeliene. Îmi exprim speranţa că aceste elemente vor fi luate pe deplin în considerare de către Consiliu şi Comisie, indiferent de rezultatul votului din această seară.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sarah Ludford (ALDE). - Mr President, I believe the best speech this afternoon has been by Mr Kasoulides, who cited the Barcelona Process and neighbourhood policy. I fervently believe that the EU’s role in promoting trade as a basis of dialogue and prosperity and its role in keeping its partners to democratic and human rights standards are part of a package, not one set against the other.

This is precisely the story of the EU itself, for which it received the Nobel Peace Prize. We can press our partners close on trade and on human rights at the same time. I voted for the agreement on agricultural trade with Palestine last year, despite some shocking reports – particularly on Hamas abuses in Gaza – most recently by Human Rights Watch and the Carnegie Endowment, because I believe in strengthening EU trade and economic links with the whole region.

I think this whole approach of critics, which sees trade relations with parties as a zero-sum game, is hopelessly unproductive. As my colleague, Marietje Schaake said, exactly how would rejection of this ACAA Agreement actually improve the situation of Palestinians? This is not about patting Israel on the back or rewarding it. It is not a political upgrade. It is part of the steady development of a neighbourhood policy of engagement.

By the way, I think Foreign Minister Lieberman’s rude rebuff to Cathy Ashton was stupid but is hardly the most important issue on the radar.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Paweł Zalewski (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Mówimy o umowie między Unią Europejską a Izraelem, która ułatwi dostęp leków generycznych z Izraela do Unii Europejskiej. To może obniżyć ich ceny, to będzie korzystne dla obywateli Unii Europejskiej. Jednak ta umowa jest kwestionowana na tej sali z powodów politycznych, nie technicznych, nie merytorycznych. Krytykuje się tę umowę, próbując uczynić z niej zakładnika sporu izraelsko-palestyńskiego. Ja osobiście jestem bardzo krytyczny, w wielu przypadkach negatywnie nastawiony do polityki Izraela na terenach okupowanych, jednak jestem zwolennikiem tej umowy z następujących powodów.

Po pierwsze, umowa dotyczy Izraela w granicach, które są uznawane, i jest to standard Światowej Organizacji Handlu, jest to też oczywiste dla wszystkich, i istnieją instrumenty, które umożliwiają i gwarantują doprowadzenie do wyłapywania nieprawdziwie oznaczonych produktów.

Po drugie, zablokowanie tej umowy miałoby charakter sankcji – sankcji, do których ustanawiania czy też inicjowania Parlament Europejski nie jest upoważniony.

Po trzecie, zależy nam na rozwiązaniu konfliktu pomiędzy Autonomią Palestyńską a Izraelem, ale powinniśmy być tak naprawdę bardziej skuteczni, powinniśmy wymagać od Rady i od Komisji bardziej skutecznych działań w tym kierunku.

Po czwarte, zablokowanie tej umowy byłoby bardzo złym sygnałem dla Izraela, szczególnie dzisiaj, kiedy znajduje się on pod gigantyczną presją płynącą między innymi z Iranu, gdy Iran jest w przededniu uzyskania zdolności do produkcji broni atomowej.

Tak więc opowiadam się przeciwko tym poprawkom, które zostały wniesione, za umową, która jest korzystna dla Unii Europejskiej, ale zarazem za zwiększoną aktywnością Unii Europejskiej, aby pośredniczyć w sporze pomiędzy Izraelem a Palestyną.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Marek Siwiec (S&D). - Wydawałoby się, słuchając tej debaty, że sala jest podzielona na tych, którzy są za pokojem i na tych, którzy są przeciwko pokojowi na Bliskim Wschodzie; na tych, którzy podzielają przemoc, i na tych, którzy są przeciwko przemocy. To jest jednak fałszywy dylemat, my wszyscy chcemy tego samego na Bliskim Wschodzie. Ja respektuję to, że na tej sali są osoby, które są przeciwko protokołowi CAA, ale chciałbym, żeby zarzuciły obłudę i żeby przestały mówić o źródle pochodzenia. Dzisiaj jesteśmy w stanie sprawdzić, gdzie była dana pomarańcza wyhodowana, a nie potrafimy stwierdzić, gdzie lekarstwa zostały wyprodukowane? Zarzućcie tę obłudę, powiedzcie, że jesteście przeciwko, i to jest w porządku.

Ja jestem za tym protokołem. Powiem Wam, dlaczego jestem za tym protokołem – dlatego, że jeżeli dawka lekarstwa, które kosztuje dzisiaj w Polsce 40 zł, 10 euro, ta dawka mogłaby być tańsza o 10%, to biedna osoba, uboga osoba w Polsce może wydać o 4 zł mniej na to samo lekarstwo, a za 4 zł biedny człowiek może kupić sobie obiad. Dzisiaj, będąc więc przeciwko tej właśnie umowie, powiedzcie temu biednemu człowiekowi wprost: jestem przeciw i odmawiam tobie tego jednego dodatkowego obiadu. To jest właśnie granica obłudy, której nie należy przekraczać, nawet w polityce.

Jeszcze jedno – mówicie Państwo, że w Izraelu rząd nie jest dobry. Może i jest niedobry, ale rozmawiałem niedawno z przewodniczącą Partii Pracy, która jest w opozycji, i ona popiera, popiera z całego serca tę umowę, bo jest ona w interesie współpracy nowoczesnego Izraela, Izraela również tych, którzy miłują pokój w tym kraju.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sari Essayah (PPE). - Arvoisa puhemies, ensinnäkin kiitokset kollega Siwiecille. Toivoisin, että koko S&D-ryhmä voisi puhua samoilla äänenpainoilla tämän asian suhteen, koska tässä lääketuotteiden kauppaan liittyvässä ACAA-sopimuksessa on kysymys nimenomaan teknisten määräysten vastavuoroisesta hyväksymisestä.

Sopimuksen tekemisen edellytyksenä on se, että kumppanimaa, tässä tapauksessa Israel, on saattanut yhteisön säännöstöt osaksi omaa kansallista lainsäädäntöään, ja senhän pitäisi tietenkin olla hieno asia, kun EU:n ulkopuolinen maa noudattaa samoja säännöksiä. Käytännössä tämä tarkoittaa, kuten täällä on monesta suusta kuultu, ettei tarvita erillistä aikaa ja kustannuksia lisäävää hyväksymismenettelyä, joten kuluttajat, eurooppalaiset kuluttajat, ovat nimenomaan ne, jotka tässä voittavat.

Kokonaistaloudelliset vaikutukset ovat EU:n kannalta positiivisia, näitten sopimuksen piiriin kuuluvien lääketuotteiden kaupan arvo EU:n ja Israelin välillä on ollut lähes miljardi euroa, joten varmentamisen tunnustaminen merkitsee säästöjä ja edistää vientiä. Lisäksi on vielä sellaisia etuja, joita ei voida edes määrällisesti mitata, kuten se, että ennustettavuus yrityksille paranee, järjestelmät tulevat yhdenmukaisiksi ja toisaalta protektionismi myös vähenee.

Täällä on esitetty arvioita, että sopimus voitaisiin tulkita siten, että EU:n ja Israelin suhteessa tapahtuu upgradaus eli suhteiden vahvistaminen tilanteessa, jossa Lähi-idän rauhanprosessi on pysähdyksissä. On hyvä muistaa, että rauhanprosessiin tarvitaan kaksi osapuolta, ja palestiinalaisosapuoli ei ole ollut halukas tulemaan sovintopöytään. On muistettava myös se, että ACAA-sopimuksen neuvottelu sisältyy jo vuonna 2004 Euroopan naapuruuspolitiikan puitteissa tehtyyn EU–Israel-toimintasuunnitelmaan.

Henkilökohtaisesti toivoisin, että me voisimme useammallakin alalla tehdä yhä enemmän yhteistyötä EU:n ja Israelin välillä, koska tämä todellakin hyödyttäisi molempia osapuolia. Vetoan siihen, että kollegat tänään äänestäisivät tämän sopimuksen hyväksymisen puolesta.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Inese Vaidere (PPE). - Kolēģi! Divpusējās sadarbības papildprotokols starp Eiropas Savienību un Izraēlu ir abpusēji izdevīgs un ārkārtīgi nozīmīgs. Tas uzlabos pieejamību lētiem, patentbrīviem medicīnas izstrādājumiem, likvidējot tehniskos ierobežojumus. Izraēlas medikamenti ir starp labākajiem pasaulē, un tos izmanto daudzas medicīnas iestādes, tajā skaitā vairums Eiropas veselības aprūpes iestāžu. Protokols paātrinās ilgo sertificēšanas procedūru, samazinot izmaksas un uzlabojot pieejamību medikamentiem, dodot pacientiem iespēju maksāt mazāk. Tas, īpaši krīzes apstākļos, ir ļoti svarīgi katram mūsu iedzīvotājam. Tiks saglabāta visaugstākā medikamentu kvalitātes kontrole, ko pieprasa Eiropas regulējošās iestādes.

Protokols atver arī Eiropas medikamentu ražotājiem eksporta iespējas uz Izraēlu. Laikā, kad runājam par atbalstu inovācijām, tas sniegtu reālu atbalstu lielākajai inovāciju nozarei – farmācijai. Līdz ar to arī darba vietas un izaugsmi. Protokols kalpotu kā pirmais solis arī pārējās rūpniecības nozarēs, lai saskaņotu Eiropas un Izraēlas likumdošanu. Ieviešot vienotu sertificēšanas sistēmu, mēs varētu samazināt izmaksas patentbrīvo medikamentu importam no Izraēlas līdz pat 10 miljardiem eiro gadā, bet jaunās sertifikācijas procedūras nodrošinās, ka tikai reģistrētas un Eiropas Savienībā apstiprinātas Izraēlas kompānijas varēs ražot medikamentus eksportam. Tādējādi tikai labākie testētie medikamenti nonāks Eiropas tirgū. Savukārt uzņēmumi, kas būs pakļauti vienreizējai sertificēšanas procedūrai, samazinās ražošanas laiku līdz pat trim gadiem. Ekonomiskais ieguvums no protokola ir acīm redzams. Ir arī cits ieguvums - atbalsts demokrātiskam režīmam šajā pretrunu un vardarbības plosītajā reģionā. Un varu tikai piekrist Caspary kungam, ka, ja noslēdzām līgumu ar Palestīnu, tad tas pats jādara arī attiecībā uz Izraēlu. Aicinu kolēģus bez atlikšanas atbalstīt protokola pieņemšanu. Paldies!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Alf Svensson (PPE). - Herr talman! Det vore intressant att jämföra en sådan här debatt om handelsavtalet med Israel med debatter som har hållits om andra handelsavtal världen över. Det har sagts att det här skulle vara någon present eller belöning till Benjamin Netanyahu. Det är väl ändå att underkänna EU:s egen förmåga att bedriva handel och ett märkligt sätt att resonera?

Vi vet ju att det i dag, här i vårt Europa, förskrivs mediciner i oanad omfattning som kommer från Israel. Det talas om 3,5 miljoner per dag. Vi vet också att de här medicinerna är billigare, som det sades nyligen här i kammaren. Det är väl inte helt fel om EU kan skaffa sig någonting som är billigare och dessutom av yppersta kvalitet när det gäller att bekämpa diabetes 2 och multipel skleros och sänka blodtrycket.

Någon här i kammaren sade att när vi talar om Kina så talar vi alltid om mänskliga rättigheter. Ja, fast jag har inte hört någon säga att vi borde avbryta handeln med Kina. Det skulle ju i så fall vara en konsekvens.

Man kan inte tala om ockuperade områden om inte man samtidigt vågar nämna varför de här områdena är ockuperade och varför Israel inte lever bakom 1967 års gränser. Jag tycker det är att förenkla det oerhört att glömma bort det – om man nu ska ta upp det i den här debatten, vilket inte alls skulle vara nödvändigt men som har gjorts av så väldigt många.

Det här avtalet är alltså godkänt sedan 2,5 år och nu mixtras det och krånglas på det här sättet. Det vore rakt och ärligt att tala om varför man krånglar för det är en orimlighet. Vi infekterar i stället möjligheterna att påverka i Mellanöstern och det trodde man ju inte att Europaparlamentet ville.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE). - Herr talman! Att som socialdemokraterna och vänstern här i Europaparlamentet göra CAA-avtalet till en bricka i ett storpolitiskt spel om Mellanöstern är såväl oansvarigt som ett svek mot de sjuka i både Israel och Europa som behöver läkemedel. Det är fel att påstå att det här avtalet handlar om uppgradera handelsrelationerna mellan EU och Israel.

Avtalet handlar varken om uppgraderade relationer eller om konflikten mellan Israel och Palestina. Det handlar om att underlätta för introduktionen och godkännandet av nya läkemedel. Allt för att sjuka i Israel och i Europa ska få tillgång till de bästa läkemedlen, så billigt som möjligt och så snabbt som möjligt. Att stoppa det här avtalet är att straffa dem som vi borde vara överens om är helt utan skuld i denna konflikt, nämligen de sjuka.

Vi började det här arbetet redan 2010 och då jobbade vi parallellt med ett avtal med Palestina om frukt och grönsaker. 2011 röstade jag för ett godkännande av handelsavtalet med Palestina om frukt och grönsaker. Vi gjorde det parallellt, bara för att vi inte ville skicka några politiska signaler åt det ena eller andra hållet. Men vänstern här stoppade avtalet med Israel och godkände bara avtalet med Palestina. Det är att göra storpolitiskt spel av något som inte borde vara storpolitiskt spel.

Jag ska avsluta med att säga att sjuka i Europa inte ska betala priset för att vänstern vill göra politiska poänger av sådant som egentligen skulle kunna underlätta människors liv såväl i Israel som i Europa.

 
  
 

„Catch the eye” eljárás

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Anna Záborská (PPE). - Predložený pozmeňujúci a doplňujúci návrh ide ďaleko za dosiahnutú dohodu medzi Komisiou a Izraelom, čo sa týka produktov vyrobených v izraelských osadách. Som zásadne proti tomu, aby sme využívali túto zmluvu na akési trestanie Izraela. Časť našich kolegov využila túto diskusiu na nenávistné politické prejavy voči Izraelu. Mrzí ma, že meriame krajiny dvojakým metrom.

Všetci sa snažíme o urovnanie konfliktu na Blízkom východe, ale riešením nie je obchodný tlak na jednu zo strán. Najmä nie v prípade, ak aj komisár De Gucht považuje súčasné mechanizmy týkajúce sa kontroly produktov vyrobených v izraelských osadách za dostatočné.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, the ACAA Protocol is not about human rights, the occupied territories or Israel’s approach to the Middle East peace process. It is about trade and unblocking technical barriers which currently exist between producers and consumers: one of the fundamental objectives of the European Union

For the record, and for those who have raised the issue repeatedly, I have received repeated assurances that there are no pharmaceutical products being manufactured in the settlements. Supporting ACAA does not endorse the expansion of settlements or indeed any other Israeli policy, neither does it increase goods with a provenance from the occupied territories. It does, however, enable Israel, which has a highly sophisticated regulatory authority, to certify medical products, a task for which it is more than equipped, to the benefit of all of Europe’s citizens.

People here, who have sought to block it, are cutting off their nose to spite their face. Israel is a global leader in producing cheap and safe, effective generic medicines. Those opposed to ACAA are more interested in bashing Israel than in promoting the welfare of Europe’s sick.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Adrian Severin (NI). - Mr President, besides technicalities and legalistic issues, this is a highly political topic. We have our values, but we also have our geopolitical interests, and our values will never prevail and will never flourish if we cannot win in our geostrategic endeavours. This is precisely why, to promote both the political interests of our citizens and their values, we have to stop the filibustering of the coming into force of this Agreement. Therefore, I hope that today our vote will bring this odyssey to an end.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE). - Protokol k Euro-stredomorskej dohode o posudzovaní zhody a uznávaní priemyselných výrobkov (ACAA) medzi členskými štátmi Európskej únie a Izraelom uľahčí vzájomnú obchodnú výmenu prostredníctvom jednotného regulačného rámca, a to predovšetkým v oblasti liekov a farmaceutík a najmä generík. Som presvedčený, že z ekonomického a technického hľadiska je tento protokol k už existujúcej dohode zvlášť v čase ekonomickej krízy prínosným krokom vpred nielen pre priemysel, ale najmä pre konečného adresáta, ktorým je aj európsky pacient.

Izrael je pre EÚ významným blízkovýchodným demokratickým partnerom a o napredovaní vzájomných vzťahov svedčí aj 60 nových spoločných projektov v 15 rôznych oblastiach prijatých nedávno na asociačnej rade EÚ – Izrael. Jednoznačne podporujem prijatie tejto dohody, jej odmietnutie by totiž vôbec nepredstavovalo konštruktívny postoj ani neprispelo k zlepšeniu izraelsko-palestínskych vzťahov.

 
  
 

(A „catch the eye” eljárás vége.)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, I think the whole debate demonstrates that this is a very political technical debate. There has been a lot of discussion on this topic in the Committee and in the Plenary. I am not going to say anything further. It is now up to the House to make its decision.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vital Moreira, relator. − Senhor Presidente, duas notas finais: em primeiro lugar, não há um dia de demora neste procedimento que se deva a qualquer declaração, ou posição, ou decisão unilateral da minha parte. Não fui o primeiro relator deste processo, fui relator malgré moi e todas as decisões, toda a condução deste processo foi feita com inteira transparência e inteiro acordo do comité. A acusação que me foi feita por um representante dos interesses israelitas neste Parlamento não é apenas estúpida, só desqualifica quem a fez. Segundo, a minha objeção a este acordo, a minha posição inicial como relator não tem a ver com a política israelita, tem a ver com a nossa e com a consistência que o Tratado impõe a que as nossas políticas externas sejam coerentes entre si. A minha posição foi sempre a de que é a coerência das políticas externas da União que está em causa e não vejo como é que é possível ao mesmo tempo condenarmos Israel pelo que Israel está a fazer em relação aos territórios ocupados e depois quando temos uma oportunidade para colocar pressões a Israel para observar as nossas condenações damos-lhe um prémio desta natureza. Amanhã Israel rir-se-á, e com gosto, das nossas posições políticas porque sabe que é apenas libre service, é hipocrisia e quando se trata de as levar a cabo não somos capazes de as levar a cabo.

Finalmente, uma declaração pessoal: não pertenço a nenhum movimento anti-israelita, não pertenço a nenhuma associação amiga de amigos dos palestinianos, não devo nada a nenhuma das partes, repito, não devo nada a nenhuma das partes, e gostaria que quem interveio neste debate pudesse dizer o mesmo com a mesma franqueza.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Elnök. − A vitát lezárom.

A szavazásra 2012. október 23-án, kedden kerül sor.

Írásbeli nyilatkozatok (149. cikk)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Csanád Szegedi (NI), írásban. – Tisztelt Képviselőtársaim! Minden vitában csupán a tisztelet hangján szabad szólnunk, amely Izraellel kapcsolatos. Izrael ugyanis az elmúlt évtizedekben példát mutatott Földünk egyik politikailag legingatagabb régiójában, hogy miként lehet minden nehézség ellenére egy modern demokráciát felépíteni. A zsidó állam bebizonyította, hogy lehet ott is szabadságot és békét adni az embereknek, ahol diktatúrákat építenek és gyűlöletet szítanak. Határozott álláspontom, hogy az Európai Parlamentnek erkölcsi és morális kötelessége lenne minden olyan lépést támogatnia, amely közelebb hozza egymáshoz Izraelt és az Európai Uniót, ugyanis kulturális értelemben Izrael Európa része. Izrael egy olyan állam, amely folyamatosan bizonyítja érettségét az emberi jogok tekintetében is, ezért az Európai Uniónak óvakodnia kellene attól, hogy beleszóljon Izrael belügyeibe. Ezúton is szeretném megragadni az alkalmat, hogy mielőbbi békét kívánjak a Közel-Kelet népeinek.

 
Jogi nyilatkozat - Adatvédelmi szabályzat