Пълен протокол на разискванията

Сряда, 13 март 2013 г. - Страсбург

1. Откриване на заседанието

VORSITZ: MARTIN SCHULZ
Präsident

(Die Sitzung wird um 9.05 Uhr eröffnet.)

2. Състав на политическите групи: вж. протокола

3. Състав на комисиите и делегациите: вж. протоколи

4. Делегирани актове (член 87а от Правилника за дейността): вж. протокола

5. Мерки по прилагане (член 88 от Правилника за дейността): вж. протокола

6. Подготовка за заседанието на Европейския съвет (14 и 15 март 2013 г.) (разискване)

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zur Vorbereitung der Tagung des Europäischen Rates (14./15. März 2013) mit Entschließung zu den Schlussfolgerungen des Europäischen Rates im Rahmen seiner Tagung vom 7./8. Februar betreffend den Mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen (2012/2803(RSP)).

  Lucinda Creighton, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss this week’s European Council with you.

The European Union has done a great deal since the beginning of the crisis to stabilise the financial situation, and also to address the root causes of the crisis and lay the ground for the return to growth. The recession in 2012 and the relative stagnation in economic activity forecast for 2013 remind us all that these efforts must be continued. We must in particular give absolute priority to implementing the measures which have been agreed.

This will be the main issue for this week’s meeting. But Heads of State or Government will also briefly take stock of the ongoing work on EMU and will exchange views on the EU’s relations with Russia.

Allow me to start by looking at the European Semester and the promotion of competitiveness, growth and jobs. Effective management of the processes involved in European Semester 2013 is of course an important focus for our Presidency.

The Spring European Council will conclude the first phase of these processes. The key output is the guidance to Member States on the preparation of their Stability Programme Updates and National Reform Programmes.

I expect that the European Council will reinforce strongly the five headline priorities of the Commission’s Annual Growth Survey, including doing so in light of the Presidency Synthesis Report presented by the Tánaiste to the General Affairs Council on Monday. This Synthesis reviews discussions within the Council on the Annual Growth Survey and is firmly supportive of its orientation for actions by Member States supporting competitiveness, growth and jobs.

This means: pursuing differentiated, growth-friendly fiscal consolidation; restoring normal lending to the economy; promoting growth and competitiveness; tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis; and modernising public administration.

It is crucial that we keep up the momentum behind national-level reforms in these areas, underpinned by the goals of the Europe 2020 Strategy: supporting growth that is smart, sustainable and inclusive.

We are all well aware that there is a very real public concern about the merits of these policies, with some arguing that their social cost is too high and that they are not working. Coming from Ireland, I think that I am more than aware that fiscal consolidation policies have real and sometimes very difficult effects. If we want to return to sustainable growth, and create jobs, we have to continue to restore stability, and that includes putting our public finances in order. We must continue with structural reform, without which there can be no sustainable return to growth.

Substantial progress has and is being made towards achieving structurally balanced budgets. This has to continue. At the same time we cannot – nor do we – ignore the impact being felt on unemployment levels, particularly amongst young people. That is why, as the Presidency, we have attached such importance to the Youth Guarantee which has just been agreed by the Council.

Securing consensus here was a key Presidency priority for us. While acknowledging that different Member States face different implementation issues, we expect that progress will be supported by the EUR 6 billion Youth Employment Initiative agreed by the European Council last month. This underlines that young people simply must have the prospect of meaningful work if we expect them to be able to realise their full potential within society.

We must also continue with the implementation of the measures contained in the Compact for Growth and Jobs. This means, in particular, EU-level actions that will support the more country-specific orientation of the European Semester process.

As you know, the Irish Presidency has placed particular emphasis on the single market and external trade agendas, highlighting priority measures that will have a real impact on the economy. There is, for example, very considerable growth potential which can be realised if we deliver on the combined proposals of Single Market Act I and Single Market Act II. We need – together – to make progress on these proposals as quickly as possible.

Our work on the EU-US trade relationship has got off to a good start, and we will be working hard to get a formal Council mandate for FTA negotiations in time for the June Foreign Affairs Council.

The financing needs of the real economy must remain a further crucial focus in terms of EU-level actions supporting growth and jobs. This means restoring normal lending conditions and unlocking productive and growth-enhancing investments. I expect that the EIB will continue to play a crucial role in this regard.

Let me now say a few words on Economic and Monetary Union. Since June 2012, work has been underway building on the report ‘Towards a Genuine Economic and Monetary Union’ which was submitted by the President of the European Council in consultation with the Presidents of the Commission, the Eurogroup and the ECB. A number of key decisions have been taken and legislation is underway or in the process of being finalised.

The European Council will take stock of this ongoing work. It will look particularly at progress towards a more integrated financial framework, and lay considerable emphasis on concluding the legislative process on the Single Supervisory Mechanism.

The European Council will be addressing the European Union’s relations with Russia. This is in line with President Van Rompuy’s intention to ensure that the European Council regularly focuses on relations with our key strategic partners. This week’s discussion will be open, without conclusions, and will be looking in particular at ways of making the relationship more productive.

I am very much aware that, in this debate, you will also cover the issue of the MFF, on which you will be adopting your position later today. It is not for me to go into the substance of this issue right now, but I do want to be clear on two points.

Firstly, we look forward to engaging fully with the Parliament on the MFF. There have already been extensive contacts between the Irish Presidency and Parliament, including with Mr Lamassoure, the Chair of the Committee on Budgets and the lead contact point on the MFF, with Mr Lehne as Chair of the Conference of Committee Chairs and, of course, with President Schulz, with whom the Taoiseach has met twice, together with President Barroso, in Dublin and here at Parliament in Strasbourg. That close and intense engagement will continue and indeed intensify in the weeks ahead.

Secondly, we are fully committed to concluding work on the MFF as soon as possible during our Presidency. We are fully aware that our institutions must work in very close cooperation if we are to deliver on this ambition. Europe now needs to show that it can get on with business.

The public will not thank any of our institutions if, together, we cannot plan, legislate and deliver the programmes which bring Europe home to so many of our citizens, whether that be through Erasmus, CAP or cohesion funding. This represents a very considerable burden of work. Our view is that this must not deter us, and that we need to manage it together if we are to succeed.

We will of course work, as always, in full respect of the respective roles and prerogatives of the institutions in order to achieve a positive outcome.

I look forward very much to working closely with all of you to make that happen. I look forward to listening to your debate and to the views of the Members of the European Parliament this morning.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, Madam President of the Council, honourable Members, I will today focus on the economic agenda of this week’s meeting of the European Council and the key role it plays in the next phase of our reform path. It is crucially important to be aware of the debate taking place across Europe about the state of our economy. In each and every Member State, political opinion is passionate, public expectations are high, and rightly so.

Over the last months and years, through consistent and courageous efforts at both European and national levels, we have come a long way to fight the root causes of this crisis and to pave the way for a sustainable future. But we have yet to tackle the most immediate fears and concerns of many of our citizens. We must do everything possible, at all levels, to help them out of the crisis.

There is justified disappointment about the slow recovery of the real economy. Growth as an EU average was lower than expected at the end of last year and will be close to zero this year. Unemployment figures are unprecedented and simply unacceptable.

This means we must strengthen our focus and our resolve to respond to this crisis; a response that also addresses the short term needs and does not lose sight of the structural reforms we have signed up to; reforms that we know are necessary and that will form the basis of future sustainable growth. We can see that the reform efforts for competitiveness are starting to bear fruit, correcting very important imbalances in the European economy – most importantly in the programme countries. Indeed, the example of Ireland, the country holding the rotating Presidency of the Council, is a good demonstration of this point.

Let us not forget that less than one year ago analysts were speaking of the implosion of the euro. But now we see an improvement in terms of financial stability: since their high point in 2009, budget deficits have come down by half and they are expected to get down to the 3 % limit by the end of the year, while the interest rates paid by a number of Member States have gone down significantly. Current account imbalances are being corrected, and exports in some of the least well-performing Member States are reviving.

We can also note the progress in terms of overall economic confidence, with consumer confidence for the euro area improving by 30 basis points over the last months, and business confidence by 20.

However, good news in some key areas should not hide the fact that there has not been enough progress to address the issue of growth, notably in the real economy, and that there was a deterioration of the employment situation. Let me say that, when I see the situation in some of our Member States, it is clear to me that some of the costs paid by the most vulnerable in our societies are becoming simply unbearable. Fair burden-sharing must be a core element of our policies.

Let us also not forget why we are in this situation: we are still feeling the effects of a sorry state of affairs that was fuelled by unsustainable public debt and private debt and by irresponsible behaviour by many in the financial sector. We all knew that the process of adjustment would always have a negative effect in the short term. However, we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past, accumulating new debt and leaving structural reforms for competitiveness for later.

In fact, we are correcting those mistakes, and we have reason to show more self-confidence over the progress Europe has made so far. In the past year alone we have agreed on the Compact for Growth and Jobs, we have agreed the fiscal pact, we have inaugurated the European Stability Mechanism, the ECB’s Outright Monetary Transactions was announced, we reached a unanimous agreement on the Single Supervisory Mechanism and we brokered a deal on the so-called ‘Two Pack’. Let me congratulate the European Parliament on the approval, yesterday, of this very important package of legislation.

We have put flesh on the bones of the European Semester and we are continuing to go forward in terms of financial sector regulation. All these decisions have given a clear signal on the irreversibility and integrity of the euro, and have sent the right message about Europe’s capacity to act. On top of that, the Commission has presented its Blueprint for a deep and genuine Economic and Monetary Union, offering a vision of future developments and integration.

We will not allow the momentum for the European Union’s reform to slow down. The proper functioning of the EMU requires that its governance structures are completed, in particular in the area of economic policy coordination and support to structural reforms. That will be the focus of the June European Council, and we are already working on specific measures and a time-bound road map on the ex-ante coordination of major economic reforms; on the social dimension of the EMU, including the social dialogue; and on a framework for mutually agreed contracts for competitiveness and growth, combined with the respective solidarity mechanisms.

At the same time, we are pursuing the social agenda as an integral part of our strategy to exit the crisis. The position we took in the MFF discussions consistently made the same point: that the European investment agenda needs also to focus on solidarity and growth, aiming funds at those who need our support the most. The Youth Employment Initiative, the youth employment package which includes the Youth Guarantee Scheme and the social investment package are just a few examples.

Let us be honest, we need short term measures to reinforce the perspectives for growth. Implementation of the Compact for Growth and Jobs is too low and too slow. There has not yet been enough commitment to address social obligations and we have to be sensitive to social needs.

Just yesterday, the Commission adopted a package of measures on making effective the Youth Employment Initiative and has amended the relevant legislative proposals for the European Social Fund and the Common Provision Regulation on structural funds. The Commission has acted very quickly on youth unemployment. These measures include the EUR 6 billion agreed at the February European Council meeting to combat youth unemployment. It is now up to the Council and European Parliament to examine these texts rapidly and adopt them in order to deliver quick and concrete results. With this initiative, I hope that new momentum can be generated at national and regional level to give hope to our young people. At this point in time, when the crisis is particularly hard on them, we cannot and will not let our youngest generations down.

I want to stress that there should not be any contradiction between the social and the competitiveness agenda. Indeed, we can see that the most successful Member States in the European Union, indeed some of the most successful in the world, are those Member States with the most effective social protection systems, but this is possible because of their high level of competitiveness, and we should be equally committed to both goals.

Improving competitiveness is not an end in itself, but a means to drive prosperity and sustain European living standards and values. Competitiveness is an indispensable element to underpin growth and jobs.

Efforts at European level can never be an alternative to national reforms and investments. In terms of productivity, we see that the best performing Member States are twice as productive as the lowest performers. We guide and support them towards closing the gap, but the real groundwork has to come from the Member States themselves.

It is important that the European Council strongly endorses the priorities and actions outlined in the Commission’s Annual Growth Survey for 2013, pursuing growth-friendly and tailor-made fiscal consolidation in all Member States, focused on restoring normal lending to the economy and modernising public administration.

The structural reforms for competitiveness and the measures against unemployment, in particular youth unemployment, deserve special attention in the design of the national reform programmes. In particular, the political push to fill the gaps in the single market should be maintained because there are still too many and too significant gaps in the single market; gaps that hamper competitiveness; gaps that restrict opportunities and that cost jobs.

The Single Market is just one – but a fundamental – source of growth in the real economy; there are other very important ones. We also need an MFF for the next seven years, to ensure the investments Europe badly needs and, since our trade policy is part of our growth agenda, I would also like to once again underline the significance of the decision to start negotiations with the US on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

The Commission agreed the draft negotiating mandate yesterday, and we will continue to push hard to bring these economically very promising talks to a successful conclusion. We would like to receive the mandate of the Council as soon as possible so that we could start negotiations by the summer. We will need such new sources of growth just as we will have to further unleash the potential of our internal sources.

Honourable Members, let me conclude by saying that this issue is a reminder of the fact that, despite our economic and also political worries, we should not turn inwards. Our efforts towards competitiveness and growth are, of course, about the economy, about urgent social needs, but also about our position and influence in the world; about our values and how we support them internally and internationally – about the European way of life.

That is why, in spite of all our difficulties, or precisely because of them, we need the confidence that is indispensable for the process of recovery. This is why we must show the leadership necessary to recognise the obstacles, but also to show the determination to overcome those obstacles.

  Joseph Daul, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président de la Commission, Madame la Présidente du Conseil, dans dix ans, quand les universitaires écriront leur dernière édition de l'histoire de l'Union européenne, je pense que mars 2013 apparaîtra comme une date charnière.

Aujourd'hui, les décisions posent les jalons de notre avenir. Nous sommes au carrefour de notre histoire et l'heure est à la décision. Continuons-nous à construire une Europe plus efficace, plus responsable et plus protectrice? Ou, avec une méthode intergouvernementale, nous aventurons-nous sur le sentier du repli sur soi, qui est plutôt, je dirais aujourd'hui, dans la période que nous vivons, une solution de facilité et sur lequel il est plutôt difficile de s'ouvrir?

Nous ne règlerons jamais une crise en nous repliant sur nous-mêmes. Voici le message que nous devons faire passer. Ce choix nous appartient. Certains se demandent à quoi sert l'Europe. Ce sont toujours les mêmes. Les mêmes que nous avons entendus le mois dernier lors des négociations du Conseil.

Chers collègues, plus que jamais, l'Europe a besoin d'Europe! La semaine dernière, j'étais en Grèce et j'ai vu que nous manquions énormément d'Europe. Énormément d'Europe! Là aussi, le Parlement doit réfléchir et faire des propositions.

Monsieur Farage, j'ai vu votre fille, votre fils, ou mes enfants, venir demander un repas à midi et demander s'ils pouvaient avoir un morceau de pain supplémentaire pour leurs enfants. Cela me touche profondément. La solidarité européenne doit intervenir à ce niveau.

(Applaudissements)

Plus que jamais, l'Europe a besoin d'Europe. Parce que notre continent ne sortira pas renforcé de la crise si nous ne sommes pas plus européens. Il nous faut plus de cohérence, plus de politique commune, plus d'investissements communs et plus d'outils communs.

Nous sommes confrontés à un chômage qui, dans certains cas, frappent plus de 60 % de nos jeunes et à une croissance qui ne repart pas. Au niveau du marché commun et des règles, nous avons encore besoin de faire des choses. Il y a encore des croissances potentielles dans ce dossier-là.

Il faut plus de cohérence et il faut agir ensemble avec ceux qui le veulent. Ceux qui ne veulent pas le choisissent. Nous ne sommes pas aux travaux forcés. Mais nous avons le devoir d'avancer avec ceux qui le veulent. Dans un monde où tout se tient, je dis que c'est plus que nécessaire.

Mes chers collègues, j'entends ceux qui nous accusent de nous servir de notre gloire ou ceux à qui je pense et qui nous disent que nous sommes de doux rêveurs. Je le rappelle – je sais que c'est vieux jeu –, l'Europe nous a quand même apporté 60 ans de paix et de prospérité. C'est vrai que c'est vieux mais notre ambition est unique. Il faut maintenant appliquer la même méthode pour, à l'image des pères fondateurs, pérenniser d'autres succès européens dans le domaine de la recherche, de l'innovation, des emplois. Je crois, alors, que nous continuerons ce qui a été prédit et fait par les pères de l'Europe.

Nous ne sommes pas naïfs. Nous savons bien que le budget de l'Union ne résoudra pas tout, voire même pas grand-chose. C'est pourquoi, grâce au six-pack, au semestre européen, au two-pack, nous avons travaillé à une plus grande intégration économique et à plus de transparence. Il faut maintenant plus d'harmonisation fiscale et sociale. Si nous ne faisons pas cette proposition et cette avancée, au moment où nous sommes dans la crise, si demain il y a une petite lueur, tout le monde laissera tout tomber. Pour avoir plus de social – et je soutiens là le Président de la Commission –, il faut que l'économie fonctionne. Nous ne pouvons pas continuer à faire des dettes, c'est vrai, mais nous devons tous nous pencher sur ce dossier.

Voilà pourquoi nous nous sommes penchés sur le secteur bancaire. Il faut aussi être attentif aux rémunérations, prévoir un plafonnement des primes, quand nous voyons ce qui se passe actuellement avec la crise. Parce qu'il faut mettre un frein à des gains artificiels obtenus avec des prises de risque aventureuses que nous payons par la suite.

Enfin, c'est pourquoi nous sommes pour l'achèvement du marché unique, grâce à l'acte pour le marché unique II. Nous le faisons parce que nous croyons en la vraie croissance, celle qui crée de vrais emplois et qui provient de l'économie réelle.

Chers collègues, les engagements pour le CFP sont à négocier. Nous ne pouvons pas accepter l'idée d'une crise sans fin. C'est pourquoi nous demandons une clause de révision. Nous voulons cette clause pour permettre au Parlement européen qui sortira des urnes en 2014 de débattre avec le Conseil et de faire le point sur nos économies et nos priorités et pour avoir au moins un budget par année parlementaire.

Il faut aussi optimiser chaque euro du CFP, veiller à ce qu'il soit bien utilisé. C'est pourquoi il faut plus de flexibilité entre les années et les lignes budgétaires.

Enfin, il faut mettre un terme à ces horribles marchandages qui reviennent tous les sept ans. C'est pourquoi nous appelons à un système de ressources propres.

Chers collègues, cet après-midi se tiendra un débat avec la Haute représentante de l'Union européenne pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité. Nous connaissons beaucoup de crises, celle de la Syrie ainsi que les autres, mais si nous voulons avoir la capacité d'agir au-delà de nos frontières, il nous faut aussi mettre en commun nos moyens au niveau de l'Europe.

C'est aussi le sens du CFP de donner à l'Europe les moyens de diffuser son message universel. Notre Parlement, par ses propositions et ses votes, a toujours agi en ce sens et doit agir encore plus fortement dans ce sens-là pour montrer la voie au niveau du Conseil. Nous croyons en cette Europe, une Europe qui doit être solidaire et responsable, une Europe de la paix et de la prospérité mais, surtout, une Europe qui protège nos citoyens.

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

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Ich kann vieles von dem teilen, das generelle „Mehr“ ist mir zu wenig Anspruch an Europa. Wir brauchen ein anderes Europa, ein gerechteres Europa. Aber ich höre von Ihnen immer wieder: mehr Sozialharmonisierung. Wenn ich mir die Wortmeldungen Ihrer Kolleginnen und Kollegen hier im Parlament anhöre, heißt Sozialharmonisierung für die EVP immer eher eine Spirale nach unten, statt dass wir uns an den Besten in Europa orientieren.

Meine Frage an Sie ganz konkret: Wenn Sie von Sozialharmonisierung sprechen, haben Sie da jene Länder im Auge wie Österreich, mit einem funktionierenden, guten, hochwertigen Sozialsicherungssystem, oder eher jene Länder, die Sozialharmonisierung nach unten nivellieren wollen?

  Joseph Daul (PPE), réponse "carton bleu". – Madame, en tant qu'Alsacien, je suis un admirateur de l'Autriche. Voilà la réponse que je peux vous donner.

  Stephen Hughes, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I have read President Barroso’s letter to the Council, and I have to say that I think it is in complete contradiction with the figures attached in the annexes. I do not think it is any longer simply a case of the Commission pursuing wrong-headed economic policies, but more a case of unjustified, needlessly destructive policies based on groundless economic optimism. I cannot see how we can trust the Commission’s figures any longer.

In October 2011, the Commission predicted a 0.6% growth rate for 2012 for the eurozone. It now estimates the outcome at -0.6% – an error of 1.2%. Last October, the Commission predicted a mild economic recovery for this year. That is the mistaken projection on which the current annual growth survey is based. It now acknowledges that the reality will be a contraction of at least 0.3%. All of the economies usually held up as virtuous in the euro zone are set to perform much worse than in 2011 after a bad 2012. Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and Finland are all set to experience very low growth this year. Add to that the -1% recession predicted for Italy, and the zero growth expected in France, and there is in fact no room for optimism.

The predicted upswing of 1.4% for 2014 is hopelessly optimistic. More likely, 2014 will see a very limited recovery, if we are lucky. Serious downward risks remain for a number of major economies: Italy, Spain and, to some extent, France. Furthermore, these projections take no account of new austerity measures in preparation in France, or those to be expected later this year in Italy.

President Barroso, as you know, we in this group became so despairing of the Commission’s economic modelling that we commissioned a number of outside independent economic institutes to produce our own independent annual growth survey. Virtually without exception, the figures they give us show yours to be unreasonably optimistic. It seems clear that we will experience another year of recession this year, with at least -0.5% recession. Tragically, that will push unemployment up still further, perhaps beyond 13% next year, with 30 million unemployed.

I want to come to two points you highlight in your letter. The first is the challenge of competitiveness, where again you home in on the structural reform agenda. I put it to you, President Barroso, that your policies are today one of Europe’s worst competitiveness problems. By needlessly driving the eurozone into two extra years of recession, you have caused enormous damage to our future growth potential. The loss of investment, skills and human potential dwarves the gains you look for from structural reform.

The second thing I want to focus on is youth unemployment. At long last, we now have agreement on a Youth Guarantee. We have 7.5 million 15-to-25-year-olds outside of employment, education or training. The cost of that is estimated at a staggering EUR 153 billion a year. How much does the MFF allocate to the Youth Guarantee? EUR 6 billion. The ILO estimates that at least EUR 21 billion will be necessary to fund the Guarantee.

I do not blame the Commission for the funding decisions on the Youth Guarantee, but I do blame you, President Barroso, for the damaging policies inflicted on the European economy as a result of mistaken economic projections. The Commission could well become a laughing stock. There is now a website called ‘The Folly from Olli’. Look it up. It is devoted to the consistently wrong economic projections coming from the office of Olli Rehn. However, this is no laughing matter. The human misery being caused is enormous. President Barroso, if you were a Prime Minister and Olli Rehn was your Finance Minister, and he was getting things so consistently wrong, you would reshuffle him out of the way to stop this damage. We think that is what you must do now, or maybe take full responsibility for these matters yourself.

Finally, a brief word on Hungary. We in this group, and the Liberals, wanted to have a separate debate on the deplorable developments there. That has not proved possible for a number of reasons. But we sincerely hope, President Barroso, that you will take the opportunity in your speech to the Council to condemn the developments in Hungary, which so undermine our fundamental values.

(Applause)

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I want to start where Mr Hughes ended and put a request to you. May I ask that you raise the issue of Hungary in your intervention on Thursday in the European Council, because what is happening there at the moment is really an offence against the principles of the Union. I do not think we can carry on turning around this problem any longer, as we have been doing now for more than 18 months, I would say. We have to start the procedure under Article 7 of the Treaty.

That would not mean sanctions are decided immediately. One would start with an analysis of the situation in Hungary and with giving recommendations. My request to you is that you raise this in the Council. I would also ask the Irish Presidency to put it on the agenda of the Council and I shall also ask the Commission to raise the point in the Council.

Some of you are saying that we have to examine this. What do we have to examine? It is crystal clear! There are a number of breaches of European Union values. This has been noted by the European Commission, by the Venice Commission, by the Hungarian Constitutional Court, by a number of European institutions. In Hungary what they have done now is they have simply put all these breaches of European Union values inside the Constitution, and then they say: the problem is solved, it is fully compliant with the Constitution in Hungary, so these breaches of European Union values can continue.

So my request to you, to Mr Barroso and to the Irish Presidency, is to take this seriously now and have a discussion in the Council based on Article 7.

(Applause)

My second remark is about the Spring Council itself. Mr Barroso has written a letter to the European Council and I quote one sentence from it, at the end of the first paragraph: ‘We are not yet out of the crisis, but we can see that reform efforts of Member States are starting to bear fruit’. That is what Mr Barroso has written in that letter. I have to say that when I make an assessment of the key data on GDP, unemployment, and public debt and deficit, I am less optimistic about the situation in Europe for the moment.

What I see is the following. Seven countries are in recession today, that means less than zero growth, it is negative growth. Nine countries are in stagnation, that means less than 1 % economic growth, and it is the same in the UK where there is also economic stagnation. I see eight countries with an unemployment figure higher than 10 %, two countries even – Spain and Greece – with an unemployment figure of 27 % today. I see public debt and deficits while all countries in the eurozone except for two, Estonia and Luxembourg, are breaching the rules of the Stability Pact. It is not better outside the eurozone, Mr Callanan, because the UK also has nearly 100 % of public debt.

It is not only a question of figures. What I see is: in Greece the rise of the extreme right; in Italy there is no government; in Cyprus banks are failing; in Spain we have a lost generation for the moment with an unemployment figure of 50%; and in France, in Belgium, and in the Netherlands new savings packages are needed to comply with a number of rules. Finally, in Ireland, we are entering into the sixth year of austerity.

For the moment, the real assessment of the European Union is that we do not need less fiscal discipline, Mr Hughes, because, let us be honest, you need fiscal discipline for growth in the mid-term and the long-term. No, what we need to recognise is that we need a second track.

We do not have a second track for the moment. We do not need to abolish the first track of fiscal discipline – that would be a huge mistake – we need to put a second track in place as fast as possible, and the second track is solidarity, is growth, is investment. It is mainly what we know all about, which is the mutualisation of debt, redemption funds, euro bills, and that is the only way to lower interest rates in a number of countries in the south of Europe. How can you solve the problems in countries like Spain and Italy which still have 5 % or 6 % interest rates today? Half of the efforts of these governments today are going into interest payments to the bondholders instead of helping to give a boost to the economy.

My conclusion is that instead of analysing the forecasts now, let us develop that vision. Let us develop the second track and let us not make the mistake, Mr Hughes, of making a choice between growth and solidarity. It is growth and solidarity, but work on it with the Council and with the Commission.

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

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI), question "carton bleu". – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur Verhofstadt, je serai très bref.

J'ai recueilli, avec l'humilité qui convient, les objurgations de M. Verhofstadt adressées à la Hongrie. Mais, si ma mémoire est bonne, M. Verhofstadt était Premier ministre du Royaume de Belgique quand la principale force d'opposition, le Vlaams Blok, a été purement et simplement rayée de la carte, à l'issue d'une procédure judiciaire inique. En Belgique, royaume bananier dont vous étiez le Premier ministre! Et vous osez donner des leçons de démocratie, Monsieur Verhofstadt.

  Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE), réponse "carton bleu". – Monsieur Gollnish, l'extrême-droite dont vous parlez a été éradiquée de la carte par les électeurs en Belgique. Donc le problème est réglé entretemps.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). - Non! Non! La question c'est 2004! 2004! Et vous étiez Premier ministre.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. Monsieur le Président, d'abord je voudrais me joindre à la demande des présidents des deux groupes qui ont réclamé une intervention de votre part au Conseil européen. Les arguments ont été développés. Je n'ai pas besoin de me répéter en ce qui concerne la Hongrie.

Maintenant, je voudrais dire qu'il faudrait qu'une fois, entre nous, nous arrivions à la conclusion de cette discussion permanente entre: "il faut une responsabilité budgétaire" – Guy Verhofstadt appelle cela la première voie –, "il faut une mutualisation et de la solidarité" – j'appelle cela la deuxième voie; il a développé ce qu'on entend par mutualisation –, et "il faut une troisième voie, différente, qui est la croissance intelligente", c'est-à-dire qu'il faut relancer l'économie.

Le débat qu'on doit avoir concernant la responsabilité budgétaire doit porter sur le rythme auquel arriver à cette responsabilité budgétaire. Il est quand même visible maintenant qu'avancer à marche forcée vers la responsabilité budgétaire revient à étrangler l'économie. Et il y a un prix à payer. Plus la responsabilité budgétaire avance à marche forcée, plus il y a de pauvres et de précarité dans les sociétés. Donc c'est le prix que paient des citoyens pour cette marche forcée.

Il ne faut pas dire "pas de responsabilités budgétaires", il faut simplement dire "ralentir le rythme et relancer l'économie." Grâce à quoi? On en arrive au budget européen. Le budget européen contribue à l'accélération de la marche forcée qui aura pour effet d'augmenter le nombre de précaires et de pauvres, parce que nous n'aurons pas la capacité d'intervenir à l'échelle de l'Europe.

C'est pour cela, chers collègues, que nous devons refuser cette proposition du Conseil. Nous devons être conséquents. Nous devons prendre nos responsabilités. Chers collègues, ici, dans ce Parlement, nous sommes élus dans des partis différents, mais nous ne sommes pas les courroies de transmission de nos partis nationaux ni de nos gouvernements. Nous ne sommes pas cela. Nous n'avons pas été élus députés européens pour représenter nos gouvernements.

Au Conseil, ils le font. Dans les parlements nationaux, ils le font. Ici, il faut développer l'idée de l'intérêt général européen. Et l'intérêt général européen, c'est justement une relance, une croissance intelligente, une nouvelle politique industrielle de l'Europe. Quand vous donnez une garantie aux jeunes en matière de promotion, soyez sérieux! Il faut de l'argent. Si vous avez 50 % de jeunes chômeurs en Espagne, ce n'est pas avec une garantie, simplement, que vous allez les satisfaire, mais c'est en leur proposant matériellement quelque chose. L'Europe serait grande si, matériellement, elle était capable de répondre à l'angoisse des jeunes. Pour cela, il faut un budget. C'est le contraire qu'a décidé le Conseil européen. Prenez ce budget! Tout ce qui est innovation, formation, tout cela a été balayé.

Monsieur Barroso, nous vous avons pris au sérieux. Vous avez fait une proposition de budget européen pluriannuel sérieux, mais ou bien vous avez fait n'importe quoi, ou bien c'était sérieux. Si c'était sérieux, vous ne pouvez pas dire oui à ce qu'a décidé le Conseil. Vous ne pouvez pas dire oui. C'est le contraire qu'il faut dire

Dans ces conditions, en plus, on oblige le Président de ce Parlement à signer un budget déficitaire, qui va à l'encontre des traités. Or, tout le monde sait qu'avec le budget de cette année et le budget de l'année prochaine, l'Europe sera en cessation de paiement à l'automne prochain; l'Europe ne pourra pas payer, même avec les plafonds décidés. C'est pourquoi ne dites pas seulement oui à la résolution aujourd'hui, mais soyez prêts à refuser le budget pluriannuel en juin, pour qu'enfin le Conseil européen et les gouvernements européens comprennent: ça ne peut pas continuer ainsi. Voilà où se trouve l'intérêt européen. Voilà ce que nous, députés européens, nous devons faire dans les mois à venir.

  John Stuart Agnew (EFD). - Mr President, the first three or four speakers have all been able to over-run their time considerably. I hope you afford the same privilege to Mr Farage.

  Zofija Mazej Kukovič (PPE), vprašanje, postavljeno z dvigom modrega kartončka, Danielu Cohn-Benditu. – Spoštovani Cohn-Bendit, jaz bi želela od vas slišati, kaj pa je vaš predlog, kaj več ponuditi mladim. Me zelo zanimajo vaše konkretne rešitve. In še bolj me zanimajo konkretne rešitve, kako zagnati gospodarstvo ob tem, da ste ravno vi tisti, ki postavljate velikokrat zelo nerealistične pogoje, pri katerih se mora gospodarstvo spreminjati čez noč.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Gnädige Frau, zuerst bin ich sehr froh, dass Sie sich so auskennen in meiner Vergangenheit. Das ehrt mich! Aber als Zweites möchte ich Ihnen sagen, z. B. eine Arbeitslosenversicherung für Jugendliche für die ersten sechs Monate, die von der Europäischen Union bezahlt würde, das ist etwas Konkretes, weil es z. B. in Spanien oder einem Land wie Griechenland einfach keinen sozialen Schutz mehr gibt. Es gibt ihn nicht mehr! Und es gibt jetzt keine Möglichkeiten für arbeitslose Jugendliche, die nie Arbeit hatten, keinen Schutz, irgendetwas, das wir in anderen sozialen Ländern wie Deutschland, Frankreich, Österreich – wie die gnädige Frau das so toll fand – haben. Deswegen sage ich, es gibt hier die Notwendigkeit, während einer Übergangszeit ein Minimum an sozialem Schutz aus dem europäischen Haushalt zu bezahlen, wenn die Nationalstaaten das aufgrund der Krise nicht mehr können.

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, let me start with the MFF deal reached at the last European Council. I know that many speakers here, such as Mr Cohn-Bendit and Mr Hughes, have said that they are tired of austerity and that they want a quick return to the spend, spend, spend mentality of the past, when governments tried desperately to win popularity by bribing their electorates with their own money – or in fact, worse still, by bribing them with their children’s money with excessive borrowing which, of course, eventually has to be paid off by future generations.

That era, as we all know, had to end. Across Europe, borrowing was out of control, caused in many cases by easy access to cheap credit because of the introduction of the euro. But even if things seem a little bit calmer at the moment, we must never forget that the underlying problems have not gone away. Some in this Chamber like to claim otherwise, but the state of European public finances across Europe is still extremely poor and so, whether we like it or not, austerity cannot be avoided.

It is, therefore, in my view, only right that the EU should play its part. When describing the EU budget you can of course use words like ‘investment’, if you like, but really, spending is spending, and the money has to be found from somewhere. It is simply extraordinary that many in this Chamber seem to think that our Member States should raise more taxes or borrow more money just to hand it over to the EU so that they can have a bigger budget and we can spend even more.

That is why, in my view, the MFF deal is so important. We need a financial framework that respects the sacrifices that are being made in the public finances in many of our Member States. I have already said that, in my view, this deal is far from perfect. I would have preferred to see a budget designed for 21st century priorities, with more support for R&D and perhaps less on agriculture. With more for new Member States and less on administration.

Nobody pretends that the deal reached by our leaders was perfect, but it is a compromise between many competing demands and so our position is of ‘yes, but’ rather than ‘no, unless’. This is reflected in our motion that will be voted on shortly.

I am pleased that the initial frenzied posturing from many in this House is now, I think, beginning to come around to a grudging acceptance of the budget numbers.

My Group can accept some of the requests being made today such as a mid-term review of the budget, provided that it is done under unanimity, for greater flexibility between the headings. But we continue to oppose new own resources. It would be devastating for Europe’s economy if we allow this House to raise taxes to fund whatever pet projects the Green’s have dreamed up today.

Let me turn to the idea raised by you, Mr President, of a secret ballot. I respect the rights of Members to ask for a secret vote in some circumstances, but that provision was never designed to allow Members to hide from the democratic scrutiny of their decisions on legislation or on the budget. If we are not accountable for our actions in one of the most important votes that we will take in this mandate, how can we claim any kind of democratic legitimacy in the future?

The House will know that normally, in these debates, I like to quote my conservative heroes of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Regan, but today Mr President I want to quote you. You said regarding a possible secret ballot on Turkey in 2005: ‘we believe that Europe’s citizens have a right to know how Members of the European Parliament are voting’. On this occasion I agree with you, Mr President.

For our sake and for the sake of our standing in the dock of public opinion, we must resoundingly reject the idea floated by you and this idea of a secret ballot should be buried once and for all. That is why, for the resolution today, my Group has tabled an amendment calling for a transparent decision on the MFF so that all those Members who have contacted me about it can put their feelings on the record, in public. Of course, while we cannot override the Rules of Procedure, it would be a clear and unambiguous statement that the majority in this House want normal, democratic procedures to apply to our vote on the MFF. I urge all Members to support it.

Finally, let me turn to the positive growth agenda for tomorrow’s European Council Meeting. No one should be allowed to get away with the idea that we have to somehow choose between austerity and growth. Sustainable growth is not achieved by throwing ever greater amounts of taxpayer’s money at the economy. It comes from having the right economies and the right policies in place, at the right time.

That is why we welcome the initiative from the Commission to publish a list of the ten most burdensome laws affecting small businesses. If every small business took on an extra member of staff, Europe would have no unemployment crisis. We need a reform agenda which places the creation of jobs and wealth by successful businesses at its very heart. I call on all Groups here to support that agenda.

  Der Präsident. − Herr Kollege Callanan! Sie versuchen das ja systematisch, auch mit Ihrer E-Mail gestern. Der Appell zu einer geheimen Abstimmung ist von mir nie im Zusammenhang mit dem MFR ins Spiel gebracht worden. Das ist geschickt von Ihnen, aber es ist unwahr. Ich habe im Auftrag verschiedener Fraktionsvorsitzender in diesem Hause in meiner Rede im Europäischen Rat gesagt: Es wird über eine geheime Abstimmung diskutiert. Das war nicht mein Vorschlag.

Sie machen das, wie gesagt, systematisch. Ich bekomme ja auch die E-Mails Ihrer Anhänger, die mir dann unterstellen, ich sei der Erfinder der geheimen Abstimmung. Um das aber ein für allemal hier klarzustellen: Das ist nicht so. Ich bin für eine offene Abstimmung. Ich weiß nur, der Einzige, der bisher hier mit Erfolg eine geheime Abstimmung erzwungen hat, das waren bei der Sitzfrage zu Straßburg Sie, Herr Callanan. Wenn es also einen Feigling gibt, was die offene Abstimmung angeht, dann bin nicht ich es, sondern Sie.

  Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE), blue-card question addressed to Mr Callanan. – Mr Callanan, as you said, austerity cannot be avoided. Pray tell us: we know that austerity can work in a boom – it has worked before – but austerity in a recession? We now have an experiment lasting for six years in several countries. Pray tell us an example of austerity during this recession leading to growth. You do not have one, because there are none. We are in a hole, and if one digs in a hole, one does not go up. That is not the way it works.

  Martin Callanan (ECR), blue-card answer. – Mr President, before I answer the question, let me talk about your comments. You said in your speech to the European Council that there should be a secret ballot on the MFF and, of course, you said it on behalf of the leaders of the other political groups. The quote is on record. We can of course all read your speech.

Turning to Mr Tavares’ question, of course there are examples. Latvia is a good example of a country that has consolidated its public finances. But what is your alternative? That we should just ignore the fact that we are spending ever-increasing amounts of money, that in many countries 25 or 30 % of their budget is borrowed money? Do you not agree that this money has to be paid back eventually? Where is this magic money tree that the socialists keep telling us all these resources will suddenly appear from so that we can spend our way to growth? In no country in the world are there examples where excessive amounts of public spending and public borrowing lead to long-term growth. The socialists are living in a fantasy world if they think that is the case.

  Joseph Daul (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, je veux que la justice soit rétablie. Le premier à avoir demandé le vote secret, c'est moi. Et celui qui m'a montré le chemin, c'est le vice-président, M. McMillan-Scott, à propos du vote sur Strasbourg. Sinon, je n'avais même pas envisagé que cela pouvait exister. Par conséquent, cela fait désormais partie de notre droit, en tant que Parlement européen. C'est moi qui l'ai demandé. Dans le cas présent, je ne le demande plus. Je veux savoir qui sont les anti-européens, je veux connaître leur nom, dans la perspective des prochaines élections, c'est tout.

  Ashley Fox (ECR). - Mr President, I think I am the guilty man. It was not Mr Callanan, and it was not Mr McMillan-Scott. I was the one that demanded a secret ballot on the issue of Strasbourg and, of course, the reason, Mr Daul, was so that your Members could vote for a single seat without fear of retribution from you.

(Laughter from the floor)

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, the air is thick with denial in this Chamber this morning. There has been a major political event that has happened since we last met and no one has mentioned it: Italy had an election. 55 % of the electorate voted for euro-sceptic political parties. Indeed, Mr Grillo’s movement managed to get 26 %. It is quite tough in European politics these days to tell who the comedians are.

What is absolutely clear is that eurozone membership is completely incompatible with nation state democracy. You can do what you like to take away the powers of national parliaments but people will go on voting, and there is a trend developing right across Europe towards euro-sceptic parties getting and stronger.

There is complete denial about the eurozone crisis. You would think listening to everybody this morning that it is over. Mr Barroso comes out with a technocratic speech that everything is fine and dandy. Mind you, this was far better than the unutterable drivel we had from Olli Rehn yesterday, which sent many Members to sleep. But the EU is not facing up to the consequences of what it has done. Mr Verhofstadt talks about a lost generation in Spain; Mr Daul talks about youngsters struggling to be fed by their families in Greece. All of that is true, but it is being caused by the euro – and that is what the EU is failing to recognise.

The eurozone has been a complete economic disaster. But the real problem that the EU will not face up to though is the state of the French economy and the fact that France is now diverging by the month from Germany. So right at the very heart of the European project and the eurozone project there is a disaster coming down the track. I am afraid that, in the end, the whole thing is going to break up.

I would also point out that you are in denial over Romania and Bulgaria. Those countries are wracked with corruption and organised crime. They should never have been allowed to join the European Union and I want to make it absolutely clear: we in UKIP do not believe it is right and fair to have total open borders from next year for unlimited numbers of people from those countries to come to Britain to work but also, if they want, to claim benefits. As the results in the recent Eastleigh by-election showed, the British electorate are increasingly saying that enough is enough. It is not just us: the Mayor of Duisberg in Germany has now publicly said that the massive influx from Romania and Bulgaria is causing huge social problems. Ladies and gentlemen, we have to face up to it. We should not be in political union with Romania and Bulgaria.

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

  Ivailo Kalfin (S&D), blue-card question. – Mr Farage, I raised the blue card because you keep playing internal politics without basing yourself on figures.

Let me give you some figures. For every 2 000 British citizens, there is one Bulgarian; for a town of 100 000 people, there are 50. You call that pressure? One out of every 600 unemployed people in the UK is one Bulgarian. You call that pressure? Bulgarian and Romanian students are spending GBP 30 million pounds in taxes for their studies and living expenditure in Britain annually. You call that pressure?

I am afraid that your domestic politics have nothing to do with reality, and you will see that at the next elections.

(Applause)

  Nigel Farage (EFD), blue-card answer. – Let me give you some figures. They are not ones that I really feel comfortable talking about as they are so shocking. There are 68 000 Romanians living in Britain. Over the course of the last five years in just one police area, the Metropolitan Police, there have been – believe it or not – 27 000 arrests of Romanians. Over 90 % of ATM fraud that takes place in London is now being committed by Romanian criminal gangs, and that is just the Met figures. We have not got the figures from across the rest of the country.

Whilst with immigration you can get good people coming from other countries, you can also get bad people. The point I made in my speech is that I am afraid that Romania and Bulgaria are in the grip of organised crime. We do not want those people coming into our country.

  Gabriele Zimmer, im Namen der GUE/NGL. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Wir haben uns eigentlich als Europäische Union dafür ausgesprochen, dass wir die Werte der Europäischen Union in den Vordergrund stellen. Dazu gehört auch die Nichtdiskriminierung von Bürgerinnen und Bürgern innerhalb der Europäischen Union.

(Beifall)

Gegenwärtig erleben wir im Prinzip bei der Diskussion um den MFR eine Pulverisierung der Europäischen Union. Jeder Mitgliedstaat kämpft für sich allein, und sollte sich doch einmal eine Koalition bilden, dann werden mit Mitteln der Europäischen Union einzelne Staaten aus dieser Koalition herausgekauft – wie bei den Verhandlungen zum MFR geschehen! Insgesamt, wenn wir nicht nur die Deckungslücke von über 80 Mrd. Euro betrachten, werden wir auf diese Art und Weise bis Ende 2020 ein Defizit von 250 Mrd. Euro haben. Das ist nicht hinnehmbar! Meine Fraktion lehnt den MFR in dieser Form ab!

Der Rat hat seine Kompetenz, nur über Gesamthöhe, Struktur und einzelne Headings zu reden, überschritten. Er hat uns ein über 40-seitiges Papier vorgelegt und glaubt dann, wenn wir das jetzt nicht ablehnen, dass wir dann noch irgendeine Handlungsmöglichkeit haben. Wir sind außen vor, wenn wir heute nicht sagen, wir lehnen das ab. Das ist auch der Grund, warum meine Fraktion klar sagt: Wir lehnen den MFR ab, obwohl wir zu vielen Einzelfragen sehr unterschiedliche Positionen haben und Verhandlungsbedarf sehen. Das ist aber unser demokratisches Recht!

Eine Nachfrage zur Jugendarbeitslosigkeit und zu Wachstum und Beschäftigung: Beide sind offenkundig Mogelpackungen – sowohl hinsichtlich der Finanzierung als auch hinsichtlich dessen, wie sie konkret umgesetzt werden sollen! Welche Mittel werden wirklich zur Verfügung gestellt? Erklären Sie uns doch bitte konkret, woher die Mittel für den Jugendpakt kommen. Und erklären Sie nicht, wir nehmen die 3 Mrd. Euro, die vorgesehen sind, auch noch aus dem ESF heraus. Sie wissen genau, dass die Programme innerhalb des ESF nicht mehr finanzierbar sind!

Erlauben Sie mir auch die Frage hinsichtlich des Wachstumspakts: 52 Mrd. Euro – woher wollen Sie die eigentlich nehmen, wenn bisher nicht einmal die Rechnungen für dieses Jahr bezahlt werden können? Es ist doch auch auf Sand gebaut, dass die Europäische Investitionsbank 10 Mrd. Euro zusätzlich bekommen soll, um darüber 50 Mrd. Euro für konkrete Projekte zu hebeln, wenn genau die Krisenländer nicht in der Lage sind, die Kofinanzierung für gute Projekte überhaupt zu stemmen. Das ist aus meiner Sicht nicht möglich, deshalb bleiben wir bei unserer Ablehnung.

Im Übrigen – ich habe von der Pulverisierung der Europäischen Union gesprochen. Ich glaube, die Diskussion, die wir zu Ungarn führen, ist ein Ausdruck dieser Pulverisierung. Wenn die Europäische Union, wenn die Institutionen und wenn die aktiv handelnden Menschen, die Bürgerinnen und Bürger der Europäischen Union, sich nicht gemeinsam dagegen wehren, dass Staaten ausbrechen und ihre eigene Politik verfolgen, die nichts mit der Anerkennung der Grundrechtecharta zu tun hat, die nichts mit Rechtsstaatlichkeit, nichts mit den Werten der Europäischen Union zu tun hat, dann ist das eine Pulverisierung.

Wir sollten nicht nur an Sie, Herr Präsident, die Aufforderung richten, im Rat klar und deutlich einzufordern, dass Kommission und Rat eine Überprüfung auf der Basis von Artikel 7 und Artikel 2 vornehmen, sondern ich richte auch an die Mitglieder der Europäischen Volkspartei eine Aufforderung. Wir diskutieren über ein neues Statut und über die Finanzierung europäischer Parteien. Die sind im Wesentlichen dafür gedacht, dass die Werte der Europäischen Union durchgesetzt werden. Sie müssen sich also selbst mit Ihren Mitgliedsparteien auseinandersetzen, damit diese Auseinandersetzung erfolgt und damit es Korrekturen gibt, weil es einfach nicht möglich ist, auf der Basis der großen Institutionen etwas zu bauen, was dann von den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern nicht getragen werden kann.

(Beifall)

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). - Monsieur le Président, il y a quelque chose d'effrayant dans le fait de voir des gens normalement intelligents et instruits comme mon collègue alsacien, M. Daul, comme mon ancien condisciple de la faculté de Nanterre, M. Cohn-Bendit, M. Verhofstadt et tant d'autres, dresser, au moins partiellement, le bilan de la catastrophe économique, sociale, institutionnelle, morale, politique, actuelle et ne proposer qu'une seule chose, qu'un seul remède: continuer dans la même voie vers plus d'Europe. Mais, mes chers collègues, vous avez eu plus d'Europe.

Après les traités, vous avez eu l'Acte unique. Après l'Acte unique, vous avez eu le traité de Maastricht. Après Maastricht, vous avez eu le traité d'Amsterdam. Après le traité d'Amsterdam, vous avez eu le traité de Nice. Après le traité de Nice, vous avez eu le traité de Lisbonne. Et c'est toujours pire!

Alors, une fois pour toutes, suivez les conseils d'une de mes collègues que j'entendais hier réclamer à cor et à cri que l'on consulte les citoyens; il est vrai qu'il s'agissait de l'extension d'un aéroport... Demandez l'avis des peuples, posez votre sac sur le bord de la route, réfléchissez, demandez-vous si vous n'avez pas pris la mauvaise option et si vous ne suivez pas le mauvais chemin, celui qui vous conduit tout droit au précipice.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). - Mr President, I think we do not need to consult our citizens, we know what our citizens want. They want an end to the sort of crisis we are in. When we use terms like growth, competitiveness, solidarity – who can be against those terms? Then what do we do in practice? We bring in a minimalist MFF. Every assistance short of help.

In Ireland, this cash flow comes under control, albeit in a way that needs fairness. Confidence is returning in terms of investment, but this is going to take time. We need growth: even a small amount of growth to get out of this mess; and growth is too low. I do not hear the word stimulus. I never hear the word stimulus being used. We do not need the European Council to look at a whole list of regulations. We need a European Council meeting to deal with one issue: stimulus. What do we have a European Investment Bank for? What worked in the past? Maybe we have to wait until after September for this to happen, but the European economy and our Member States need stimulus.

Stimulus works when countries are working, when people are paying taxes: we can refund. When they are not, we cannot. So let us stop this business of consulting people, let us stop being book-keepers. Let us give some leadership and, above all, let us have a meeting dedicated to the word stimulus. It is time we gave the economy some stimulus.

  Göran Färm (S&D). - Mr President, colleagues, the Council conclusions on the financial framework from February in their current form are not acceptable to my Group. We now look forward to serious negotiations in order to be able to agree a deal as soon as possible, and I very much welcome the message from Minister Creighton on this point.

So this is not the final decision on the next MFF, and it is not a matter of prestige for the European Parliament to negotiate. The issues at stake are substantial and substantive. It is about supporting the economic recovery – is that OK for a stimulus, Mr Mitchell? – and financing the political priorities of the European Union for the next seven years.

This is a very modest resolution. We do not even challenge the overall level of the budget proposed by the Council, in spite of the fact that the proposal is insufficient to ensure a successful implementation of the EU’s most important policies. The proposal is not sufficient to fund the growth and jobs package, not sufficient to fund the Europe 2020 strategy for sustainable growth, and not sufficient for the necessary development aid to meet the Millennium Development Goals. So all of this we want to discuss.

Now, more than ever, we must provide the European Union with the necessary and well-targeted means to invest for the future in research and development, in infrastructure, climate and energy policies, improving education, fighting youth unemployment and promoting the EU’s role in the world.

We must also provide the Union with a budget which is flexible enough to rapidly and sufficiently respond to unforeseen events. This is a budget for the next seven years, and nobody knows today what circumstances we will be facing in 2016 or 2019. Therefore, we must have a legally binding mid-term revision of the MFF to adapt ourselves to future challenges.

We must also avoid a budget deficit. This would not only be illegal but would hamper the implementation of important EU policies like research and education – for example the Erasmus programme. It would undermine the credibility of the Union. What student, what private company, what university, what researcher will ever apply for, or participate in, an EU-funded project if there is a risk that they will not get paid at the end?

Finally, for all of those reasons, I welcome the opening of negotiations. I am happy to see that both Parliament and the Council have expressed their readiness for serious talks and I really hope that we can achieve a good result as soon as possible.

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. GIANNI PITTELLA
Vicepresidente

  Jan Mulder (ALDE). - Voorzitter, ook ik zou mij willen beperken tot het akkoord over de meerjarenbegroting en ook ik ben van mening dat het akkoord in de huidige vorm niet acceptabel is.

Wat is de situatie? De Commissie dwingt tegenwoordig de lidstaten ertoe om meer en meer een begroting te hebben die in evenwicht is. Eerst de drie procentnorm en vervolgens een begroting die in evenwicht is. Met dit akkoord dwingen de lidstaten de Commissie ertoe om een begroting te hebben die altijd een tekort heeft. Dat lijkt mij niet acceptabel. Het is al gezegd, het strookt ook niet met het Verdrag. Dus, voor dit probleem moeten wij een oplossing vinden.

Met velen ben ik van mening dat de begroting flexibel moet zijn. Meer flexibiliteit tussen de hoofdstukken, en ook de mogelijkheid dat het geld dat aan het eind van het jaar over is, niet automatisch naar de lidstaten teruggestort hoeft te worden, maar onderdeel moet uitmaken van de begrotingsbesprekingen voor het jaar daarna. Ik denk dat, gezien de liquiditeitspositie waarin Europa verkeert, ook duidelijk is dat het huidige systeem van eigen middelen niet werkt. We moeten meer eigen middelen hebben voor Europa, zoals het Verdrag dat ook voorschrijft.

Ieder jaar geeft de Europese Rekenkamer, tot nu toe al achttien jaar op rij, een negatieve beoordeling over de manier waarop de Commissie het geld beheert. Tachtig procent van dat geld wordt besteed door de lidstaten. Deze moeten daar veel meer verantwoordelijkheid afleggen. Wij denken dat het nodig is dat de lidstaatverklaring er komt, die ieder jaar wordt afgegeven, en dat iemand in een lidstaat de politieke verantwoordelijkheid moet nemen voor het goed uitgeven van geld.

Ten slotte, ook ik ben van mening dat een midterm review nodig is. Wij kunnen ons niet voor zeven jaren vastleggen. Het nieuwgekozen Parlement moet een kans hebben om zich opnieuw uit te spreken over de begroting die wij hopelijk binnenkort zullen overeenkomen.

  Helga Trüpel (Verts/ALE). - Herr Präsident! Die Grünen lehnen das Ratsergebnis in seiner jetzigen Form ab. Es ist ein rückwärts gewandter Haushalt. Er ist von nationalen Interessen geprägt. Was im Rat fehlt, ist wirklich ein europäisches, gemeinsames Interesse. Es fehlt an europäischer Weitsicht.

Was wir tatsächlich bräuchten, um neue Wettbewerbsfähigkeit herzustellen, ist so etwas wie eine grüne industrielle Revolution, eine große ökologische Transformation. Nur daraus können neue Arbeitsplätze und verantwortliche, nachhaltige Produkte entstehen.

Ich wende mich an die irische Ratspräsidentschaft. Sie verlangen Konsolidierung, aber wissen Sie, was im Rat tatsächlich geschehen ist? Der Rat verlangt 10 % Kürzung beim europäischen Haushalt. Was macht Deutschland? Sie steigern den Etat um 0,3 %, in Frankreich soll er nur eingefroren werden, in Großbritannien steigt er sogar. Hier wird mit zweierlei Maß gemessen. Das ist falsch, das ist uneuropäisch!

Woher soll das Geld kommen? Es muss aus neuen Eigenmitteln kommen, insbesondere aus der Finanztransaktionssteuer. Die muss in den europäischen Haushalt fließen. Das ist auch eine klare Antwort an unsere Bürgerinnen und Bürger.

  Jan Zahradil (ECR). - Vážený pane předsedající, Evropský parlament si často stěžuje, že má malou autoritu, že má nízkou popularitu, že ho nebere nikdo vážně, že k evropským volbám chodí málo lidí. Ale jak to může být jinak, jak to může být jinak, když se Evropský parlament chová tak, jak se chová?

Máme tady dohodu o víceletém finančním rámci, která byla dosažena za cenu velkých ústupků vlád členských zemí. První, co slyšíme z Evropského parlamentu, je, že s dohodou nesouhlasí. Postaví se předsedové čtyř nejsilnějších frakcí a řeknou, že dohodu odmítají. Postaví se předseda Evropského parlamentu a řekne, že s dohodou nesouhlasí. To je konstruktivní jednání? To má Evropskému parlamentu zjednat nějakou popularitu a nějakou autoritu? Jak to chcete vysvětlit voličům? Ja myslím, že tohle nikdo nepochopí. A jestli Evropský parlament tu dohodu odmítne, udělá tu nejhloupější věc ve své historii.

Abychom se tady neplácali jenom ve svých vlastních problémech a také se podívali trochu ven, trochu do světa, dovolte mi ještě, abych se dotkl několika slovy včerejšího projevu izraelského prezidenta tady, v tomto sále. Co řekl? Označil za největší hrozbu pro bezpečnost a stabilitu v regionu Írán a požádal Evropskou unii, aby konečně zařadila Hizbaláh na seznam teroristických organizací. Já myslím, že je důležité, abychom tomu věnovali pozornost, abychom nepodcenili i tuto dimenzi.

Já chápu, že řešení našich vlastních problémů, ekonomické krize a institucionálních otázek někdy vypadá jako alfa a omega všeho, co tady děláme. Ale pokud má Evropská unie a my všichni nějaký společný zájem, tak je to zájem na zajištění vnější bezpečnosti a stability, a proto bychom se měli věnovat i jiným otázkám než nekonečné debatě nad ekonomickou a finanční krizí.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi volevo farmi interprete di un urlo di dolore che proviene dal mio paese, l'Italia, ma soprattutto dalle regioni del nord, perché la grande politica di austerità, applaudita in quest'Aula un anno fa, quando venne presentato il nuovo Presidente del Consiglio italiano, Mario Monti, nel nostro paese ha portato sì a un abbassamento dello spread, dopodiché tutti i parametri economici sono peggiorati.

È aumentata la disoccupazione, è aumentata la disoccupazione giovanile, è aumentato il debito pubblico e sono aumentati anche i casi di suicidi: i casi di suicidi di imprenditori che non possono più pagare le tasse e che vedono le loro aziende morire, a causa delle tasse dello Stato italiano, e che per la vergogna si suicidano. Chi sono i responsabili di questi suicidi? Le tasse dello Stato italiano. Ma lo Stato italiano dice che le tasse vengono imposte dall'Europa. E chi chiederà scusa alle famiglie di queste persone che si sono suicidate? Noi non possiamo più tollerare una situazione di questo ma ricordo che qui Mario Monti fu applaudito da tutti. E questi sono i risultati della sua politica.

È sicuramente una politica diversa quella che dobbiamo attuare, una politica che non vada certamente più verso quel rigore, perché dalle nostre parti non è più tollerabile una situazione di questo tipo. Mi chiedo perché la Banca centrale europea abbia prestato così tanti soldi alle banche, che poi hanno riacquistato dei titoli di Stato solo per guadagnare senza dare credito alle imprese. A che cosa sono serviti quei prestiti?

Mi chiedo perché il Presidente della BCE, quand'era in Italia, non si sia accorto che il Monte dei Paschi di Siena avesse un buco enorme, che devono pagare adesso i cittadini italiani. Chi dovrà chiedere scusa di tutto questo? Un'Europa che pensa solo alle banche e non pensa all'economia reale! Questo è il problema. Quindi bisognerà sicuramente fare una riforma del sistema bancario.

Vi chiedo un'altra cosa: rivedere i trattati di Schengen, perché hanno creato gravi problemi, e rivedere i trattati commerciali che hanno creato concorrenza sleale. Queste sono le vere necessità, altrimenti l'Europa è destinata solo a fallire.

  Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL). - Senhor Presidente, creio que o Parlamento Europeu tem hoje a oportunidade histórica de rejeitar o acordo saído do Conselho de 8 de fevereiro sobre o Quadro Financeiro Plurianual, em que, claramente, os governos demonstraram que desistiram da Europa.

Espero sinceramente que os deputados respondam a esta necessidade democrática e solidária de rejeitar este acordo.

Sr. Presidente Barroso, o senhor disse que o desemprego atingiu níveis insuportáveis. Estamos completamente de acordo. Mas o problema, Sr. Presidente, é que o senhor também não é um inocente neste filme de terror. Os processos de ajustamento que estão em curso na Europa têm surtido efeitos, sim, mas têm surtido efeitos de aumentar o desemprego, aumentar a precariedade, de contribuir para a perda de dignidade das pessoas e para uma pobreza obscena.

Não lhe ouvi uma palavra de crítica em relação às conclusões do Conselho. Como é que pode um orçamento europeu cumprir uma função redistributiva, quando se propõem cortes tão fundamentais como nas políticas de coesão? E onde é que ficam afinal os jovens no meio disto tudo? Não é o Fundo de Garantia que vai permitir desenvolver estas políticas contracíclicas. Penso que este quadro, na sua versão atual, só nos mergulha numa austeridade eterna, e espero que hoje a votação demonstre que este Parlamento não aceita essas conclusões.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). - Mr President, once again Europe’s leaders will meet for a late night supper. The agenda may talk of growth and jobs, but we have heard it all before and nothing improves. Only lip service will be paid to jobs and growth. The real conversation over the foie gras will be how to save your beloved political project of European federalisation. The talk will be about how to keep Italy in line after its comical election and how to downplay yet another country, Cyprus, seeking a new bailout.

British people know that problems come from Europe and they pay for them with cold, hard cash and the reduction of essential public services. British people are getting more and more fed up with the European Union. May I take this opportunity to thank Mr Barroso for helping with this. Despite Mr Cameron’s attempts to knock a referendum into the long grass, the British people demand a referendum on our membership now. My constituents send a clear message to my office, week in, week out, which is that they do not want anything more to do with this corrupt and doomed mess that is the European Union.

  Herbert Reul (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Wenn man hier zuhört, stellt man sich die Frage: Wer wird eigentlich glaubwürdiger für das europäische Projekt eintreten? Derjenige, der jetzt lautstark mehr Geld fordert und Nein zu allem sagt? Derjenige, der da rummäkelt, was alles schiefläuft? Oder derjenige, der nachweist, dass das, was wir gemacht haben, sukzessive, vielleicht zu langsam, aber doch Erfolge zeigt. Ich glaube, dass derjenige, der nachweist, dass unsere Entscheidungen Erfolge haben, die Glaubwürdigkeit des europäischen Projekts voranbringen wird.

Kommissionspräsident Barroso hat eben – ich finde, viel zu wenig beachtet – gesagt: Die Haushaltsdefizite gehen um die Hälfte zurück, Zinssätze sinken, Zahlungsbilanzdefizite sinken, Exporte steigen, Vertrauen steigt. Das stelle ich mir unter gut gemachter Politik vor! Dazu gehört eben nicht ein dicker, lauter Spruch oder ein lautes Nein, sondern eine differenzierte Antwort. Die differenzierte Antwort, die ich sehr unterstütze, heißt bei dem Haushaltsplan: Wir wollen an den Stellen etwas ändern, wo es notwendig ist, bei der Flexibilität, bei den Revisionsklauseln, bei den Eigenmitteln – genau da wollen wir Änderungen. Aber nicht hier rumpalavern! Die Lösung ist auch nicht, zu sagen: Wir schaffen erst mal neue grüne Arbeitsplätze und dann schauen wir mal und zerstören auf der Strecke die restlichen Arbeitsplätze. Was ist denn das für ein glaubwürdiges Konzept?

Nein, wer Wachstum und Arbeitsplätze will, der muss leider auch den mühsamen Weg gehen, zu sagen: Wir sparen, wir strengen uns an, wir machen Strukturreformen, wir helfen da, wo große Not ist, auch im Bereich von Jugendarbeitslosigkeit – das Konzept ist richtig! Nicht der gewinnt den Preis, der jeden Tag eine neue Idee hat, sondern derjenige, der durchhält, der systematisch arbeitet und der am Ende zeigen kann: Dieses Europa, dieses Arbeiten hat sich gelohnt! Ich bin diesen ewigen Klamauk wirklich leid. Er schadet nur dem europäischen Projekt. Mehr arbeiten, mehr durchhalten, ein bisschen auch davon erzählen, dass sich das gelohnt hat, das wäre lohnend!

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

  Graham Watson (ALDE), blue-card question. – We have had a series of speakers from the EPP Group telling us what we should be doing. Mr Daul said we must complete the single market; Mr Mitchell said we must have a stimulus; Mr Reul talks about structural reforms.

Gentlemen, your party has been the largest party in this House since 1999; it has dominated the Council in most of those years, so why has it failed to do all of these things? Under Mr Santer we had valetudinarianism at best. I suspect that Mr Barroso has never really believed in your party’s Catholic Communitarianism. Will you not accept that you have failed and, if we end up with southern Europe in flames, will you not accept that it is your fault?

(Applause)

  Herbert Reul (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Sehr geschätzter Kollege! Wenn Sie sich mal die Beschlüsse der letzten Monate und Jahre hier ansehen, werden Sie feststellen: Die hier gefassten Beschlüsse – von Sixpack über Twopack – sind doch mit unserer Unterstützung gefasst worden. Wenn ich mich recht erinnere, war es Ihre Truppe, die es so schwer gemacht hat und das Twopack, das ein wichtiges Element war, wegen dieser wirklich ideologischen Idee des Schuldentilgungsfonds im Rat permanent blockiert hat. Ich sehe da weniger Schuld bei der EVP. Da war auch nicht immer alles richtig, aber im Prinzip waren wir auf der richtigen Spur.

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

  Michael Theurer (ALDE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Sehr geehrter Herr Kollege Reul! Ich stimme Ihnen in vielen Punkten zu. Allerdings waren wir uns hier im Parlament einig, dass wir der Meinung sind, wir brauchen mehr Impulse für Wachstum, mehr Impulse für Innovation, eine andere Schwerpunktsetzung. Der Rat verweigert sich seit Jahren der Entlastung.

Deshalb meine konkrete Frage an Sie: War Ihre Aussage jetzt ein „Ja, aber“ oder ein „Nein, aber“, oder sind wir uns einig, dass dieser MFR noch verbessert und verändert werden muss?

  Herbert Reul (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Präsident! Erstens habe ich vorgetragen, dass ich der Meinung bin, dass dieser MFR verändert werden muss, verbessert werden muss, und zwar in den methodischen Fragen, in den Instrumentenfragen – ich habe ja drei vorgetragen. Deshalb werde ich auch dafür stimmen, dass sie an diesen Stellen verändert werden.

Zweitens halte ich allerdings das Nein in der Formulierung für falsch. Das ist, glaube ich, ein falsches Signal. Ich glaube nämlich, dass es bei den Verhandlungen nicht um die Frage der Finanzhöhe, sondern um die Frage der Instrumente geht.

  Elisa Ferreira (S&D). - Senhor Presidente, de facto o próximo Conselho Europeu é especial. O Conselho da primavera que se inicia amanhã – a ele compete definir as linhas estratégicas para o crescimento e emprego na União Europeia no ano de 2013, incluindo aí a análise dos desequilíbrios internos à União. Não é uma análise teórica, porque ela informa diretamente os programas de estabilidade ou convergência, os programas nacionais de reforma dos distintos países. E inicia-se aqui o processo de controlo a nível europeu sobre o nível nacional, que acaba de ser reforçado com o two-pack, até ao momento em que se controlam os orçamentos nacionais.

Mas mais poder europeu significa mais responsabilidade. Por isso, que balanço faz a Comissão, Sr. Presidente da Comissão, que balanço fazem a Comissão e o Conselho das recomendações que têm imposto aos países? Qual é a qualidade das previsões económicas que as justificam? Na primavera de 2011, a Comissão estimava que, em 2012, no ano que terminou, o crescimento fosse na Grécia de 1,1. Foi de -6,9. Na Itália de +1,3. Foi de -2,2. Na Espanha de +1,5. Foi de -1,4. E a riqueza na Zona Euro reduziu-se 0,6 % e continuará a reduzir-se.

Quererá a Comissão continuar a insistir que não precisa de rever os seus modelos econométricos, que as suas recomendações de política económica não precisam de ser alteradas? Quanto mais deprimida está uma economia, mais negativos são os impactos das políticas de austeridade, e é por isso que na periferia o desemprego explode.

No fim desta crise, nós temos desequilíbrios no interior da Zona Euro com uma dimensão nunca vista. Pode a Zona Euro sobreviver quando a taxa de desemprego médio na Grécia ou na Espanha é 5 vezes superior à registada na Alemanha, nos Países Baixos ou na Áustria? Pode a Europa sobreviver com taxas de desemprego jovem de 7 % nos países do centro e de 40 % na periferia? Será que a Comissão e o Conselho têm consciência que o desemprego de longa duração, a desistência por parte de muitos de buscar trabalho, a emigração maciça dos jovens mais preparados da periferia para o centro… são esses os verdadeiros impedimentos a uma convergência estrutural da competitividade dentro da Zona Euro e, em particular, dentro da dimensão europeia da Europa? É que foram estes desequilíbrios que criaram os problemas do endividamento excessivo, e não um ADN específico de certos países.

A minha mensagem é muito clara – e termino, Sr. Presidente… Façam deste Conselho Europeu um Conselho de mudança efetiva das políticas, ou será demasiado tarde. E não há perdão se fingirmos que não vemos os sinais que todos os dias nos enviam.

  Anne E. Jensen (ALDE). - Hr. formand! Jeg skal gøre mit bedste for at holde mig inden for tidsrammen. Fru Creighton sagde til os, at arbejdet med den mellemfristede budgetramme vil blive et stort arbejde, og det tror jeg, hun får rigtig meget ret i. Der er først og fremmest behov for, at vi får et fælles grundlag at forhandle på. Der savner vi fra Parlamentets side at få alle tal og alle aftaler på bordet. Vi har fået oplyst, at alt står i den endelige tekst, men vi har lidt svært ved at se det ud fra de meldinger, der er kommet fra statslederne efter deres hjemkomst. Problemet for mig og for den liberale gruppe er ikke den økonomiske ramme – det er ikke nødvendigvis et større budget, vi går efter. Men vi ønsker et mere fleksibelt budget, hvor nye behov, der kunne opstå før 2020, kan finansieres. Vi ønsker, at man ser på forskning og uddannelse, hvor bevillingerne nærmest bliver låst fast på 2013-niveau. Det er simpelthen ikke ambitiøst nok, og det vil stå klart, når vi får detaljerne frem.

Med hensyn til landbrugspolitikken er der spørgsmålet om bevægelse af penge mellem søjle 1 og søjle 2, hvor jeg synes, vi har nogle problemer. Hvad angår regionalpolitikken er der givet en masse gaver, og spørgsmålet er, hvordan vi i lovprocessen får lagt det ind under nogle principper, der er til at forstå. Jeg mener bestemt, der er visse ting, der skal ses på. Man har fortalt mig, at den forhandlingsform, man anvender mellem statslederne, den med den tyrkiske basar, er den eneste måde, man kan gøre det på. Jeg er bange for, at det forløb, vi står over for, vil vise, at det er den eneste måde, man ikke kan gøre det på! For det er mange problemer, vi nu står over for at skulle rette op på i forløbet.

  Isabelle Durant (Verts/ALE). - Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, je vous rappelle que le rapport de la commission spéciale SURE que nous avons voté ici, qui n'était sans doute pas le Pérou, est un rapport qui n'a pas été voté il y a dix ans; il l'a été en 2011. Ce n'était pas il y a si longtemps.

Je vous rappelle aussi que la lettre des quatre présidents de groupe dont il est question il y a dix ans qu'elle a été envoyée, c'était au lendemain du Conseil qui a accouché de cette mauvaise proposition.

Autrement dit, nous ne sommes pas complètement déconnectés de ces moments où nous avons dit "nous ne voulons pas de cette proposition du Conseil, nous voulons plus et nous voulons mieux".

Alors, les petites instructions nationales visant à protéger l'une ou l'autre partie du budget, parce qu'elle arrange tel ou tel pays, ce n'est pas cela qui doit nous faire bouger. Comme on l'a dit, cela ne relève pas de notre responsabilité.

Oui, une clause de révision peut sans doute nous aider, mais expliquez-moi comment, dans deux ans, nous aurons un tout autre rapport de force. Je demande à voir! Oui, sans doute la flexibilité nous aidera-t-elle, mais allez donc expliquer aux citoyens européens que déplacer une partie du budget d'une année à une autre ou d'une colonne à une autre va changer foncièrement les choses. Oui, sans doute les eurosceptiques et les nationalistes de ce Parlement veulent-ils ce budget et rien d'autre. Mais tous les autres, ceux qui ont voté le rapport; ceux qui ne veulent pas payer la note en 2014, ils ont intérêt aujourd'hui à bien voter la résolution et à voter comme il convient quand il s'agira de nous prononcer sur le budget en tant que tel.

  Derk Jan Eppink (ECR). - Mr President, let me first of all congratulate the European Council on the agreement on the multiannual financial framework. For the first time, the Council has cut the budget because citizens are being asked to do the same. The deal puts an end to the mantra that ‘more Europe is the only medicine’.

Having dealt with the quantity, we now focus on the quality. Improvements are needed. The current budget reflects too much a planned economy, agriculture and structural funds. We are building too many bridges to nowhere and we need to focus more on innovation. The budget deal unravels the orthodoxy of the ever closer Union. There are limits, and we have run into them. Look at the eurozone. The crisis was supposed to be over and it is not. The Italians voted against the ‘triple B’ – Brussels, Berlin and Barroso.

Europe needs more flexibility, less one-size-fits-all. We need to identify the core tasks of the European Union and also the European tasks Member States can do better amongst themselves. Finally, we must identify powers that are better returned to the Member States altogether. I am in favour of Europe – a united Europe of states, a Europe of the possible, instead of just messing around.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD). - Nors ir pasiekti tam tikri susitarimai dėl daugiametės finansinės programos, tačiau jie nėra pakankamai geri mano valstybės piliečių atžvilgiu. Išmokos, numatytos žemės ūkiui, valstybėms narėms nesuvienodintos ir potekstėje vėl palikta vietos kalbėti jei ne apie „dviejų greičių“, tai apie „lygių ir lygesnių“ valstybių Europą.

Gerai suplanuotu Europos Sąjungos finansavimu galima iš tiesų pasiekti realių tikslų įveikiant krizę ir nedarbą. Tačiau kol kas bent aš nematau realių prielaidų tai pasiekti.

Pone Barosso, ar sutiktumėte su manimi, kad didžiausia bėda, kuri niekais gali paversti pačius geriausius ketinimus, yra tai, kad mes klimpstame į naujų rezoliucijų, direktyvų ir reglamentų jūrą, pamiršdami pasižiūrėti, kaip vykdomi ankstesni sprendimai? Ir tik vienas pavyzdys – jeigu nedarbas Europoje auga, tai ko vertos visos mūsų ankstesnės strategijos?

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

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Kollege Paksas! Im Gegensatz zu praktisch allen anderen Rednern kann man Ihre Worte so interpretieren, dass es sogar noch zu wenig Hilfen für die Landwirtschaft gibt. Ist Ihnen bewusst, dass jetzt schon 80 % aller Mittel für 20 % der Betriebe aufgewendet werden? Das heißt, dass Agrarfabriken weit überproportional Gelder beziehen. Wie würde konkret Ihr Lösungsvorschlag aussehen, wenn Sie innerhalb des ohnehin schon reduzierten EU-Budgets noch mehr Hilfen für die Landwirtschaft beantragen?

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD), atsakymas į pakėlus mėlynąją kortelę pateiktą klausimą. – Iš tikrųjų mano pasiūlymas būtų labai paprastas ir jis būtų paremtas vienu principu. O principas būtų teisingumo principas – kad tokios pat išmokos žemdirbiams galiotų ir senoms Europos Sąjungos valstybėms narėms, ir naujai įstojusioms. Vienas principas – teisingumo principas.

  Jürgen Klute (GUE/NGL). - Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Der Rat hat mit dem MFR-Vorschlag, den er am 8. Februar vorgelegt hat, die EU noch weiter und noch tiefer in die Krise gefahren.

Krisen sind aber auch Chancen. Diese Krise könnte eine Chance sein, die Demokratisierung der Europäischen Union einen wichtigen Schritt nach vorne zu bringen, nämlich indem der laufende MFR um zwei Jahre verlängert wird, damit die Abgeordneten der nächsten Legislaturperiode die Möglichkeit hätten, über einen eigenen MFR abzustimmen. Dann könnte zudem die Laufzeit der MFR verkürzt und mit den Wahlperioden parallel geschaltet werden. Das wäre ein wichtiger und ein guter demokratischer Fortschritt, denn dann könnten die Abgeordneten jeder Wahlperiode über ihre eigenen Finanzangelegenheiten entscheiden. Denn es ist das ureigenste Recht eines vollwertigen Parlaments, über die eigenen Haushaltsmittel zu entscheiden. Es ist das Recht des Parlaments und nicht das der Regierungen!

  Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI). - De Raad zal zich voor de zoveelste keer buigen over groei en banen in Europa, of beter gezegd, over het ontbreken daarvan. Voorzitter Schulz deed alvast een duit in het zakje door te pleiten de jeugdwerkloosheid aan te pakken door meer investeringen. Want, zo stelt Voorzitter Schulz, we zijn wereldkampioenen in bezuinigen, maar we hebben minder ideeën als het aankomt op het stimuleren van de groei.

Als het om bezuinigen gaat, zal hij niet doelen op de Europese Unie, want die heeft namelijk nog nooit bezuinigd. Bezuinigingen laat de EU liever over aan de lidstaten. De Nederlandse economie wordt momenteel kapot bezuinigd vanwege de eurocrisis en om maar aan de drieprocentnorm uit Brussel te kunnen voldoen.

Het klinkt dus allemaal weer prachtig dat investeren, maar waar moet dat geld eigenlijk vandaan komen? Ik heb wel een suggestie. Laten we nu eens keihard snijden in het EU-budget. Om te beginnen door het afschaffen van het cohesiebeleid en die verschrikkelijke landbouwsubsidies. Dat levert in één klap ruim zevenhonderd miljard euro op. Hoe minder geld er via het EU-budget wordt verspeeld, des te meer houden lidstaten over, en des te minder hoeven zij te bezuinigen. In plaats daarvan kan Nederland zijn geld goed gebruiken om in eigen land te investeren.

  Giuseppe Gargani (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'onorevole Daul, mio presidente del gruppo PPE, ha detto che oggi è una giornata storica. Al di là dell'enfatizzazione, credo che sia profondamente vero, perché in questa settimana, noi segniamo un progresso se possibile dell'Europa e dobbiamo quindi essere consapevoli che un'unione politica dell'Europa sia il presupposto per poter risolvere i problemi.

Invece credo che noi, nell'odierna discussione, che è in effetti un po' più approfondita delle altre volte, descriviamo il problema senza trovare soluzioni. Il Presidente del Consiglio ha fatto un accenno a un'economia reale da dover gestire e guidare; il Presidente Barroso ha detto che non dobbiamo chiuderci in noi stessi e che l'Europa ha un problema di rapporto forte nei confronti del mondo. Chiede fiducia ma credo che la fiducia ci sia.

Questo problema del girare attorno ai fatti e alle proposte, senza dare soluzioni alimenta nei nostri paesi quella sfiducia di cui ha parlato il collega Farage, che è una sfiducia che si è manifestata indubbiamente anche nei risultati elettorali dell'Italia. Credo che quindi, al di là dello slogan "più Europa", che è uno slogan che usiamo in tutti paesi ma che non ha significato, noi dobbiamo volere un'Europa diversa, un'Europa politica che possa risolvere i problemi economici.

Se ognuno di noi deve dare un contributo e se il Parlamento europeo non deve tener conto delle questioni nazionali ma deve tener conto delle questioni nazionali armonizzate con tutto il resto, al Presidente del Consiglio vorrei fare una sola proposta: se nel prossimo Consiglio del 14 marzo noi facciamo un piccolo passo avanti nell'eliminare dal Patto di stabilità le spese di investimento che i vari paesi fanno, si porta un sollievo non solo all'Italia, ma anche ad altri paesi. Si tratterebbe di un progresso rispetto a una soluzione europea che tutti auspichiamo ma che diventa declaratoria e retorica se non ha un contenuto e una sostanza.

  Catherine Trautmann (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, ce prochain Conseil doit clôturer la première phase du semestre européen 2013 pour la coordination des politiques budgétaires et économiques des États membres.

La première chose que nous pouvons en attendre est qu'il ne vienne pas ajouter de l'austérité à l'austérité, en préconisant un calendrier de réduction des déficits qui laisse les États membres exsangues.

Il serait inacceptable que les conclusions du Conseil s'orientent vers un ensemble de mesures si drastiques qu'elles empêcheraient les États membres d'engager des réformes structurelles, qui sont pourtant essentielles à la relance.

Il y a plusieurs mois, le think tank Bruegel, qui n'est pas vraiment gauchiste, appelait déjà la Commission à reporter d'un an la date butoir de retour à la règle en raison de la croissance faible, voire nulle, dans de nombreux pays de la zone euro et du risque récessif d'un ajustement trop serré.

Il ne s'agit pas d'un débat théorique sur la coordination des politiques budgétaires. Il s'agit, ici, de se donner les moyens de la solidarité. C'est cela que nous, socialistes et socio-démocrates, cherchons à obtenir en faisant primer la solidarité. Solidarité face à l'austérité pour les sans-emploi, les jeunes, les plus démunis et, plus généralement, pour toutes les catégories de population qui sont durement touchées par la crise.

Je l'ai dit, la première mesure à prendre est d'ajuster les calendriers, mais nous pouvons aller plus loin en prenant un engagement, celui de doter le budget européen de véritables ressources propres pour s'affranchir des logiques purement étatiques.

Nous ne baissons pas pavillon non plus en ce qui concerne l'exclusion des investissements du calcul du déficit structurel, en particulier de l'investissement que constitue la contribution des États membres au budget de l'Union.

J'ai bien écouté M. Barroso qui a dit: "La croissance est le moyen de relever les normes et les niveaux de vie de la vie sociale en Europe." Je crois, en effet, que la Commission doit déployer tous les efforts pour faire en sorte que l'équilibre entre redressement et croissance soit la clé de notre réussite et, en même temps, la possibilité d'un retour à l'espoir pour les Européens.

  George Lyon (ALDE). - Mr President, can I first of all make it very clear that the ALDE Group agrees with the cuts to the overall size of the MFF budget. It demonstrates to our citizens that we have the ability to live within our means in these very difficult times. However, there are areas where we do want to see change. We need to see greater flexibility to spend a smaller budget more effectively and we need a guarantee of a review in 2016, when hopefully economic times are improving. There is no national government that is setting a seven-year austerity budget, and this institution should be not be forced into doing so.

Surely, though, our most important task is to find more money to invest in jobs and growth. Every Member in this debate has said that must be the priority. Let us back that call for more investment by agreeing that the EUR 4 billion increase for our administration should instead be used to invest in creating jobs and opportunity for our young people. That would show that this Parliament is willing to put its money where its mouth is.

  Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE). - Herr Präsident! Vor diesem Rat haben wir jetzt mehrfach gehört, wir seien auf dem Pfad der Besserung, die Krise, das Schlimmste sei vorbei. Wenn man in die Bankbilanzen schaut und den steigenden Anteil von faulen Krediten in den Krisenländern sieht, macht man sich jedoch große Sorgen. Ich kann nur vor jeder Nachlässigkeit warnen! Deshalb ist auch entscheidend, dass wir mit der Bankenunion vorankommen. Die gemeinsame Aufsicht muss kommen, damit es eben nicht länger hinausgezögert werden kann, darüber zu sprechen, wie mit den Verlusten in den Büchern wirklich umgegangen werden kann. Das bedeutet aber auch, das Parlament ist nach wie vor bereit und dabei, auf Wunsch des Rates über die einzelnen Fragen zu sprechen. Hier gibt es Flexibilität.

Wo es aber keine Flexibilität gibt, ist bei der Frage der demokratischen Rechte. Wenn wir die Bankenunion europäisch organisieren, dann muss sie auch demokratisch europäisch kontrolliert werden. D. h., wir brauchen die Ernennungsrechte für den Präsidenten und den Vizepräsidenten des Aufsichtsgremiums, wir brauchen starke Untersuchungsrechte und wir brauchen das Recht, auch Akten einzusehen. Einen Demokratierabatt wird es nicht geben!

  Hans-Peter Martin (NI). - Herr Präsident! Je länger ich hier als tatsächlich unabhängiger Abgeordneter tätig bin, desto mehr wächst meine Sorge um das europäische Projekt. Die politischen Entscheidungsträger in der EU stehen vor einem strategischen Dilemma. Die Ziele, die sie ständig proklamieren, finden breite Zustimmung in der Bevölkerung, die Art und Weise, wie man aber versucht, sich diesen Zielen anzunähern, nicht. So kommen wir zu der Situation, dass man einerseits versteht, dass aus der Europäischen Union heraus sehr wohl – um Daniel Cohn-Bendit zu zitieren – intelligentes Wachstum kommen könnte, es aber keine Bereitschaft gibt, dafür zusätzliche Mittel aufzuwenden. Die Lösung aus meiner Sicht kann im Augenblick nur sein: intelligentes Umschichten. Und da stehen Sie sich aufgrund des Lobbydrucks der Großkonzerne in der Agrarindustrie, der Baulobbys beim Kohäsionsfonds und der vollkommen absurden Positionierung der EU-Beamtenvertretungen selbst auf den Füßen.

Die Lösung wäre aber relativ einfach. Natürlich wissen wir, dass der Verwaltungsanteil nicht bei 6 % liegt, sondern bei 12 %, Herr Kommissar Lewandowski, und dass in Programmen unglaublich viele Verwaltungsgelder versteckt werden – in Milliardenhöhe –, die sich natürlich in sieben Jahren entsprechend addieren. Und natürlich wissen wir, dass die derzeitige Form der Landwirtschaftssubventionen unsinnig ist, und wir wissen auch, dass die Kohäsionsfondsmittel genau dort hingehören, wo man sie jetzt weggenommen hat, nämlich in den Bereich Forschung, in den Bereich Horizont 2020.

Da versagen Sie als politische Führung! Und Sie werden dafür – so bitter ich das als Proeuropäer finde – bei den nächsten Wahlen die ganz böse politische Antwort von rechts außen und von anderen Extremisten bekommen.

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, Madame la Ministre, Présidente en exercice du Conseil, nous réglons les problèmes de stabilité financière. C'est une bonne nouvelle. Reste le problème de la croissance. Nous savons que la croissance, nous ne l'aurons pas grâce à la dépense publique. Nous l'aurons donc par l'économie réelle.

Trois idées. D'abord l'efficacité et l'efficience de la dépense publique. Je répète que nous pourrions vérifier s'il ne serait pas possible de faire des économies via la mutualisation entre les échelons européens, nationaux et locaux. Et je propose un audit indépendant, qui serait réalisé par la Cour des comptes européenne et par les vingt-sept cours des comptes nationales, pour voir si nous ne pourrions pas faire des économies. Vingt-sept armées, plus d'ennemis, des programmes de recherche financés sans coordination, des centaines d'immeubles diplomatiques sur toute la planète, des programmes de développement sans coordination non plus.

Deuxième idée, reprenons l'idée d'un grand plan d'investissements dans les infrastructures, les voies ferrées, l'aviation, l'espace, l'énergie, l'eau, le numérique. 1 000 à 1 500 milliards. Nous ne réfléchissons pas assez aux péages, aux cautions, à toutes les ressources financières existant au-delà des ressources propres de l'Union européenne.

Dernier point: la convergence sociale. Comment répondrons-nous aux attentes des peuples, si nous ne sommes pas capables, par exemple, d'assurer une convergence de nos minimas sociaux? Les anciens pays communistes ont encore des salaires minimums de l'ordre de 200 à 300 euros. Nous devrions avoir honte.

J'espère que, en rejetant les propositions du Conseil européen, notre Parlement obtiendra le rétablissement du budget du Fonds européen d'aide aux plus démunis. Nous devrions avoir honte d'avoir réduit ce programme; cette Maison rétablira les fonds aux plus démunis.

  Ивайло Калфин (S&D). - Уважаеми г-н Председател, ако днес трябваше да гласуваме в Парламента съгласие или отхвърляне на решението на Съвета на държавните глави в Европа, ние щяхме да го отхвърлим. Резолюцията, която предлагаме, дава шанс да започнем преговори и да има друг резултат в Европейския парламент.

Малко по-рано днес Председателят Барозу каза, че Европейският съюз има нужда от многогодишна финансова рамка. Бих допълнил, не от каквато и да е многогодишна финансова рамка. Ние имаме нужда от рамка, която да направи така, че бюджетът да съответства на политическите амбиции на Съюза.

Много често в тази зала трябва да се връщаме на основните въпроси. Един от тях е: Може ли Европейският съюз да помогне за излизането от кризата? Ние тук чухме какви ли не мнения (някои от тях много странни). Отговорът е определено: Да, ако Европейският съюз стимулира инвестициите в икономиките, ако спестява национални средства (както се случва примерно с помощта за развитие), ако създава добавена стойност (както се случва с европейските инфраструктури, с програмата "Еразъм", с младите хора). При всички тези случаи европейският бюджет създава работни места и растеж. И то ги създава по-добре, отколкото ако тези средства се похарчат на национално равнище, а тях ги няма на национално равнище (държавите не разполагат с тях).

Това, което се договориха правителствените ръководители, е един бюджет, който е на равнища като отношение от брутния вътрешен продукт от 1989 година. Ние се опитваме да решаваме проблемите на 2020 година с бюджет от 1989 година ─ 0,94 % плащания от БВП. Това е абсолютно невъзможно.

Затова искаме преговори. Затова не приемаме бюджет без достатъчна гъвкавост, без преглед в средата на периода, с дефицит, който е заложен в него, и с цялата несигурност, която има. Затова се надявам да получим широка подкрепа на резолюцията в Парламента.

  Jill Evans (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, I was elected to represent Wales in this Parliament but, of course, we are talking about the European Council meeting today and Wales is represented in the Council by the UK Government. What that means is that the Welsh national interest is not represented.

The UK Government, backed by the Labour opposition, have been calling for more cuts in the European budget. Those cuts would be devastating to the Welsh economy. I should say that Labour is split on this issue. In Wales, where they form the government, they are actually opposing the cuts. The situation is now that Wales is a net beneficiary of EU funding. Our membership of the EU has helped us to build our economy and, like other countries, we need that support and solidarity to help us to overcome the crisis and build a better future for our young people.

That is why I will be opposing the Council cuts to the MFF and supporting instead investment in sustainable jobs and communities, at the very time when the whole of Europe needs it most.

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). - Pani Minister! Panie Komisarzu! Wprawdzie najbliższe posiedzenie Rady Europejskiej nie będzie dotyczyło nowej perspektywy budżetowej Unii, ale przysłuchując się dzisiejszej debacie, postronny Europejczyk mógłby mieć wrażenie, że tak właśnie jest. Dlaczego? Czy wielu mówców na tej sali, wliczając w to kilku liderów grup politycznych, pomyliło się, skupiając się na wieloletnich ramach finansowych na lata 2014–2020. Otóż nie. Ponieważ głównym tematem najbliższej Rady będzie strategia walki z kryzysem gospodarczym i wzrost gospodarczy w Europie, to istotne – jeśli nie kluczowe – znaczenie w tej strategii ma właśnie wspólny unijny budżet. Dzisiaj w Europie są to główne, jeśli nie jedyne pieniądze na szeroko zakrojone inwestycje, na pobudzanie wzrostu.

W ramach tego wieloletniego budżetu unijnego są też zarezerwowane miliardy na walkę z największym zagrożeniem dla przyszłości Europy, z tym rakiem, który toczy wiele społeczeństw europejskich, jakim jest wysokie, katastrofalne bezrobocie wśród młodzieży. Na te unijne fundusze czekają kraje Południa, które dzielnie zmagają się z kryzysem, czekają obywatele państw objętych polityką spójności, bo te fundusze pomagają w szybkim nadrobieniu zaległości będących wynikiem podziału politycznego po II wojnie światowej. Ale czekają też przedsiębiorcy z krajów bogatych, przedsiębiorcy z krajów płatników netto, bo oni często realizują te inwestycje w krajach Południa czy krajach Europy Wschodniej. Nie powinniśmy więc – jak wzywał do tego chociażby Daniel Cohn-Bendit – odrzucać tego budżetu. Możemy go poprawiać, powinniśmy go poprawiać, ale należy bez zbędnej zwłoki przystąpić do negocjacji i te negocjacje zakończyć z myślą o interesie naszych obywateli.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). - Señor Presidente, se ha hablado en este Pleno mucho de la crisis económica, pero yo quiero hablar del Estado de Derecho y de la democracia y los derechos fundamentales en la Unión Europea, porque la crisis que impacta sobre los valores fundacionales de la Unión Europea no es menos importante que la del euro —lo es más— y porque los criterios de Copenhague que se exigen a los candidatos a la adhesión deben exigirse también una vez que se es parte de la Unión.

Digo esto porque se ha consumado en Hungría la aprobación de la cuarta enmienda a la Ley Fundamental, que desautoriza al Tribunal Constitucional al restablecer los contenidos que habían sido declarados no conformes con la Ley Fundamental por una sentencia de diciembre de dicho tribunal. Y en democracia se puede o no se puede tener tribunal constitucional, pero cuando se tiene, hay que respetarlo y cumplir con sus sentencias.

Además, la enmienda establece serias condiciones al pluralismo religioso y al pluralismo en los medios de comunicación e informativo y restablece el mecanismo de asignación judicial de casos por la Oficina judicial, que había suscitado la preocupación de este Parlamento, sin que se den garantías explícitas de respeto al proceso debido y al juez imparcial predeterminado por la ley.

Se ha desoído al Consejo de Europa, al Secretario General del Consejo de Europa, a la Comisión de Venecia y al Presidente del Parlamento Europeo. De manera que le pido al Presidente del Parlamento Europeo que plantee esta cuestión a los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno durante el Consejo que se celebra este fin de semana.

Recuerdo que el Presidente de la República de Hungría tiene aún la oportunidad de escuchar el mensaje de los miles de húngaros que le piden que garantice el cumplimiento de los compromisos de la adhesión y la regla del Estado de Derecho. Pero, además, recuerdo que la Comisión LIBE está trabajando en un informe por mandato de este Parlamento y que va a llevar adelante ese informe y va a asegurarse de que se cumple con la primera regla de la Unión Europea, que es la sujeción voluntaria al imperio de la ley.

  Alain Lamassoure (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, l'Union européenne est malade de son budget. Il est trop petit pour être utile aux politiques nécessaires et il est très gros pour être supportable par ceux qui le financent. Sa répartition s'explique par l'Histoire. Elle ne laisse que des sommes marginales pour préparer l'avenir. Son financement actuel le condamne à une asphyxie lente et, finalement, sa procédure d'adoption a été complètement dévoyée.

Le cadre pluriannuel était conçu, au départ, pour garantir le financement durable des grandes politiques européennes et c'est lui qui, désormais, empêche tout financement de vraies politiques communes.

Le Président Van Rompuy a appelé le Parlement à prendre ses responsabilités. Aujourd'hui, la responsabilité du Parlement est de dire tranquillement: "non!". Non à cette mise en pièces du budget européen en vingt-sept enveloppes nationales! Non à des choix qui, derrière une présentation obscure et savante, préservent en Europe les privilèges des pays forts et sacrifient honteusement les pays en difficulté qui font le plus de sacrifices. Par contre, oui au soutien de la croissance et de la compétitivité! Oui à une vraie solidarité en Europe! Oui à un budget qui soit financé par 500 millions de contribuables et qui bénéficie à 500 millions de citoyens.

L'enjeu de la négociation qui commence est de savoir si le Conseil est prêt, de son côté, à partager ces "oui".

  Véronique De Keyser (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, Madame, parmi les membres du Conseil, beaucoup ont cru que le compromis à vingt-sept était suffisant pour faire passer le cadre pluriannuel. Le Parlement a son mot à dire.

Parmi les rares membres du Conseil qui pensent que le budget est aussi une prérogative du Parlement, certains se moquent encore et disent que le Parlement veut rouler des mécaniques, qu'il s'oppose maintenant pour le plaisir de s'opposer et qu'il va changer d'avis. C'est faux. C'est faux et le Conseil n'a pas encore compris que la crise de confiance des citoyens à l'égard de l'Europe était encore plus risquée que la crise financière. Si l'Europe ne donne pas, par une formidable impulsion à l'emploi, une réponse aux 26 millions de chômeurs, si elle ne protège pas ses industries, ses jeunes, si elle trahit ses engagements envers le tiers monde, si elle coupe dans l'aide humanitaire, si elle coupe dans l'aide alimentaire aux plus démunis, elle signe vraiment la condamnation du rêve européen. En engager son budget d'austérité pour sept ans, c'est une pure folie que nous ne partagerons pas.

Mais je veux répondre à M. Gollnisch et à M. Farage. Monsieur le Président, je réponds au nom de mon parti, que si M. Gollnish veut retourner à la période d'avant le rêve européen, d'avant la guerre de 1940-45, il aura la réponse: "c'est la guerre". Mitterand disait: le nationalisme, c'est la guerre. Si M. Farage veut, avec des statistiques honteuses, nationales – pourquoi pas racistes et ethniques? – stigmatiser les citoyens roumains chez lui, qu'il stigmatise les paradis fiscaux, la City et les banques, qui ont fait la plus grande escroquerie au niveau européen.

Je voulais lui répondre parce que je n'ai pas eu la possibilité de faire un carton bleu.

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). - Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Tisztelt Biztos Úr! Tisztelt Miniszter Asszony! Először is hadd kezdjem azzal, hogy a Bizottság nemrég kiadott évi előrejelzésével, ha – annak homályos módszertana és amiatt, hogy elég ritkán találják el a megfelelő számokat – nem is tudok teljes mértékben azonosulni, azonban a fő irányával maximálisan egyetértek. Európa, ha lassan is, de valóban kezdi levetni magáról a válságnak a béklyóit. Sőt, mi több ambiciózus terveink vannak: gazdasági és monetáris uniónak a kiteljesítése, az Európa 2020 stratégia végrehajtása. Azonban, képviselőtársaim, örömöm korántsem teljes. Aggódom, hogy a válság elleni küzdelemben és az ambiciózus célok megfogalmazása közepette elfeledkezünk arról, hogy mi végre is tesszük a dolgunkat.

Az előbb egymás után hallottam szocialista, kommunista, liberális és zöld képviselőtársaimtól, hogy hogyan akarják a Tanácsot és a Bizottságot eszközül használni arra, hogy a magyarországi demokráciát vizsgálják. Két éve folyamatosan ezt teszik képviselőtársaim, sikertelenül! Két éve temetik a magyar demokráciát, és a magyar demokrácia még mindig él! Ezek után nem átallanak a Tanácshoz és a Bizottsághoz fordulni. Mindig csak általánosságokat mondanak és sohasem konkrétumokat. Hogy miért teszik ezt? Hát képviselőtársaim azért, mert Önök pontosan jól tudják, hogy a magyar demokrácia nem sérül. Pontosan jól tudják, hogy talán éppen az Önök informátorai azok, akik elindították a támadásokat a Fidesz székháza ellen, fiatalokat és hajléktalanokat használtak fel eszközül. Tisztelt Elnök úr, nemcsak a célnak a helyességére kell vigyázni, hanem a megválasztott módszertanokra is.

  Patrizia Toia (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, dalla Commissione e dal Consiglio ho sentito analisi troppo blande e programmi troppo vaghi, che non prendono atto del fallimento delle politiche finora condotte e non si impegnano a cambiare rapidamente rotta, prima che siano i cittadini a cambiare rotta e a voltare le spalle all'Europa anche nei paesi storicamente europeisti come il mio.

Troppi campanelli d'allarme stanno suonando e penso che gli uomini, anche i più sordi, e perché no le donne, anche le più sorde, che magari non stanno in quest'Aula, devono sentirli. Che valore hanno le riduzioni degli squilibri di bilancio se provocano squilibri sociali e territoriali? Che valore ha la convergenza di bilancio se crea divergenze sociali e culturali? Nel mio paese, per la prima volta dopo decenni, calano le iscrizioni universitarie: è questa la crescita che vogliamo?

Le conseguenze sociali dell'austerità non sono vago sociologismo ma stanno creando un gravissimo problema di consenso sociale e di legittimazione politica dell'Unione europea, col rischio di dare noi stessi, noi europeisti, ossigeno a tutti i nazionalismi, ai populismi di cui sentiamo echeggiare anche in quest'Aula voci preoccupanti. Infatti, la gente volta le spalle a quell'Europa che non c'è, che non fa la sua parte e che non percepisce come un motore di crescita bensì come un freno e un peso. E dico ciò non da posizioni antieuropeiste ma perché vorrei davvero un'Europa di crescita e non fallimentare. Allora mi dico che anche le elezioni italiane interpellano l'Europa e pongono alle politiche europea un grande problema, un grande interrogativo per quell'Europa che non c'è, per quell'Europa che crea difficoltà di governabilità, anziché aiutare.

Dobbiamo cambiare rapidamente. Il Consiglio di marzo deve cambiare rapidamente rotta. Ci sono cose possibili e fattibili, che vanno fatte. La "golden rule" che veniva citata: come possiamo dire ai cittadini di credere in un'Europa così poco intelligente e – mi si consenta – così tecnicamente stupida, che non consente di usare soldi che ci sono per lavori che servono e che i cittadini aspettano, magari per ristrutturare le scuole, in nome di un astratto patto. Aiutateci a dare dell'Europa quell'immagine che vogliamo.

Infine, per quanto riguarda il problema del debito: è vero, ieri abbiamo aperto uno spiraglio con il "two pack". Ma quanta fatica! – e lo dico a nome del mio gruppo – quanta fatica da parte delle deputate e dei deputati del mio gruppo per ottenere questo spiraglio!

Facciamo in tempo le cose se vogliamo meritare la fiducia dei cittadini.

  Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE). - Señor Presidente, entiendo que es de justicia empezar por destacar los esfuerzos de algunos Estados miembros para garantizar la sostenibilidad de sus cuentas públicas, emprendiendo las reformas necesarias para alcanzar esos objetivos. También hay que reconocer los duros sacrificios de sus ciudadanos, que han tenido que soportar las consecuencias de las reformas de forma personal y colectiva.

Pero debo decir que todos esos esfuerzos y sacrificios no han sido estériles, sino que están dando sus frutos. Hay países como el mío, Señorías, España, que ha realizado un enorme esfuerzo de contención del déficit y que está llevando a cabo una agenda reformista muy ambiciosa. Están asentando la sostenibilidad de sus cuentas públicas. Su acceso a los mercados de deuda ha mejorado significativamente. Sus empresas vuelven a financiarse en los mercados y la competitividad de sus economías está aumentando y así lo refleja la evolución de su sector exterior.

Pero también resulta inexcusable no ocultar que el coste social de la crisis es un alto precio que estamos pagando y al que hay que poner medidas correctoras. Tras la mitigación del déficit, el crecimiento y la creación de empleo deben ser la prioridad más importante, por encima de otras consideraciones. El desempleo juvenil es uno de los mayores problemas a los que se enfrenta la Unión Europea y debe ser su máxima prioridad. Es vital, Señorías, que este Consejo Europeo muestre más decisión y compromiso con el crecimiento y el empleo.

Señorías, esta Cámara votará hoy una Resolución que marca el juicio de valor del Parlamento al acuerdo adoptado por el Consejo sobre el marco financiero plurianual. Y esto no es un mero capricho, sino la reclamación de las competencias que le confiere el Tratado de Lisboa. Dicho esto, no se puede negar que el Consejo ha hecho un ejercicio de responsabilidad, atendiendo a una situación de crisis y al reparto de recursos escasos. Nuestro Grupo, con sus enmiendas, pretende poner racionalidad en algunos excesos en que no debería incurrir la Resolución, y a ellas me voy a remitir. No se trata de rechazar de plano la propuesta del Consejo, sino de participar desde el Parlamento, negociando para un mejor resultado para todos, que en julio nos dé una solución común, aceptada por todos.

  Jutta Steinruck (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Es stellt sich die Frage, ob der geplante Mehrjährige Finanzrahmen tatsächlich die richtige Antwort ist, um auf die Krisen, die wir in Europa haben, zu reagieren. Sollten wir nicht genauso viel Energie, wie wir für das Einsparen verwenden, auch für die Erhöhung der Einnahmen verwenden? Gerade in den Politikbereichen Beschäftigung und Soziales spielen die europäischen Fonds und Programme wirklich eine wichtige Rolle, um Menschen in Arbeit zu bringen. Deshalb muss für den ESF eine Mindestquote vorgesehen werden. Sonst laufen wir Gefahr, dass dieser Fonds seine Aufgabe nicht erfüllen kann.

Als Berichterstatterin für das Programm für sozialen Wandel und Innovation möchte ich Ihnen einmal kurz vor Augen führen, was die Kürzungen bedeuten: Weniger Geld für das Unterprogramm Progress, das bedeutet weniger Geld für die Umsetzung der EU-2020-Strategien für die Schaffung von Beschäftigung, den Sozialschutz und soziale Eingliederung. Glauben Sie, weniger Geld für das Unterprogramm Eures, weniger Geld für Mobilität hilft uns, den Fachkräftemangel zu überwinden? Oder weniger Geld für Mikrokredite zur Gründung von Unternehmen hilft uns, die Probleme zu überwinden?

Wir brauchen einen Mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen, der Probleme nicht ignoriert, sondern löst!

  Μαριέττα Γιαννάκου (PPE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το Συμβούλιο του Μαρτίου συγκαλείται υπό το φως δύο πραγματικοτήτων: πρώτον, των αποφάσεων που έχει λάβει το Συμβούλιο για το πολυετές δημοσιονομικό πλαίσιο και, δεύτερον, υπό το φως της κρίσης και πώς αυτή αντιμετωπίζεται.

Πολλές χώρες έχουν κάνει τεράστιες προσπάθειες για την κρίση, μεταξύ των οποίων και η χώρα μου. Αυτό όμως συνεπάγεται μεγάλη λιτότητα, θυσίες και πάρα πολλή φτώχεια. Από την άλλη πλευρά, η χρηματοπιστωτική κρίση φαίνεται πως ανακάμπτει – ή μάλλον ανακάμπτει η Ευρώπη από τη χρηματοπιστωτική κρίση. Δεν έχει όμως ανακάμψει από την κοινωνική και την πολιτική κρίση εν τέλει.

Το πολυετές δημοσιονομικό πλαίσιο και το συμπέρασμα στο οποίο κατέληξε το Συμβούλιο δείχνουν την αδυναμία του να αντιληφθεί ότι, όταν υπάρχει κρίση και αυτή η πραγματικότητα, τότε είναι που πρέπει ο κοινοτικός προϋπολογισμός να είναι διαφορετικός, να είναι όχι απλώς μεγαλύτερος αλλά να είναι και αποτελεσματικός, κάτι που δεν έχει συμβεί ώς σήμερα σε πάρα πολλούς τομείς.

Αναφέρθηκε η έρευνα, η κοινωνία της γνώσης, η καινοτομία και άλλοι τομείς. Απεδείχθη ότι στην πρώτη δεκαετία με τις κατευθυντήριες γραμμές της Λισαβόνας αποτύχαμε στους στόχους. Φοβούμαι ότι θα αποτύχουμε και σήμερα με τον προϋπολογισμό και όπως τον βλέπουμε.

Το Κοινοβούλιο πρέπει να απορρίψει καθαρά αυτό τον προϋπολογισμό και να διαπραγματευθεί κάτι άλλο, γιατί είναι άλλωστε σκανδαλώδες να έχουμε έναν a priori ελλειμματικό προϋπολογισμό, ένα δομικά ελλειμματικό προϋπολογισμό, ενώ κάτι τέτοιο δεν προβλέπεται από τη Συνθήκη.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). - Dziękuję bardzo, Panie Przewodniczący! Oczywiście wysłuchaliśmy przemówienia przewodniczącego Barroso, który odczytał listę dobrych wiadomości. Usłyszeliśmy też wystąpienie pana Stephena Hughesa oraz Guya Verhofstadta, którzy podzielili się z nami prawdziwymi wiadomościami. Jeśli chodzi o wieloletnie ramy finansowe, to znajdujemy się w sytuacji co nieco paradoksalnej. Z zadowoleniem przyjmuję to, co rząd mojego kraju wyliczył, czyli że otrzyma prawie 10% więcej środków z funduszy strukturalnych i spójności. Ale jednocześnie wiemy, że ogólna pula środków będzie o około 20% niższa w nowym budżecie w stosunku do obecnego budżetu, uwzględniając wartość inflacji. Stąd nasuwa się zasadnicze pytanie: z czego będzie pokryty deficyt wynoszący 51 mld euro? Czy będzie on pokryty z portfeli, z kopert narodowych? Jeżeli tak, to warto mieć odpowiedź na pytanie: ile będzie wynosić de facto koperta każdego z państw, które występuje o środki z funduszu spójności?

Będę głosować za rzeczowymi negocjacjami z Radą oraz za rzeczowymi negocjacjami z Komisją. Chciałbym, żebyśmy uniknęli fikcji, żebyśmy nie próbowali budować nadziei, a także żebyśmy nie próbowali dzielić środków, które nie są realne. Dziękuję za uwagę.

  Reimer Böge (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Mit der heute zu verabschiedenden Entschließung geben wir den endgültigen Startschuss für die eigentlichen Verhandlungen über den Mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen mit der irischen Präsidentschaft. Natürlich steht auch bei der Frage, wie wir es schaffen, Wachstum und Beschäftigung voranzubringen, eine bessere Gesetzgebung an erster Stelle. Die Gesetzgebung mittelstandsfreundlicher zu gestalten und so zu organisieren, dass zu Zeiten der Haushaltskonsolidierung keine weiteren Kosten auf Städte, Kommunen und Länder zukommen, dabei haben wir viel zu tun, und auch die Kommission muss ihre Vorschläge sehr viel stärker nach dieser Priorität ausrichten.

Es gehört aber auch zur Wahrheit dazu, dass bei einem Mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen von 960 Mrd. Euro Verpflichtungsermächtigungen und 908 Mrd. Euro Zahlungsermächtigungen dieser Haushalt wichtig ist, weil nur über den europäischen Haushalt viele Mitgliedstaaten ihre Investitionsprogramme überhaupt noch tätigen können.

Der dritte Punkt, den ich noch ansprechen muss, ist, dass mit einem solchen Haushalt bestimmte europäische Prioritäten nicht zu finanzieren sind, und das muss man dann auch offen und klar sagen. Er reicht nicht aus, um das gemeinsame Ziel zu finanzieren, 3 % des BNE für Forschung und Entwicklung in Europa auszugeben, das schaffen wir damit nicht! Wir schaffen es damit nicht, der internationalen Verpflichtung nachzukommen, 0,7 % des BNE für Entwicklungspolitik zur Verfügung zu stellen. Und wir wissen genauso, dass Großprojekte wie ITER und GMES mit den Zahlen des Europäischen Rates bereits heute unterfinanziert sind.

Insofern fordere ich auch den Rat auf, die negativen Prioritäten zu benennen, weil dieser Haushaltsrahmen nicht mit den in den letzten zehn Jahren gefassten Beschlüssen des Europäischen Rates selbst in Übereinstimmung steht.

Mit dieser Entschließung – ich gehe davon aus, dass wir eine große Mehrheit dafür bekommen werden – dokumentieren wir den festen Willen, zügig, offen und ehrlich über unsere Prioritäten, die Sie alle kennen, von der Flexibilität über die Revision und die Einheit des Haushalts bis zu Eigenmitteln, die diesen Namen verdienen, zu verhandeln. Aber der Rat muss dem Parlament entgegenkommen, weil am Ende kann der Rat nur einstimmig entscheiden, nachdem wir mit absoluter Mehrheit unsere Zustimmung erteilt haben, und dessen sollte sich die Ratsseite bewusst sein.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). - Prijatie viacročného finančného rámca do roku 2020 nie je kompetenčný problém. Dokonca aj cieľ je jasný. Parlament aj Rada chcú to isté – prosperitu a blahobyt pre každého občana Európskej únie. Líšia sa v tom, ako tento cieľ dosiahnuť. Predsedovia vlád členských štátov hovoria, že treba šetriť. Zároveň však stále viac krajín hovorí, že prekročia povolený deficit vo výške 3 % HDP. Lídri Parlamentu chcú naopak zvýšiť investície, aby sa naštartoval hospodársky rast. Lenže centrálne plánovanie obyčajne vždy skončilo krachom. A občania chcú zároveň aj šetriť, aj investovať. Parlament drží Radu v šachu a ak sa nenájde dohoda, budúci rok sa rozpočet zvýši automaticky. Rada naťahuje čas, pretože ráta s tým, že rok pred voľbami sa poslanci zľaknú zlého imidžu eurokratov, o ktorých si občania myslia, že zarábajú viac ako kancelárka Merkelová a míňajú peniaze daňových poplatníkov.

Súhlasím s Josephom Daulom, že nemôžeme byť pesimisti a postaviť finančný rámec na tom, že kríza tu bude ešte ďalších sedem rokov. Buďme preto realisti a nájdime spôsob, ako prijať finančný rámec, ktorý bude možné expandovať alebo zúžiť podľa toho, ako sa nám spoločne bude dariť prekonávať krízu a obnovovať prosperitu v celej Európe bez rozdielu.

  Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE). - Godājamais priekšsēdētāj, kolēģi! Šodien ļoti daudz runā par izaugsmi. Izaugsme ir tas, kas Eiropai ir vajadzīgs. Protams, tas tā ir. Neskaidrs ir vienīgi tas, kā to īsti panākt. Vairāki kolēģi ir runājuši par to, ka mums ir jāstimulē Eiropas tautsaimniecība. Draugi mīļie, ja mums būtu nauda, ar ko stimulēt, tas jau būtu labs risinājums, bet šodienas apstākļos stimulēt nozīmē aizņemties naudu. Un mēs zinām, ka aizņemties naudu nav risinājums. Ja tas būtu risinājums, tad Eiropā krīzes vispār nebūtu.

Lai mēs panāktu izaugsmi Eiropā, ir jādara divas lietas. No vienas puses, dalībvalstīm ir jāsaved kārtībā savi budžeti, lai dalībvalstis nedzīvotu pāri saviem līdzekļiem. Ja kāds netic, ka tas var strādāt, ka tā var darīt, paskatieties uz Baltijas valstīm. Tas tiešām darbojas, un tas ieliek pamatu izaugsmei. Bet, lai reāli dabūtu lielo izaugsmes izrāvienu, mums ir jāpilnveido vienotais tirgus.

Kolēģi, Eiropas Komisija mums ziņo, ka ir 73 direktīvas, kas dalībvalstīs šobrīd nav ieviestas, un tas kavē vienotā tirgus darbību. Mums ir jāprasa no Eiropas Padomes, lai Padome nerunā par sīkumiem, lai pēdīgi ķeras klāt tam, ko arī Komisija norāda, proti, atrisina šo problēmu, ievieš šīs direktīvas, lai vienotais tirgus Eiropā varētu darboties. Vienotais tirgus — tā ir mūsu izaugsmes atslēga. Paldies par uzmanību!

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). - Mr President, I agree that more money is needed for the MFF. However, the essence of the EU is not fighting for more money or about its distribution.

99% of GDP remains in each Member State. It is in the Member States where the future of the European Community lies and will be decided. It will be decided in the field of structural reforms and productivity. Our Commission President today told us there is a difference in productivity between Member States amounting to a factor of two.

Some speakers offered a second track in addition to fiscal discipline. However, we can have half a dozen new tracks: what we need is an engine, the engine of united political will and the support of our citizens – which could be the result of renewed productivity. My Latvian colleague just told us about the Latvian experience. Latvia has shown that austerity, balancing the budget, conducting structural reforms and reviving the economy are not mutually exclusive. As a result of these reforms, and only these reforms, Latvia will hopefully join the eurozone by the beginning of next year. Their message is very modest but overpowering in its simplicity: this is doable.

I also have a message to the Council to finally decide about the fate of Macedonia, and to start long-overdue negotiations with this state, which is better prepared to meet European criteria than some other official candidates.

  Othmar Karas (PPE). - Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Wir stehen vor ganz großen Herausforderungen! Die Frage der Globalisierung, der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit, der Kampf gegen die Jugendarbeitslosigkeit, Wachstum und Beschäftigung, sozialer Zusammenhalt und Strukturreformen – dazu benötigen wir mehr Dynamik, mehr Entschlossenheit, mehr Ernsthaftigkeit, europäische Gesinnung und Aufrichtigkeit. Wir benötigen die politischen Instrumente und das Geld, damit wir unsere Ziele, Programme, Beschlüsse und Herausforderungen auch bewältigen können.

Meine Damen und Herren, glaubt jemand von uns, dass wir der globalen Herausforderung und all diesen Detailfragen, die ich angeschnitten habe, mit weniger Investitionen, weniger Handlungsfähigkeit der Europäischen Union, weniger Geld, als wir im Verhältnis zum Wohlstand von vor 20 Jahren hatten, begegnen können? Nein! Deshalb sagen wir auch Nein zu diesem Vorschlag und öffnen damit die Tür für Verhandlungen, damit wir unsere gesamteuropäische Verantwortung wahrnehmen und unsere Verpflichtungen im Sinne der Bürgerinnen und Bürger erfüllen können.

Ich bin auch dagegen, dass wir während der Plenarveranstaltungen permanent Gipfeltermine haben. Sie kennen die Termine des Parlaments. Machen Sie die Gipfel zwischen den Plenardebatten. Dann können wir sie vorbereiten und nachbereiten, und es beginnt kein Wanderzirkus von Rat, Medien und Parlamentariern. Bitte nehmen Sie darauf Rücksicht!

Interventi su richiesta

  Juan Andrés Naranjo Escobar (PPE). - Señor Presidente, con la Resolución que hoy votamos se abre la última fase para aprobar el marco financiero plurianual, fase de negociación que —estoy seguro— será fructífera para todos. La negociación no se hace «contra el Consejo» sino «con el Consejo»; estamos todos de acuerdo en el objetivo común de mejorar lo que el pasado 8 de febrero concluyó el Consejo Europeo como base y mandato de negociación.

Todos estamos en el mismo barco. La Unión necesita estabilidad para generar confianza en los inversores públicos y privados y despejar las incertidumbres, necesita que los ciudadanos recuperen también la confianza en las instituciones. Necesitamos poner en marcha en el próximo presupuesto los programas de ayuda al empleo, los programas de mejora en la formación, los programas de inversión en las regiones más castigadas por la crisis económica y, para ello, necesitamos aprobar el marco financiero en los próximos meses.

El Parlamento reconoce las duras condiciones de crisis fiscal y financiera que afrontan los gobiernos y, por eso, conseguir un acuerdo final es el único horizonte posible, porque el horizonte de un «no acuerdo» constituiría un fracaso que no nos podemos permitir.

  Frédéric Daerden (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, les débats du prochain Conseil sur le semestre européen et sur l'Union économique et monétaire sont liés à ceux du dernier Conseil sur le cadre budgétaire que nous devons rejeter tel quel.

C'est avec l'argument de la crise économique en Europe et de l'austérité décidée par le Conseil pour y faire face que certains chefs d'État justifient l'austérité dans le budget européen. Pourtant, c'est parce que les budgets des États membres sont sous pression, parce qu'ils ont du mal à maintenir le niveau de protection sociale, à relancer la croissance pour élever les niveaux d'emploi, à soutenir leurs industries pour éviter les restructurations que les États membres doivent changer leur vision du budget européen, qui pourrait alléger leurs difficultés et relancer leurs économies. Et ce, via des fonds sociaux ambitieux pour les jeunes, les plus démunis et les travailleurs, via une stratégie transnationale de soutien à la recherche et à l'industrie.

Je conclurais en insistant: une coordination des politiques économiques et un renforcement de l'Union économique et monétaire doivent absolument s'accompagner de plus de budget européen et de plus de solidarité entre les États et entre les citoyens.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). - Tisztelt Šefčovič Biztos Úr! Tegnap ebben a teremben több száz felkiáltójel emelkedett magasba a magyar alkotmány elleni tiltakozásképpen. Az európai parlamenti képviselők jól ismerik a magyarországi helyzetet, hiszen három állásfoglalásban foglalkoztunk és fogadtunk el határozatot. Tegnap a jobboldali magyar képviselők közleményben szólították föl a szocialista, a zöld, a baloldali és a liberális frakciókat, hogy hagyjanak fel felelőtlen politikájukkal. Szerintük aki bírál, az felelőtlen. Ezek szerint felelőtlen Barroso elnök úr, Martin Schulz elnök úr, Merkel kancellár asszony, de felelőtlen Barbara Stamm, a Bajor Parlament CSU-s elnökasszonya is, aki tiltakozásul ma lemondta találkozóját a magyar parlament elnökével.

Arra kérem az unió vezetőit és Önöket, hogy határozott bölcsességgel lépjenek föl a magyar demokrácia érdekében. Jelezzék az elkeseredett magyar polgároknak, hogy Európa nem hagyja cserben őket. Úgy lépjenek föl, hogy fejezzék ki, hogy szeressék Magyarországot, a hazámat, a magyar népet!

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D). - Herr Präsident! Wir sprechen vom Mehrjährigen Europäischen Finanzrahmen, doch im Mittelpunkt dieses Rahmens sollten nicht die nackten Zahlen stehen, sondern da müssen die Menschen, die Europäerinnen und Europäer, stehen. Ich halte es für ein unwürdiges Gezerre um Millionen hier und Milliarden dort, wenn wir nicht hinterfragen, wofür diese Mittel eingesetzt werden.

Es gibt ein ganz klares Bekenntnis zu den Strukturfonds, zur Kohäsion. Wir wollen ein Europa des Friedens, ein Europa der Beschäftigung, ein Europa der Bildungschancen, ein Europa der Sicherheit, ein Europa der sozialen Sicherheit. Und wir werden dieses Europa nur dann erreichen, wenn wir uns gemeinschaftlich anstrengen und die Zahlen genau unter diesem Blickwinkel sehen. D. h., wir brauchen nicht unbedingt mehr Geld, das Geld muss nur richtig eingesetzt werden. Es muss diese Flexibilität geben. Es muss die Möglichkeit geben, Mittel von einem Jahr auf das nächste zu übertragen. Ich ersuche wirklich darum, unser Zurückweisen des Budgets unter diesem Aspekt zu betrachten.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, unemployment is not falling, and is unlikely to do so in 2013. The value of the euro will not allow the countries of the south to emerge from recession. Austerity programmes will not cure unemployment. You do not make countries richer by making them poorer. Globalisation might make the emergent economies richer, but it will make European countries poorer. The single market might help low income Member States, but only at the expense of higher income Member States.

Uncontrolled immigration will make unemployment even worse. We heard earlier from a Mr Farage about immigration. Is that the same Mr Farage who said in 2010, on 4 May, that the UK ought to issue a quarter of a million work permits each year? Incidentally, the Romanian citizens he was referring to were not ordinary Romanians, they were Roma.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - Mr President, Minister Creighton told us that Europe has to show it can get on with business, but what business does the Minister want us to get on with? It is the business of cuts, cuts and more cuts that will damage people’s lives and drive economies further into recession.

Look at the MFF budget proposal. We are in a recession in the eurozone and we have a proposal for the first multiannual cuts budget yet: not cuts to MEPs’ salaries, not cuts to bloated expenses, not cuts to military expenditure, but cuts to programmes that could provide jobs and growth, cuts to cohesion funds of EUR 30 billion, cuts to funding for developing broadband services and, most scandalously, a 70% cut to the Globalisation Adjustment Fund.

Not content with the capitalist crisis and austerity throwing a generation of workers on the scrapheap, the European Council wants to effectively scrap a programme that has offered them some assistance. It is a budget proposal not to create growth but to impose austerity policies with the introduction of so-called macroeconomic conditionality, tying cohesion funds to the implementation of Commission diktats. It should be rejected by this Parliament.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - Senhor Presidente, a Troika está em Portugal a finalizar a sétima avaliação do programa de resgate, confrontada com o falhanço grotesco de todas as previsões grotescas – suas e do Governo português –, apesar de toda a gente antecipar e ter avisado que eram grotescamente irrealistas.

E só lhe ocorre reagir com pequenos ajustamentos: mais um ano para cumprir as metas, mais uns anos de extensão das maturidades… Reflete o discurso mole e as políticas autoderrotadoras da União Europeia, com uma Comissão subserviente e temerosa, agarrada às calças e ao calendário da Sra. Merkel.

Portugal, Sr. Presidente, não precisa de pequenos ajustamentos ao ajustamento para disfarçar os erros colossais da Troika e da União Europeia. Portugal precisa de uma reviravolta total nas políticas austericidas que a Comissão tem caninamente aplicado – como demonstra o Quadro Orçamental Plurianual, que não serve a solidariedade europeia e não faz a Europa sair da crise. E por isso é que o Parlamento tem que o alterar.

Portugal precisa de que o Conselho Europeu acorde, tire as consequências da catástrofe social e política que a sua política austericida criou na Europa e arrepie caminho, antes que maiores tragédias se abatam sobre o nosso continente.

  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D). - V súvislosti so zasadnutím Európskej rady považujem za potrebné pripomenúť nielen dôležitosť problematiky viacročného finančného rámca. Ak totiž hovoríme o viacročnom finančnom rámci Únie, hovoríme len o premietnutí politických priorít na určité obdobie do finančných pojmov. Pri týchto rokovaniach by ale určite malo ísť o viac. Čoraz častejšie sa od našich občanov ozývajú obavy z ich vlastnej budúcnosti či oprávnené otázky smerujúce k tomu, o čom sa to vlastne hádame a čo konkrétne pre nich robíme. Zhoršujúca sa sociálna situácia ľudí naprieč Európskou úniou, prehlbovanie sociálnej krízy a jej vplyvov, enormný rast nezamestnanosti, znižujúca sa kvalita života, žiadna perspektíva pre mladých ľudí, to všetko je v príkrom kontraste s číslami vo viacročnom finančnom rámci.

Vážení zástupcovia Komisie a Rady, občania potrebujú počuť, aké konkrétne opatrenia spravíme pre nich. Čísla uvedené vo viacročnom finančnom rámci sú pre nich vzdialené a my tu v Európskom parlamente, kolegyne a kolegovia, sme tí, ktorí od ľudí dostali mandát, aby chránili ich záujmy, a nie záujmy vlád a inštitúcií.

  Tatjana Ždanoka (Verts/ALE). - Priekšsēdētāj! Šeit vairāki runātāji slavēja manas valsts — Latvijas — valdības rīcību taupības jomā. Es gribētu pateikt, ka tauta varētu pieņemt taupības pasākumus, bet tikai tad, ja tie ir balstīti uz taisnīguma principiem. Diemžēl Latvijā tas tā nebija. Un visa taupība tika panākta uz mazāk nodrošināto rēķina. Cilvēki to nav pieņēmuši. Bet diemžēl, ņemot vērā, ka mūsu cilvēkiem tā arī nav cerību, ka viņi varētu kaut ko izmainīt ar savu aktīvo dalību valsts iekšienē, viņi nolēma vienkārši balsot ar kājām. Un tagad mūsu darbspējīgākie cilvēki ir prom citās Eiropas Savienības valstīs, tajā skaitā arī tajās, kuras neveic taupības pasākumus.

  Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE). - Señor Presidente, solamente quiero señalar la importancia de la Resolución que vamos a votar hoy. Un apoyo unánime de este Parlamento a esta Resolución es la única manera que tienen nuestros negociadores de conseguir mejorar un acuerdo que, si bien es el acuerdo irremediable que se ha tomado, desde el punto de vista financiero, en un Consejo Europeo sacudido por la crisis financiera, ciertamente contiene muchos puntos que aún son mejorables: puntos que apuntan a una mejora en la ejecución del presupuesto comunitario, a una mayor flexibilidad y a la posibilidad de hacer una nueva revisión a medio plazo de estas perspectivas.

Para conseguir todo eso se necesita el apoyo de esta Cámara y que seamos conscientes y juguemos limpio todos, es decir, que nosotros entremos ahora mismo en una negociación, pero que sepamos que, cuando votemos este acuerdo en el mes de junio, no estaremos solamente los diputados que apoyamos la Resolución, sino aquellos que la apoyan y que luego no la van a votar.

  Άννυ Ποδηματά (S&D). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, εφόσον είμαι η τελευταία ομιλήτρια, θα μου επιτρέψετε να απευθύνω μία έκκληση, κυρίως προς την προεδρεύουσα του Συμβουλίου, την αγαπητή Υπουργό Creighton: Αγαπητή Υπουργέ, αυτή τη φορά το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο είναι ανάγκη να κάνει τη σωστή συζήτηση στον σωστό χρόνο και η σωστή συζήτηση στο σωστό χρόνο είναι για το πώς θα κερδίσουμε ξανά την εμπιστοσύνη των πολιτών στην Ευρώπη.

Στην Ελλάδα, στην Ιταλία, στην Ισπανία, στην Πορτογαλία και άλλου, έχουμε μία κοινωνική κρίση άνευ προηγουμένου και έχουμε και μία απειλή συστημικής κατάρρευσης, αυτή τη φορά όχι των χρηματοπιστωτικών αγορών αλλά του πολιτικού συστήματος, και δη του φιλοευρωπαϊκού πολιτικού συστήματος.

Δείτε το ευρωβαρόμετρο! Για πρώτη φορά στην ιστορία της Ευρώπης δείχνει ότι μεταξύ των 27 κρατών μελών μόνον σε δύο υπάρχει πλειοψηφία εμπιστοσύνης προς την Ευρώπη και τους θεσμούς της. Αυτή η απειλή είναι απείρως πιο σοβαρή από την απειλή της χρηματοπιστωτικής κατάρρευσης και, αν δεν την αντιμετωπίσουμε, φοβούμαι ότι θα επιβεβαιωθεί ο Mazower που λέει ότι βρίσκεται μπροστά μας ένα μέλλον μιας Ευρώπης με ανεργία, οικονομική στασιμότητα και απολυταρχία.

(Fine degli interventi su richiesta)

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, let me react to the main topics in your debate.

Firstly, preparations for the European Council. It is clear that the European economy will be the prime topic for discussion in the European Council. I would really like to reassure honourable Members that the Commission is pursuing exactly the track many of you have been calling for. This is clearly growth-friendly consolidation, support for growth and restoration of our economic competitiveness. Most of us agree that fiscal consolidation is necessary. Clear efforts in this regard brought us back from the abyss of the euro implosion which was expected and forecast by many just a year ago.

We want to do this in a manner that takes into account reality and at the same time lays the ground for future growth. We are basing our policies on structural deficits, taking into account consolidation efforts, structural reforms and the external environment as well. As we have shown in the past with several Member States, we are ready to give Member States more time to consolidate their budgets if they are making a real effort and if the structural reforms are implemented. The Commission will push strongly to use all the growth levers we have at our disposal.

The EIB has had its basic capital increased, so this bank will be allowed to provide EUR 180 billion more in loans in the next three years. We have completed the preparation for project bonds where, again, more than EUR 4.5 billion could be invested in infrastructure projects. We are reallocating the money from the ESF and other funds to support the creation of jobs for youth and the long-term unemployed. We will also push – and here we believe we will have your strong support – for making better use of the single market potential. We still have quite a serious implementation gap in implementing the measures which we know will bring growth and the creation of new jobs to the European Union. Nevertheless, if you look at our track record with Single Market Acts 1 and 2, there is a lot to do and we will be making as much effort as much as possible to ensure that we can benefit better from the single market.

Some of you referred to the forecast and questioned the methodology used by the Commission, but please compare our forecast with those of the OECD, the ECB or the IMF. You will find that it was usually the Commission which was closest to reality. The crisis is unprecedented and has many new features. Therefore, forecasting is also very difficult.

On the multiannual financial framework, we are expecting your vote in a few moments. We respect your prerogative and we are greatly encouraged by the clear statement by the Irish Presidency to start comprehensive negotiations with you. The Commission – President Barroso, Commissioner Lewandowski and I – will do our utmost to be helpful and creative and to help the legislators find agreement on MFF. We all know how much Europe and European citizens need it.

On Hungary, I would like to assure Parliament that recent developments are being closely followed by the Commission. They were raised by President Barroso with the Hungarian Prime Minister just a few days ago. He assured him that Hungary is fully committed to EU values and EU law. It was in that respect that the joint statement with the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Mr Jagland, was issued.

I would of course also like to reassure you that the Commission, in very close cooperation with the Council of Europe and its Venice Commission, will proceed with a detailed analysis of the recent steps. As you have seen on many occasions, the Commission treats all Member States fairly, but at the same time always stands very firmly for full respect for European principles and law. This will be the case again.

Once again the Commission will not hesitate to use all the instruments at its disposal once the analysis is finalised, and if necessary to ask for, and insist upon, the changes to be made by the Hungarian authorities.

I would like to conclude on a very serious note. This morning we heard in this Chamber a statement associating two nations with crime. We heard suggestions that political decisions should be made on the assumption that Romanians and Bulgarians are bringing crime to the European Union. This is stigmatisation, this is against all principles of non-discrimination and this is against European values. This statement has very clear xenophobic features. On behalf of the Commission, I reject this statement and this approach. I am sure that this House will support us in this as well.

  Lucinda Creighton, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, I think this has been a very helpful and a very interesting debate, and I want to say that the Irish Presidency has been following very carefully Parliament’s deliberations on the MFF, not just through this debate but for quite some time.

The resolution on the MFF – and the debate with so many contributions today right across the political spectrum – makes Parliament’s position very clear. This usefully prepares the ground for our upcoming negotiations.

I believe that there are grounds to go towards meeting some of Parliament’s concerns; for example in relation to the question of flexibility and of, perhaps, a mid-term review, which has been mentioned by many speakers and which is reflected in the resolution.

I need to make clear to the House the Council’s view that the European Council in February produced a solid outcome and was at the limit of what was possible at that meeting. I would also mention that this Council outcome in February was the result of almost two years of deliberations at the General Affairs Council, and again in consultation with the European Parliament. It is not something that appeared overnight, but rather something that was the product of very intensive and very extensive negotiations between the Member States.

In a period of huge budgetary austerity, there is only a marginal reduction in real terms on the current MFF – itself agreed in much better times. There is a substantial increase, some 37%, in spending on competitiveness and research. I know that a range of Members today have specifically focused on the need to enhance provision for research and development. Therefore, I think that is a significant feature in the proposal.

Many Members have rightly pointed to the massive challenge that we face in respect of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. That is why I believe that the EUR 6 billion figure allocated for the Youth Employment Initiative is extremely important and timely.

Cohesion policy and the Common Agricultural Policy, which are of enormous importance to many Member States and many regions throughout the EU, have been largely preserved.

As I mentioned, the Taoiseach, our Prime Minister, has already met twice with President Schulz since the European Council to discuss how we can best move forward. They have agreed to maintain very close and regular contact and I expect that they will hold discussions again tomorrow at the European Council.

The Tánaiste, our Deputy Prime Minister, who is the Chairman of the General Affairs Council, will continue negotiations, along with myself, on behalf of the Council. We are in regular contact with the contact group here in Parliament, with the Group leaders and with the Conference of Committee Chairs, and we will indeed build on this contact.

We have a really important window of opportunity now to engage intensively on these issues in the weeks ahead. I very much welcome the statement from the Commission in respect of Parliament’s commitment to engage and to support that process. Emerging from the debate here today, the message now has to be that we have no time to waste; that we have to move forward swiftly and with a sense of determination to arrive at a successful conclusion in these negotiations between the Council and Parliament.

On the sectoral legislation – agriculture, cohesion etc – the Presidency will aim to make the maximum possible progress with its opposite numbers in Parliament. We will be constructive partners with the aim of achieving first reading agreements on as many MFF-related files as possible within the Irish Presidency, in other words by the end of June.

Clearly, good progress on the MFF will assist in this and I know that Parliament shares this goal. We look forward to working closely with you on that.

With the Spring European Council concluding the first phase of the European Semester 2013, I think it is appropriate that I conclude by acknowledging again the very important work of the European Parliament towards enhancing the democratic legitimacy of our collective efforts to support competitiveness, growth and jobs.

I refer in particular to the Parliamentary Week of the European Semester at the end of January and the development of a stronger dialogue with national parliaments, which I think we can all agree is extremely important.

The Irish Presidency has been keen to support all of these efforts. It is clear from last year’s lessons-learned exercise that the European Semester should be an open and inclusive process, supporting meaningful engagement with parliaments and all of the relevant stakeholders, both at European and at national level.

These are therefore important contributions to an important debate, and provide a very strong basis for further reflection and engagement over the period ahead. It is clear that strong economic governance arrangements must go hand in hand with stronger democratic legitimacy, and that is a principle which the Irish Presidency holds very dear and will continue to promote.

We must also, of course, remain firmly focused on the scale of the current jobs crisis. I have already alluded to the scourge of Youth Unemployment, as many Members have in your debate today. Unemployment levels are up on this time last year and are unacceptably high: now at almost 12% for the euro area, and 11% for the EU as a whole.

There is no stronger signal that we must redouble our efforts towards economic recovery. We cannot realistically claim to have emerged from the current crisis until our economies are growing again and, most importantly, our economies are creating jobs for our citizens.

Ms Podimata actually summed this up extremely well when she said that we must once again regain the trust of our citizens. This is the litmus test for that. To regain the trust of our citizens we have to give them hope; we have to show them that there is a future which can be guided and delivered by the European Union, by all EU Member States and the European Institutions working together to deal with that.

A number of Members referred to the need for a two-track process. I agree with this. I think we need to focus on consolidation, but coupling that with a firm focus on the growth agenda. I would firmly disagree with the idea that these are somehow mutually exclusive. These are very clearly two sides of the same coin. We must stabilise public finances, we must deal with the mounting debt burden and we must not ignore the huge challenge of enormous deficits in Member States if we are to tackle the challenge of competitiveness of growth and ultimately fulfil our commitment to delivering on the job creation agenda. We must focus firmly on both tracks, which of course are essential in terms of complementing each other.

I would like to simply thank Members once again for your attention and for a very stimulating debate. I sincerely look forward to working very closely with the European Parliament on the MFF in particular, to ensure that we have an outcome which delivers for our citizens and which delivers on our goal of regaining the trust of our citizens and of offering a bright future for our citizens.

I think that is the role and responsibility of Members of the European Parliament, of Members of the Council and indeed of the Commission, all working together to achieve that same objective.

(Applause)

  President. − I have received two motions for resolutions⁽¹⁾ tabled in accordance with Rule 110(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place shortly.

Written statements (Rule 149)

  Zuzana Brzobohatá (S&D), písemně. – Evropský parament v minulém roce projednal a valnou většinou schválil teze víceletého finančního rámce s orientací na podporu hospodářského růstu, podporu investic a zaměstnanosti. Rada však dojednala kompromis, který se od těchto tezí značně liší. Chápu, každý představitel v Radě hájil zájmy svého státu, konečně je to jeho role, ale jako by se vytratil evropský rozměr. To je právě role Evropského parlamentu, kde poslanci zastupují práva evropských občanů. Proto dnešní rezoluce navrhuje zamítnout výsledky Rady a začít jednat o oboustranně přijatelném kompromisu.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D), în scris. – Acordul agreat în Consiliu asupra bugetului pe termen lung al Uniunii Europene este profund dezamăgitor şi reprezintă, totodată, un precedent periculos. Este pentru prima dată în istoria Uniunii când statele membre doresc o reducere a cheltuielilor, iar acest lucru se întâmplă într-o perioadă de recesiune, în care şomajul a atins cote extraordinar de ridicate, iar creşterea economică se lasă aşteptată.

Este legitimă respingerea unui cadru financiar plurianual, care ar constitui o moştenire grea pentru generaţiile viitoare, atât prin impunerea austerităţii pe termen lung, cât şi prin posibila producere a unui deficit structural. Bugetul Uniunii înseamnă creare de locuri de muncă prin intermediul investiţiilor în dezvoltare, infrastructură, cercetare, educaţie şi sănătate. Nu putem renunţa la programe emblematice ale Uniunii Europene, care au adus beneficii semnificative cetăţenilor noştri, precum Erasmus. Renegocierea cadrului financiar este, prin urmare, o necesitate.

  Jan Kozłowski (PPE), na piśmie. – Uważam, że wspieranie zatrudnienia młodzieży oraz tworzenie korzystnych warunków rozwoju przedsiębiorczości powinno stanowić priorytety działań podejmowanych zarówno na szczeblu państw członkowskich, jak i europejskim. Kluczem jest holistyczne, zintegrowane podejście, obejmujące wiele polityk. Podejście, które nie jest tylko reakcją na pojawiający się problem, ale długoterminowym inwestowaniem w kapitał ludzki i społeczny. Ważnym czynnikiem powodzenia paktu na rzecz wzrostu i zatrudnienia jest przeprowadzenie reform rynku pracy, w tym uelastycznienie zatrudnienia i redukcja pozapłacowych kosztów pracy. Konieczne jest wykorzystanie potencjału zatrudnienia w obszarze ekonomii społecznej, w tym zatrudnienia wspomaganego dla grup szczególnie narażonych na wykluczenie. Przepisy regulujące wdrażanie funduszy europejskich, zwłaszcza Europejskiego Funduszu Społecznego, powinny w pełni umożliwiać wykorzystanie tych instrumentów do skutecznego wspierania zatrudnienia i rozwoju przedsiębiorczości.

  Vojtěch Mynář (S&D), písemně. – Návrh VFR 2014–2020 předložený Radou považuji v této podobě za nepřijatelný. A to přinejmenším ze dvou důvodů – jak faktických, tak i procedurálních. Jako poslanec EP postrádám především vyšší vstřícnost a transparentnost Rady při tvorbě návrhu. Dodnes není např. jasné, jak Rada dosáhla politické dohody na výdajové i příjmové straně VFR. Proto apeluji na vyšší transparentnost ze strany Rady zejména ve vztahu k poskytnutí relevantních informací o vlivu rozhodnutí přijatých na příjmové stránce VFR na jednotlivé členské státy. Zároveň v návrhu postrádám implementaci tři klíčových priorit EP pro správné a efektivní nastavení VFR: reformu vlastních zdrojů, průběžnou revizi a flexibilitu VFR. Chci zdůraznit důležitost flexibility, a to nejen uvnitř jednotlivých kapitol i rozpočtových let, ale také mezi nimi navzájem. Tato flexibilita by měla zahrnovat možnost efektivního využití dostupných rezerv jednotlivých kapitol v každém rozpočtovém roce, stejně jako automatické převedení dostupných rezerv z jiných rozpočtových let. Předkládaný návrh Rady tyto věci postrádá, a měl by tak přinejmenším dva negativní důsledky: nefunkční rozpočet EU a současně oslabení pozice EP do budoucna. Ani jedno není ze strategického hlediska únosné. Proto podporuji další jednání, které může otevřít cestu k dohodě.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), kirjallinen. – Nyt on aika toimia tehtyjen lupausten mukaisesti. Jos haluamme todella panostaa Euroopan kilpailukykyyn ja kasvuun, on myös rahankäyttömme oltava linjassa tämän kanssa: tutkimus, innovaatiot, vihreä kasvu ovat kaikki aloja, joilla EU:n suhteellisesti rajatulla budjetilla olisi kokoonsa nähden kaikkein suurin vaikutus. Keskustelu monivuotisista rahoituskehyksistä jumiutuu julkisuudessakin harmillisen usein kiistelyksi siitä, kuka maksaa ja miten paljon ja kuka saa takaisin maksamistaan. On ymmärrettävää ja oikein, että taloudellisesti vaikeina aikoina myös Unionin budjettia nipistetään. Julkisen keskustelun painopisteen toivoisi kuitenkin vielä vahvemmin painottavan kysymystä siitä, mihin varat käytetään. Joskus on vain tehokkaampaa toimia yhdessä kuin erikseen. Esimerkiksi uutta energiainfrastruktuuria, rajat ylittäviä rautateitä tai huipputason tutkimusta on tehokkaampi pohtia ja rahoittaa yhteisestä potista. Äänestämme tänään parlamentissa neuvottelutiimin mandaatista. Vaatimukset ovat kohtuullisia, ja peräänkuulutankin neuvostolta nyt avointa mieltä, kun neuvottelut jälleen alkavat. Parlamentti vaatii aivan oikein tulevaisuuden budjettiin joustoa, jotta varoja voidaan käyttää mahdollisimman tehokkaasti yhteiseen hyvään. Keskustelu EU:n aidosti omista varoista vakaamman budjetin takaajana ei ole uusi: neuvoston tulisi kallistaa tälle jo korvansa.

  Γεώργιος Σταυρακάκης (S&D), in writing. – Η ΕΕ χρειάζεται ένα φιλόδοξο μακροχρόνιο προϋπολογισμό επενδύσεων και αλληλεγγύης που να ανταποκρίνεται στις ανάγκες και τις προκλήσεις του μέλλοντος. Αν και η συμφωνία του Συμβουλίου για το ΠΔΠ 2014-2020 δεν το εξασφαλίζει, αποτελεί την απαρχή για ουσιώδεις διαπραγματεύσεις μεταξύ Συμβουλίου και Κοινοβουλίου για ένα συνολικό πακέτο που θα περιλαμβάνει την εξασφάλιση των απαραίτητων πόρων που θα παρέχουν τα δημοσιονομικά μέσα στις πολιτικές προτεραιότητες της Ένωσης. Επίσης, εξίσου σημαντικό είναι να συμπεριληφθούν στον κανονισμό για το ΠΔΠ διατάξεις για μια υποχρεωτική ενδιάμεση αναθεώρηση που θα αντανακλά τις ανάγκες που θα προκύψουν κατά τη διάρκεια της επόμενης επταετίας καθώς και η κατάλληλη ευελιξία, για τη χρησιμοποίηση των διαθέσιμων κονδυλίων μεταξύ των κατηγοριών του ΠΔΠ. Ταυτόχρονα, το Κοινοβούλιο υπογραμμίζει ότι δεν θα δεχτεί την πρακτική του Συμβουλίου να μεταφέρει εκκρεμή αιτήματα πληρωμών από το ένα οικονομικό έτος στο επόμενο. Καθήκον μας είναι να αποτρέψουμε την ύπαρξη διαρθρωτικού ελλείμματος στον κοινοτικό προϋπολογισμό και γι’ αυτό ζητούμε από τα Κράτη Μέλη να καλύψουν όλες τις εκκρεμείς πληρωμές, ώστε να μη μεταφερθούν στο νέο ΠΔΠ. Τέλος, υποστηρίζουμε ότι οι αρμόδιες επιτροπές θα πρέπει να αποφασίσουν για τα αντίστοιχα νομοθετικά κείμενα στις τομεακές διαπραγματεύσεις που σύμφωνα με τη Συνθήκη της Λισαβόνας υπόκεινται στη διαδικασία της συναπόφασης.

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. – A 14 e 15 de março será realizada mais uma sessão do Conselho Europeu que reúne os chefes de Estado e Governo dos 27 Estados-Membros da União Europeia. Num momento em que o crescimento económico será de aproximadamente zero durante o presente ano e que as taxas de desemprego atingem valores muito elevados, considero fundamental que sejam adotadas medidas que visem solucionar o problema europeu a curto prazo. Aproveito ainda para instar os Estados-Membros a avançarem rapidamente na construção de uma União Económica, não devendo esta ser feita de forma demasiado lenta e demorada. É assim necessário desenvolver um novo roteiro que vincule os 27 Estados-Membros no sentido de aprofundar a nossa integração e assegurar novos mecanismos que protejam os países em maiores dificuldades orçamentais. Por fim, entendo que é importante reforçar a solidariedade entre Estados-Membros e tornar a Europa mais competitiva e sustentável na economia global.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. – Consiliul European din 14-15 martie 2013 are ca principale obiective: analiza progreselor înregistrate de către statele membre privind recomandările şi angajamentele specifice fiecărei ţări în cadrul Pactului Euro Plus, precum şi recomandări privind Programele naţionale de reformă şi Programele pentru stabilitate şi convergenţă. De asemenea, Consiliul European va discuta şi propune linii directoare pentru implementarea iniţiativelor emblematice ale Strategiei Europa 2020.

Consider că principalele preocupări ale cetăţenilor europeni sunt legate de creşterea alarmantă a şomajului, fără perspective imediate de redresare, precum şi de deteriorarea calităţii vieţii şi, mai ales, a condiţiilor sociale. Statele membre şi UE trebuie să investească în revigorarea industriei europene. Fără o industrie europeană puternică, capabilă să asigure produse de înaltă calitate şi locuri de muncă pe teritoriul european, competitivitatea UE este ameninţată.

Uniunea are nevoie de investiţii în industrie, în inovare şi în utilizarea noilor tehnologii, investiţii capabile să genereze locuri de muncă pe teritoriul european şi să asigure competitivitatea sa pe plan internaţional. Dominaţia pieţelor financiare a dus la goana după profit, de cele mai multe ori în dauna consumatorilor finali şi a calităţii produselor şi serviciilor. Solicităm Comisiei şi statelor membre adoptarea unor măsuri care să încurajeze dezvoltarea industrială şi socială a Uniunii şi reglementarea mai strictă a rolului pieţelor financiare.

  Rafał Trzaskowski (PPE), na piśmie. – Jesteśmy zdania, że jak najbardziej Parlament Europejski musi negocjować (budżet UE), popieramy większość postulatów Parlamentu, który powinien być poważnie w tych negocjacjach traktowany. Nie zgadzamy się jednak ze sformułowaniem, które odrzuca porozumienie budżetowe. Podoba nam się treść, ale nie retoryka.

  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D), schriftelijk. – De Europese Lentetop zal traditiegetrouw in het teken staan van het sociaal-economisch beleid, al dreigt het dit jaar een beetje een lege doos te worden. Alle substantiële onderwerpen zijn immers doorgeschoven naar de top van juni. Maar misschien heeft dit ook voordelen. Zo heeft de commissie immers enkele maanden extra tijd om eens een evaluatie te maken van haar beleid tot nu toe. Dat de eenzijdige focus op besparingen niet het gewenste effect hebben, mag ondertussen wel duidelijk zijn voor velen, toch houdt de commissie willens nillens vast aan dit kader. Nochtans moet ze niet ver zoeken om de effecten ervan te zien. In de 20 groeiprognoses die de commissie voor Griekenland heeft gepubliceerd sinds 2009, bijvoorbeeld, heeft ze elk keer haar groeiverwachting naar beneden moeten bijstellen, ondanks het opgelegde besparingstraject. En als klap op de vuurpijl kwam het uiteindelijke economische resultaat steevast onder de laagste groeiprognose uit, met een foutenmarge van minstens 6% van het BNP! En op deze prognoses baseert de commissie zich dus om macro-economische beleidsdoelstellingen (zeg maar besparingsprogramma's) door te drukken. Ik zou de commissie ten stelligste aanraden om de maanden tot juni te gebruiken om zich eens dringend over een alternatieve aanpak te beraden

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D), in writing. – Convinced that a democratic, stable and prosperous neighbourhood, together with a successful enlargement, is in the very interest of the EU, we are taking more and more ambitious political commitments for cooperation and assistance. However, we can only stand by these commitments if they are supported by the necessary financial resources.

I regret to see that the European Council has disregarded this logic in favour of destructive austerity measures and has agreed on a more than 16% cut to MFF Heading 4 compared to the Commission proposal. We cannot afford such a discrepancy. It would create additional risks for the reform processes undertaken by our partners which we pledged to support, undermine our credibility, have a negative effect on public opinion in these countries, and overall limit our ability to take action beyond our borders.

Yet another concern is the current accumulation and rollover of outstanding payment claims in the EU budget, which calls into question the ability and willingness of Member States to fulfil their financial commitments. Together with the Council, we will now have the challenging task to redistribute the funds between equally important policies and instruments within Heading 4. I look forward to the new Commission’s proposals on IPA and ENI.

  Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), schriftlich. – Dass in Zeiten der Krise gespart werden muss, ist unbestritten. Doch wenn der Rat die Zahlungsverpflichtungen für die Jahre 2014 bis 2020 für den MFR auf 960 Mrd. Euro festsetzt, die Zahlungen aber auf 908 Mrd., dann kommt dies einem Defizit gleich und verstößt somit gegen den EU-Vertrag. Ein solches Vorgehen des Rates ist angesichts der desaströsen Situation in manchen Mitgliedstaaten unverständlich. Wenn Sie schon Defizite in den Staatshaushalten haben, im EU-Haushalt brauchen wir das nicht. Also - ran an die Verhandlungstische und mit Ernsthaftigkeit und Seriösität neu verhandeln. Das, was unsere Bürger und Bürgerinnen sehen wollen, ist ein transparenter, flexibler und zeitgemäßer, aber am wichtigsten: ein realistischer Haushalt.

VORSITZ: MARTIN SCHULZ
Präsident

  Der Präsident. − Herr Helmer, Sie haben sich zur Geschäftsordnung gemeldet.

  Robert Atkins (ECR). - Mr President, before we start our voting procedure, may I enquire what has changed. We were warned that we are going to have two hours of voting with a whole series of amendments when I understood the position was that no committee would be allowed to bring forward that number of amendments. What has changed under the procedure? Could you explain and, if that change has not been made, can I urge you to consider why this ridiculous state of affairs has been allowed to continue?

  Roger Helmer (EFD). - Mr President, can I please draw your attention and the attention of the House to the fact that the British national flag outside this Parliament building is hanging upside down. Can I ask you on behalf of Parliament to apologise to the British people for this insult to their flag, and can I ask you to suspend this sitting until the matter is rectified, please?

  Der Präsident. − Herr Atkins, zunächst einmal zu der von Ihnen gestellten Frage. Ich nehme an, Sie beziehen sich auf die Abstimmung über die Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik und die Änderungsanträge, die dazu vorliegen. Ich habe diese Liste von Änderungsanträgen in der vergangenen Woche an den Ausschuss für Landwirtschaft und ländliche Entwicklung mit der Bitte zurücküberwiesen, eine erneute Beratung vorzunehmen und die Änderungsanträge numerisch zu reduzieren. Diese Sitzung hat stattgefunden. In dieser Sitzung ist es dem Landwirtschaftsausschuss erneut nicht gelungen, diese Anzahl zu reduzieren. Ich habe deshalb keine andere Wahl, als sie jetzt hier zur Abstimmung zu stellen, weil wir die Abstimmung irgendwann durchführen müssen.

Es ist dem Haus unbenommen, die Angelegenheit wieder an den Ausschuss zurückzuüberweisen. Das ist eine souveräne Entscheidung des Plenums. Wenn Sie das beantragen wollen, können Sie das tun. Aber ich habe die Angelegenheit den Regeln der Geschäftsordnung entsprechend zunächst einmal zurücküberwiesen und nicht auf die Tagesordnung gesetzt, aber da der Landwirtschaftsausschuss bei der Liste bleibt, habe ich nun keine andere Wahl.

  Robert Atkins (ECR). - Mr President, I am very grateful to you for that answer. Accordingly, I move that this report be referred back to the Committee on Agriculture for proper consideration.

  Der Präsident. − Herr Atkins, das Verfahren nach der Geschäftsordnung ist folgendes – das würde ich Ihnen jetzt auch vorschlagen: Sobald die Abstimmung aufgerufen wird, können Sie diesen Antrag stellen. Sie kennen das Verfahren, Sie sind ja ein erfahrener Kollege.

Meine Damen und Herren, ich werde dafür sorgen, dass die Flagge des Vereinigten Königreichs in der richtigen Form aufgehängt wird, und lasse auch überprüfen, ob alle anderen Flaggen richtig hängen.

(1) See Minutes.

7. Съобщение на председателството

  Der Präsident. − Die Kolleginnen und Kollegen aller Fraktionen haben mich darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass wir gestern nicht die Gelegenheit hatten, daran zu erinnern, dass am 12. März 2003 – also gestern genau vor zehn Jahren – der damalige serbische Ministerpräsident Zoran Đinđić das Opfer eines furchtbaren Mordanschlags geworden ist.

Herr Đinđić war als Ministerpräsident Serbiens und als Repräsentant des serbischen Volkes ein visionärer, pro-europäischer Staatsmann. Der Mord an ihm war ein großer Verlust für ganz Europa.

Ich möchte den Kolleginnen und Kollegen danken, die mich darauf aufmerksam gemacht haben, und sagen: Auch zehn Jahre nach dem Mord an Zoran Đinđić ist dieser große Mann nicht vergessen.

(Beifall)

8. Време за гласуване

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Abstimmungsstunde.

(Abstimmungsergebnisse und sonstige Einzelheiten der Abstimmung: siehe Protokoll).

8.1. Предложение за резолюция - Заключения на Европейския съвет от 7-8 февруари относно Многогодишната финансова рамка (гласуване)

– Vor der Abstimmung über Änderungsantrag 2:

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). - Señor Presidente, quiero señalar que el Grupo S&D no va a votar la enmienda número 2, presentada por el Grupo ECR. No la vamos a votar porque nosotros, políticamente, hemos decidido que no estamos a favor del voto secreto, sino que queremos una votación abierta y transparente ante los ciudadanos sobre la Resolución del marco financiero plurianual.

Pero nuestra posición no depende de una enmienda que está fuera del ámbito del contenido de esta Resolución. Creemos que el contenido de esta Resolución no debe tener ninguna disposición sobre cómo se vota. Por tanto, nosotros no votaremos esta enmienda, aunque nuestro Grupo ha decidido políticamente votar en abierto, libremente, transparentemente, de cara a los ciudadanos.

(Aplausos)

  Martin Callanan (ECR). - Mr President, I have never heard a more ridiculous self-serving speech in all my time in this Parliament. This amendment is very simple; it is so simple and clear that even a Socialist could understand it. It merely says – it is one sentence – that we should hold the MFF vote in an open and transparent manner. Although I know that difficult concepts are hard for the Socialists to grasp, this is fairly simple and straightforward. If you are in favour of an open and transparent vote, you vote ‘yes’. If you are not, you vote ‘no’. If you are a Socialist and cannot decide, I suppose you sit on the fence.

(Laughter and applause)

ΠΡΟΕΔΡΙΑ: ΓΕΩΡΓΙΟΣ ΠΑΠΑΣΤΑΜΚΟΣ
Αντιπρόεδρος

8.2. Европейска система от национални и регионални сметки (A7-0076/2012 - Sharon Bowles) (гласуване)

8.3. Отговорности на държавата на знамето по отношение на прилагането на Директива 2009/13/ЕО на Съвета за изпълнение на Споразумението, сключено между Асоциациите на корабособствениците от Европейската общност (ECSA) и Европейската федерация на транспортните работници (ETF) относно Морската трудова конвенция (A7-0037/2013 - Pervenche Berès) (гласуване)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί του νομοθετικού ψηφίσματος:

  Pervenche Berès, rapporteure. − Monsieur le Président, je souhaite simplement demander à la Commission si elle accepte les amendements que le Parlement vient ainsi de voter?

  Janusz Lewandowski, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, this is a sovereign vote of Parliament and, of course, I have a list of amendments that are improvements, according to our assessment of the text.

These are, for example, on new definitions, aspects related to monitoring and compliance, maritime law, certificate inspections, seafarers’ complaints and so on. Some of them should be subject to redrafting and clarification. For example: quality of a system for inspection and certification to be established by the Member States, references to organisations in charge of verification of implementation of a directive, or onboard seafarers’ complaints. I have, by the way, also been a seafarer in my life.

There are several amendments, and they are related precisely to the issue of recruitment of seafarers and labour-supplying states, which are more problematic, including the amendments presented by the rapporteur today. These are taken directly from the Convention, but they are not covered by the agreement with the social partners, and I understand the position of Parliament wishing to take into account what was agreed with the social partners. I do not want to go into the details, as the vote is long and there are many amendments, but I would like, in the name of the Commission, to say that Parliament should not create a new set of requirements for certificates in addition to those already established under the maritime labour convention. So that is, in a nutshell, the position of the Commission on the vote of Parliament, but the vote of Parliament is a vote by people elected by the people and should be a sovereign vote.

  Pervenche Berès, rapporteure. − Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, je vous remercie pour cette réaction. Dans ces conditions, pour la suite, je propose que, sur la base de l'article 57, paragraphe 2, le Parlement européen reporte le vote final sur la résolution législative afin de commencer, sur la base de la proposition ainsi amendée, la négociation informelle avec le Conseil.

(Το αίτημα αναπομπής στην επιτροπή εγκρίνεται)

8.4. Насоки за бюджета за 2014 г. - Раздел ІІІ (A7-0043/2013 - Anne E. Jensen) (гласуване)

8.5. Състав на Европейския парламент с оглед на изборите през 2014 г. (A7-0041/2013 - Rafał Trzaskowski, Roberto Gualtieri) (гласуване)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία:

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). - Mr President, a point of order in relation to the next report from the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. I rise to ask that this report be referred back to committee so that some independent, outside, impartial examination of the report can be carried out. This report from start to finish is full of self-interest from every side of the House, including my own delegation, and I believe that we cannot be judges in our own cause.

In the case of Ireland, the number of seats has reduced from 15 to 13, to 12. It is now suggested that it be reduced to 11 at a time when our population has greatly increased. That will be a decrease of more than 25 %. It is totally unacceptable. Why has a maximum of 751 seats been set, for example? Could we not take a seat off everybody? For the larger Member States that will be one-ninetieth and for us it would still be one twelfth. I ask that this report be referred back for impartial input and examination. I am sorry to be disagreeable, but I could not sit here and accept this without making my point.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). - Mr President, I am asking if there are 40 Members in the House who will support me in referring this matter back. I believe it should be referred back.

  Νικόλαος Σαλαβράκος (EFD). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η αιτιολογία την οποία εισάγει ο κύριος συνάδελφος είναι απόλυτα λογική και θεωρώ ότι, εν όψει της καθιερωμένης καταστάσεως, του καθιερωμένου στάτους του αριθμού των βουλευτών που εκπροσωπούν τα διάφορα κράτη -τα 27 κράτη που είναι σήμερα-, θα πρέπει να βρούμε άλλους τρόπους αντί του να δημιουργούμε πικρίες στα κράτη και στους πολίτες των κρατών, ότι υποβιβάζονται ή αδικούνται, όπως είναι η αύξηση του αριθμού των ευρωβουλευτών και όχι η ανακατανομή.

Επομένως θεωρώ ότι είναι πάρα πολύ λογικό το αίτημα και το στηρίζω.

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). - Signor Presidente, questa relazione è stata votata all'unanimità dalla commissione AFCO senza nessun voto contrario e due sole astensioni. Naturalmente sono legittime le posizioni contrarie che si possono esprimere nel voto, come previsto dal nostro regolamento. Ma, ovviamente, non ha alcun senso rinviare una relazione a una commissione che l'ha approvata all'unanimità.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). - Senhor Presidente, reparei quando recebi a lista de voto deste relatório que três alterações que apresentei – as alterações 4, 5 e 6 – foram consideradas inadmissíveis pelo Presidente. Não recebi nem do Presidente nem dos serviços nenhuma justificação para este facto, o que lamento. Considero uma decisão arbitrária e injustificada. Quando questionei os serviços sobre a razão desta decisão, a resposta que me transmitiram não tem qualquer fundamento. Lamento por isso, e queria aqui protestar contra o que considero ser a violação do direito de qualquer deputado a apresentar alterações a relatórios e a resoluções. Cabe perguntar: de que tinham medo afinal? Porque não se poderiam votar estas alterações, que previam que nenhum dos pequenos e médios países perdessem deputados, como vai acontecer com esta proposta?

(Το αίτημα αναπομπής στην επιτροπή απορρίπτεται)

8.6. Определение, описание, представяне, етикетиране и защита на географските указания на спиртните напитки (гласуване)

8.7. Решение за започване на междуинституционални преговори относно директните плащания за селскостопански производители по схеми за подпомагане в рамките на ОСП и за определяне на мандата за тези преговори - 2011/0280(COD) (B7-0079/2013) (гласуване)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία:

  Robert Atkins (ECR). - Mr President, you may have heard my earlier point of order to the President under Rule 175, to which he seemed quite receptive, and accordingly I would like to move referral to committee back of all these dossiers from the Committee on Agriculture. I have no views one way or another about the substance; that is not the point. But bringing forward reports with this huge number of amendments is making a mockery of the way the plenary session is supposed to work.

I suspect that many colleagues across the political spectrum would agree with this, and therefore I formally move referral back to the Committee so it can get its act together and not bring forward these reports with this number of amendments in the future.

(Applause)

  Giles Chichester (ECR). - Mr President, I would speak in favour of this motion. We have long been troubled in this House by committees failing to do their work and bringing forward too many amendments because they cannot make up their minds. I strongly support referring this back to the committee and telling our colleagues on the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development to get ploughing and sort out their harvest.

(Laughter and applause)

  Paolo De Castro (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, come ha riferito il Presidente Schulz molto correttamente poco fa, a norma dell'articolo 162, abbiamo convocato una commissione per verificare la possibilità di ridurre il numero degli emendamenti. La riunione si è svolta lunedì scorso e una proposta da me avanzata per portare tutti gli emendamenti in Aula è stata accolta da tutti i gruppi all'unanimità. Pertanto sarebbe inutile tornare in commissione, perché tutti i gruppi, compreso il gruppo dei colleghi, hanno votato a favore del voto in Aula.

(Το αίτημα αναπομπής στην επιτροπή απορρίπτεται)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί της τροπολογίας 73:

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). - Mr President, I would just like to say that amendment 72 is on page 19 of the voting list. We have not come to amendment 72 at this point on the list. It is there though.

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί των τροπολογιών 107-120:

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). - Mr President, I hope Sir Robert will indulge me for this oral amendment. I will not take too much time. I am proposing the amendment on the bloc of votes from 107 to 120 to move the new paragraph from Article 29(4a) to Article 29(3a). The text is: ‘The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 55 to ensure that the agricultural area subject to the scheme shall cover a minimum percentage of the total holding of the farmer.’

(Η προφορική τροπολογία κρατείται)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί του Β7-0080/2013:

  John Stuart Agnew (EFD). - Mr President, I would like to give the House the opportunity not to vote on this CMO regulation. It has been very controversial. Very large amounts of money are at stake in the private sector. It could result in the closing down of a cane refinery in Britain. Just to give you an idea of the extent of difficulty in our committee, when we first discussed it, the very first amendment was to scrap the whole thing and 11 out of 44 supported it. We owe it to our constituents for this to go back to committee in order to get a better resolution from it.

(Το αίτημα αναπομπής στην επιτροπή απορρίπτεται)

8.8. Решение за започване на междуинституционални преговори относно общата организация на пазарите на селскостопански продукти („Общ регламент за ООП“) и за определяне на мандата за тези преговори - 2011/0281(COD) (B7-0080/2013) (гласуване)

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί της τροπολογίας 212:

  Sergio Paolo Francesco Silvestris (PPE). - Signor Presidente, volevo proporre di votare in blocco gli emendamenti dal 212 al 236; sono tutti quelli senza appello nominale.

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί της τροπολογίας 434:

  Iratxe García Pérez (S&D). - Señor Presidente, es que la interpretación nos estaba diciendo un número de enmienda —la 387— y ahí aparecía otro —la 434—. Entonces, yo le pediría que pudiéramos volver a votar la anterior. El Grupo S&D por supuesto que apoya el reconocimiento de las organizaciones de productores.

- Πριν από την ψηφοφορία επί τoυ Β7-0081/2013:

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). - Monsieur le Président, je serai très bref pour cette motion d'ordre.

Bien que nous soyons en plein carême, il faut savoir écouter les cris de nos estomacs et nous inspirer de ce qui se passe à Rome où, en dépit de la complexité des votes, on déjeune à heures fixes.

Je propose donc que nous suspendions le vote et que nous le reprenions demain à 11 heures du matin, ce qui nous laissera le temps de conclure.

  Πρόεδρος. - Κύριε Gollnisch, καταλαβαίνω την επιθυμία σας αλλά έχουμε αποφανθεί επί των συγκεκριμένων αιτημάτων και πρέπει να προχωρήσουμε.

8.9. Решение за започване на междуинституционални преговори относно подпомагането на развитието на селските райони от Европейския земеделски фонд за развитие на селските райони (ЕЗФРСР) и за определяне на мандата за тези преговори - 2011/0282(COD) (B7-0081/2013) (гласуване)

8.10. Решение за започване на междуинституционални преговори относно финансирането, управлението и мониторинга на ОСП и за определяне на мандата за тези преговори - 2011/0288(COD) (B7-0082/2013) (гласуване)

- Μετά από την ψηφοφορία:

  Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE). - Monsieur le Président, maintenant que nous en avons fini avec l'agriculture, il faut aller manger naturellement; autrement cela ne sert à rien. Les autres points sont des points non agricoles; nous pouvons donc en discuter demain, étant donné que l'agenda n'est pas trop chargé pour les votes.

(Applaudissements)

  Véronique De Keyser (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, beaucoup d'entre nous recommencent une session à 15 heures et ils sont ici depuis 9 heures du matin. Dans aucune législation nationale, il n'est prévu de travailler en continu sans pause-repas.

  Francesco Enrico Speroni (EFD). - Signor Presidente, un rinvio a domani creerebbe difficoltà a chi di noi ha un aereo nel primo pomeriggio, perché ovviamente i voti si protraggono. Oltretutto, se qualcuno ha problemi, poteva pensarci prima, come fatto io che ho mangiato qualcosa prima di venire in Aula.

(Το αίτημα για αναβολή των ψηφοφοριών απορρίπτεται)

  Jacky Hénin (GUE/NGL). - Monsieur le Président, j'ai un rappel au règlement à effectuer.

Dans le règlement de notre Assemblée, il est stipulé que les députés doivent avoir une attitude de dignité dans l'hémicycle. Depuis ce matin, il y a des gens qui travaillent sur leur chaîne de travail. Il y a des gens qui sont sur les routes pour assurer la sécurité des autres. Il y a des gens qui travaillent dans la neige et dans le froid. Ils travaillent et ils ne demandent pas en permanence qu'on arrête de voter, alors qu'ils ont des conditions de travail acceptables.

(Applaudissements)

  Geoffrey Van Orden (ECR). - Mr President, some of us had lunchtime engagements, which were important, and some of us are speaking again in a debate at 3 o’clock. Could I ask at least that you put half an hour between the conclusion of the votes and the next part of the sitting.

(Applause)

8.11. Енергийна пътна карта за периода до 2050 г. (A7-0035/2013 - Niki Tzavela) (гласуване)

(Η ψηφοφορία διακόπηκε έπειτα απο την παράγραφο 18 λόγω της λιποθυμίας του αντιπροέδρου Γεωργίου Παπαστάμκου.)

VORSITZ: MARTIN SCHULZ
Präsident

9. Съобщение на председателството

  Der Präsident. − Meine Damen und Herren! Sie sind sicherlich alle informiert über den schwerwiegenden Vorfall, der sich hier ereignet hat. Unser Kollege Papastamkos hat einen medizinisch ernstzunehmenden Zusammenbruch erlebt. Ich bin nicht in der Lage, Ihnen zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt zu sagen, wie die endgültige Diagnose ist, aber ganz sicher ist der Vorgang ernst zu nehmen.

Den Kollegen, die sich hier um Herrn Papastamkos gekümmert haben, will ich zunächst einmal meinen Dank aussprechen: Vor allen Dingen Charles Tannock, Philippe Juvin und Licia Ronzulli, unsere drei Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die Ärzte sind, haben – wie ich finde – in wundervoller Art und Weise spontan Hilfe geleistet, die außergewöhnlich war. Ich hoffe, dass diese Hilfe Herrn Papastamkos auch hilft.

(Beifall)

Herr Papastamkos ist jetzt im Krankenhaus. Ich muss noch einmal wiederholen, ich kann Ihnen zur Diagnose nichts Endgültiges sagen. Sobald wir eine Diagnose aus dem Krankenhaus haben, werde ich Ihnen mitteilen, um welchen Vorfall es sich handelt und wie ernst die Angelegenheit ist, selbstverständlich in der gebotenen Diskretion. Aber ich muss Ihnen noch einmal sagen: Der Zustand von Herrn Papastamkos ist sehr ernst.

Ich habe die Familie von Herrn Papastamkos informiert. Seine Ehefrau befindet sich auf dem Weg nach Straßburg.

Eine Reihe von Kolleginnen und Kollegen haben mich, wie ich finde, berechtigt darauf hingewiesen, dass wir über die Art und Weise der Abstimmungen in diesem Hause nachdenken müssen.

(Beifall)

Meine Damen und Herren, ich will Sie darauf aufmerksam machen, dass wir Berichte in der voluminösen Art, wie wir sie heute zur Abstimmung gestellt haben, in dieser Form nicht mehr ins Plenum bringen können; das geht nicht. Ich hatte diesen Bericht an den Ausschuss zurücküberwiesen, weil ich ihn für überladen hielt. Der Ausschuss war nicht in der Lage, die vielen Änderungsanträge zu reduzieren. Ich muss Ihnen auch sagen, dass mir praktisch alle Fraktionen das Signal gegeben haben, dass sie diese Abstimmung wünschen. Ein Kollege hat heute Morgen die Vertagung beantragt. Diese Vertagung ist abgelehnt worden.

Das heißt, wir alle müssen darüber nachdenken, ohne dass jetzt irgendjemand irgendeine Schuld hat, aber wir müssen darüber nachdenken, ob wir andere Wege finden, um zu vermeiden, dass wir hier Stunden um Stunden abstimmen, wo man – seien wir doch mal ehrlich! – am Ende der Abstimmung oft auch nicht mehr weiß, worüber man am Anfang noch abgestimmt hat. Doch den Überblick zu behalten, ist sehr schwierig. Deshalb werde ich mit den Kolleginnen und Kollegen in der Konferenz der Präsidenten und auch im Parlamentspräsidium darüber nachdenken, wie wir das verbessern können. Ich kann da keine schnelle Abhilfe versprechen, aber eines ist klar: Wir sollten die Konsequenzen daraus ziehen und darüber nachdenken!

Ich glaube, dass ich in Ihrer aller Namen spreche, wenn ich sage, dass diejenigen, die beten können, beten werden und diejenigen, die hoffen, hoffen werden, dass der Kollege Papastamkos gesund in unsere Reihen wiederkehren wird.

Vielen Dank für Ihre Aufmerksamkeit!

(Beifall)

VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS
Vizepräsident

  Γεώργιος Παπανικολάου (PPE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, είναι κρίσιμες οι ώρες και όλοι πράγματι προσευχόμαστε για τον κ. Παπαστάμκο. Επειδή όμως αναφέρθηκε και ο Πρόεδρος Schulz στο τι συνέβη και γιατί είχαμε μακρά ψηφοφορία κλπ., θα ήθελα να παρακαλέσω το Προεδρείο σας να εξετάσει τι ακριβώς συνέβη και για πάρα πολλή ώρα, όπως ο ίδιος ο Πρόεδρος ανέφερε, οι ιατροί συνάδελφοι ήταν εκείνοι που φρόντιζαν τον Παπαστάμκο και όχι αυτοί που θα έπρεπε. Και πολλοί άργησαν να έρθουν στην ώρα τους επάνω από τον Αντιπρόεδρο του Κοινοβουλίου μας για να προσφέρουν τις πρώτες βοήθειες.

Παρακαλώ να ερευνηθεί αυτό.

(Χειροκροτήματα)

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). - Mr President, indeed we are all thinking of Mr Papastamkos. Let us separate the issues, though, because Mr Schulz made some comments as to how we do our work and I want to defend the work of the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI).

I would say this: we do need to look at how we do our work. The President of this Parliament has just said that many of us are voting on things we do not know we are voting on, and let us be frank – and I will say it for my office – you cannot have staff working 24/7, and that is what is happening in this House. We are under too much pressure with the volume of the reports we deal with.

Let us take Mr Schulz’s view: perhaps some of us could sit down and look at better ways of working. The amount and volume of material we are dealing with cannot be dealt with effectively, and the Agriculture Committee worked wonders to distil down over 8 000 amendments into some sort of coherent document.

This House represents democracy. We have to allow people to vote. The decision of the AGRI Committee was to allow that. If we want to change that position, we need to discuss it. Perhaps it takes a crisis such as we all feel we have gone through to change how we work. Let us seize the opportunity to at least discuss it.

  Der Präsident. − Meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren, liebe Freunde, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir haben jetzt eine Fülle von Wortmeldungen von Kollegen, die sich wahrscheinlich alle zu diesem tragischen Zwischenfall melden wollen. Der Präsident dieses Hauses war, wie andere, die ganze Zeit da, und auch die Ärzte, die wir im Haus haben, das ärztliche Personal, das wir im Haus haben, waren sofort da. Ich möchte mich bei allen, die sofort geholfen haben – den Mitarbeitern, den Abgeordneten und denjenigen, die hier ihren Dienst tun – recht herzlich bedanken. Es ist im Moment – wo wir noch nicht wissen, wie der Zwischenfall ausgeht – nicht der Zeitpunkt, um hier im Plenum alle – der eine verteidigend, der andere analysierend – die Debatte fortzusetzen.

(Beifall)

Der Präsident dieses Hauses hat gesagt – und wir sind ja die ganze Zeit dabei gewesen –, dass wir uns die Ursachen und die Konsequenzen in aller Ruhe überlegen müssen. Es ist keine Schuldzuweisung getroffen worden, sondern wir müssen darüber nachdenken. Ich bitte darum, dass wir diese Debatte im Moment nicht führen, sondern einige Zeit vergehen lassen. Der Präsident hat es selbst übernommen, die Analyse vorzunehmen und die Konsequenzen zu ziehen, Sie permanent zu informieren und Sie alle dabei einzubinden.

(Beifall)

Ich bitte Sie wirklich, dass wir die Debatte zu diesem Punkt nicht fortsetzen. Wer das unbedingt will, dem erteile ich natürlich das Wort – hier wird niemand abgewürgt –, aber ich bitte, der Schwere der Situation und der heiklen Situation entsprechend, jetzt nicht mit der Analyse zu beginnen, sondern uns ein bisschen Abstand zu gewähren. Und vor allem alles, alles Gute unserem Freund Papastamkos!

Möchte noch jemand das Wort ergreifen?

  Frank Engel (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Das ist genau im Sinne dessen, was Sie selbst eben gesagt haben: Ich bin der Meinung, dass nach einem Vorfall wie diesem nicht der Moment gekommen ist, zu analysieren oder herauszufinden, wer zu welchem Zeitpunkt an welchem Ort war. Aber ich bin auch nicht der Meinung, dass wir unter den gegebenen Umständen zur Tagesordnung übergehen können.

Das, was heute Morgen vorgefallen ist, ist das Resultat vieler Faktoren, die in diesem Hause damit zu tun haben, dass nicht alles richtig läuft. Ich glaube, es gibt keine bessere Methode, um zu dokumentieren, dass hier vieles nicht richtig gelaufen ist, es gibt auch keine bessere Methode, um darzustellen, dass wir jetzt in Sorge um Herrn Kollegen Papastamkos sind, als zu beschließen, dass die Arbeiten dieser Sitzungswoche, zumindest was Abstimmungen anbelangt, an diesem Punkt ein Ende finden, um nicht wieder in eine ähnliche Situation zu geraten und um uns nicht morgen wieder in einer Situation zu befinden, in der jeder Einzelne von uns für sich selber vor der Feststellung steht, dass er zweieinhalb Stunden auf Knöpfe drückt und nicht weiß weshalb.

Ich möchte Sie bitten und ich möchte das Haus bitten, dass wir es zu diesem Zeitpunkt unter diesen Umständen für diese Woche dabei bewenden lassen.

  Der Präsident. − Herr Kollege Engel! Ich glaube, dass es im Sinne desjenigen ist, der vor wenigen Stunden von diesem Vorsitz aufgestanden ist und dann ins Spital musste, dass wir im Interesse der Bürgerinnen und Bürger die Arbeit fortsetzen. Wir haben heute keine Abstimmung mehr. Die Sitzung wurde bis 16.00 Uhr unterbrochen. Es wird überlegt, in welcher Form die Abstimmungen morgen durchgeführt werden können, damit ausreichend Zeit bleibt. Aber ich bitte darum, dass wir in die Tagesordnung eintreten, nicht losgelöst von dem, was passiert ist, nicht losgelöst von Gedanken, die uns alle bewegen, aber dass wir gemäß der Tagesordnung fortfahren und dann klären, in welchem zeitlichen Ablauf wir die Abstimmungen morgen durchführen.

Ich beende damit die Debatte und trete in die Tageordnung ein.

10. Одобряване на протокола от предишното заседание: вж. протокола

11. Състав на комисиите: вж. протокола

12. Положението в Египет (разискване)

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Vizepräsidentin der Kommission / Hohen Vertreterin der Union für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik zu der Lage in Ägypten (2013/2542(RSP)).

Ich kann Ihnen sagen, dass es auch mir nicht leicht fällt – ich sage Ihnen das so –, und bitte Sie daher um Verständnis für die Vorgangsweise, die wir gewählt haben.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, can I say on behalf of myself, my colleagues sitting here, the Commission and the Council, that our thoughts and prayers are with Vice-President Papastamkos and his family this afternoon.

Since we last discussed Egypt many challenges have emerged for the government and for the people. There is clearly a serious political divide in the country between the government and the main opposition – the National Salvation Front. We have seen demonstrations and violent clashes across the country. We urge calm. We urge restraint. We urge dialogue. The referendum and adoption of the constitution have not led to a great sense of direction, with a low turnout of 33 %. And, as many of you will be aware, the country is facing huge economic challenges with a 12 to 13 % budget deficit. The IMF has already identified a USD 14 billion funding gap.

This is the issue, more than any other, that is immediate and needs our engagement, notwithstanding – as I have already indicated – the political challenges that are faced by the country. More than ever, Europe as a neighbour and a partner has to engage and support Egypt’s democratic transition. Special Representative Bernardino Leon has spent a month of shuttle diplomacy to Cairo to meet with the government, the Presidency and the whole political opposition, on my behalf, in order to build confidence and to look for common ground on those political and economic issues.

Together with other members of the international community we will continue to push for the finalisation of the IMF arrangement which will allow the European Union to mobilise our macro-financial assistance of EUR 500 million. In parallel, we will also have to discuss the means of how best we mobilise our existing financial assistance in a timely fashion, and I would ask for the support of this House and commitment for this undertaking.

Democracy-building is not an easy process. There are no ‘quick fixes’. The building of deep and sustainable democracy is a long process. It requires hard work, commitment, as well as patience – patience domestically and internationally. The fact that we do have an opposition that is operating and working is in itself part of that democratic achievement. That Egypt had peaceful and fair presidential elections is another, and so is the formal invitation to the European Union to observe the upcoming parliamentary elections, which as honourable Members know were due to start on 22 April.

President Morsi accepted the Administrative Court ruling to refer the electoral law to the Supreme Constitutional Court. I believe that was a wise decision. This will likely postpone the elections, which gives more time, of course, to reach agreement on the outstanding issues that still exist.

In this very tense political context, elections need to be held in conformity with the constitution and in a peaceful, inclusive and transparent manner. We know that going to the polls to vote is very important, but it is only one component of building deep democracy.

Another is the importance of working with all sides to build bridges, to promote reconciliation, to respect and safeguard the fundamental human rights of all citizens, whether they are ‘winners’ or ‘losers’ of the election. We see that Egyptians are openly debating human rights issues in public, in political circles, in the media, and at the Shura Council. I welcome that debate. We share many concerns and we want to see real progress in these areas.

Our Special Representative for Human Rights, Stavros Lambrinidis, was in Egypt in mid-February and met with institutional as well as civil society interlocutors. He conveyed the message of particular concerns we have on police abuse, on torture and impunity, freedom of expression and belief, women’s rights, the working conditions for NGOs, and the promotion of economic and social rights. We have stressed the importance of ensuring a favourable environment for civil society and encouraged the adoption of a new NGO law that ensures NGO transparency while respecting the independence of civil society from government control, that eliminates burdensome registration procedures, and does not subject NGO activities to prior government approval on the basis of their alleged ‘usefulness to society’, and that does not limit or demonise NGO funding.

I am extremely pleased that the Egyptian authorities have shown willingness to engage and have requested through our Special Representative, to whom I pay real tribute for the work he has done on this, EU assistance and expertise on the NGO law. However, the situation of women in Egypt is of great concern, in particular in terms of violence and other forms of harassment. We are funding a EUR 4 million project – with UN Women – on women’s empowerment. Last weekend, Helga Schmid, our political director, met with the women with whom we have been engaging over the last two years. We are concerned about the stories that they gave us of the harassment they are facing. We are continuing to support the National Council for Women, currently in the process of drafting a national strategy for combating violence against women as a basis for a comprehensive law.

Last week, another important event took place in the relationship between the European Union and Egypt, which was the resumption of the formal dialogue under the EU-Egypt Association Agreement that had been postponed since the uprising in 2011.

Following the commitment of President Morsi during his visit to Brussels in September last year to relaunch the process and following the Task Force meeting in November, an Association Committee at senior officials’ level was held in Cairo on 28 February. We raised our concerns on human rights, on the need to build a political consensus and the establishment of a better business environment. Egypt focused on asset recovery and the EU financial package. I have to say to honourable Members that we are all aware of the consequences of an economic collapse, which could be devastating in Egypt. We have to approach this problem in a very constructive and timely manner. We recognise that we have to show what we call ‘strategic patience’ with the political developments in that country, but not remain silent on issues of fundamental freedoms and human rights. At the same time we need to move quickly to try and help meet the socio-economic expectations – both the goals of the revolution and the aspirations of the Egyptian people.

More globally, we of course need to support Egypt’s efforts as a regional power, be it in involvement in the League of Arab States, its attempts to bring together those who have been engaged in supporting and searching for a political solution in the Syria crisis, the brokering of the Gaza ceasefire or the continued efforts on Palestinian reconciliation.

This is a very difficult time for Egypt. As I have indicated, there are real challenges that need to be faced. I believe the European Union has an incredibly important role to play in that. We are determined to play it, to be a friend and partner, but also to be a critical friend in times such now, which are extremely difficult for the people of Egypt.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor Presidente, señora Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta de la Comisión, Señorías, el debate que estamos manteniendo esta tarde aquí pone claramente de manifiesto que, en estos procesos de transición de la Primavera árabe, una cosa es favorecer el derrocamiento de estos regímenes autocráticos y otra cosa muy distinta es crear condiciones de estabilidad y progreso económico y social.

Es evidente que estamos asistiendo a unos acontecimientos históricos: en primer lugar, la recomposición del mapa político del norte de África y Oriente Medio; estamos pendientes de la deriva del conflicto en Siria y también de la resolución del conflicto nuclear con Irán. Y, señor Presidente, Egipto desempeña un papel fundamental en estas tres situaciones a las que me acabo de referir, y el cuadro que nos acaba de pintar, señora Alta Representante, no es un cuadro muy tranquilizador y hay motivos de inquietud por diversas razones.

En primer lugar, por la situación de polarización política que se está viviendo en la sociedad y en los partidos políticos, pues ha habido tumultos, ha habido episodios de violencia y ha habido incluso varias condenas a la pena capital. Ha habido también una polémica respecto de la modificación de la Constitución y también acerca de la aprobación de la Ley electoral, que, como saben sus Señorías, ha sido suspendida cautelarmente por el Tribunal Constitucional para estas elecciones, que debían tener lugar el 22 de abril.

Y es evidente, como nos decía la señora Ashton hace un momento, que estamos asistiendo a un deterioro gravísimo de la situación económica del país. No se ha podido liberar todavía el crédito del Fondo Monetario Internacional, no se ha podido movilizar la ayuda que ha prometido el Secretario de Estado de los Estados Unidos, John Kerry, en su última visita a El Cairo y tampoco se han podido liberar las ayudas comprometidas por la Alta Representante con motivo del lanzamiento de la task force en El Cairo.

Y todos estos acontecimientos, de los que nos ha hablado la señora Ashton, se han producido precisamente después del exitoso ejercicio del lanzamiento de esa task force en El Cairo —yo tuve la oportunidad, con otros miembros de este Parlamento, señora Ashton, de acompañarla, y creo que cuando las cosas se hacen bien, hay que reconocerlo—.

Pero, en este contexto, me gustaría señalar que la Unión Europea no fue invitada a acompañar el primer referéndum sobre la modificación de la Constitución; no fue invitada tampoco al proceso de elecciones presidenciales y no fue invitada al último referéndum, en virtud del cual, con la escasa participación a la que usted se refería, se ha aprobado la Constitución en este país.

Sí hemos sido invitados a las próximas elecciones legislativas y, a este respecto, señora Ashton, me preocupa el hecho de que la oposición haya decidido no concurrir a esos comicios. Me gustaría preguntarle concretamente qué está usted dispuesta a hacer para que, como nos decía hace un momento, estas elecciones sean libres, sean justas y sean transparentes. Y si no, ¿realmente vale la pena acompañar este ejercicio sabiendo que los desafíos que plantea la transición egipcia son verdaderamente decisivos para el conjunto de la región?

  Véronique De Keyser, au nom du groupe S&D. – Monsieur le Président, Madame Ashton, je ne peux pas vous cacher que la situation égyptienne nous préoccupe fort.

Certes, nous reconnaissons les efforts consentis par M. Morsi dans le domaine international et, notamment, sa médiation lors de l'opération "Pilier de défense", qui a abouti à un cessez-le-feu. Mais au niveau intérieur, auquel nous ne souhaitons pas interférer, c'est vrai que l'évolution depuis le début du mois de décembre – avec l'affaire constitutionnelle, les troubles dans le pays et un ensemble de pas qui, finalement, ne vont pas dans la bonne direction – nous inquiète. Nous nous demandons tous comment on peut appliquer le more for more de la nouvelle politique de voisinage sans pénaliser le peuple égyptien. La situation économique de l'Égypte est effroyable. Le chômage et la pauvreté sont épouvantables. Donc, l'idée de dire "Nous n'allons pas faire ce que nous avons promis, à savoir vous aider" n'est pas pensable.

Je voudrais donc développer trois aspects avec vous. Premièrement, dans le more for more, ayons des objectifs très précis. Autrement dit, si nous voulons aider, aidons des groupes cibles qui nous tiennent à cœur, et notamment, cela ne vous étonnera pas, les femmes.

Deuxièmement, travaillons ensemble – tout le peuple égyptien nous en sera reconnaissant – à la récupération des avoirs du régime Moubarak. C'est un immense chantier, c'est quelque chose de très difficile. Ces avoirs sont dispersés dans les banques européennes et c'est une affaire compliquée où nous pourrions aider l'Égypte et qui serait parfaitement entendue par le peuple égyptien.

Troisièmement, je vous demande de faire un plaidoyer vibrant pour que les condamnations à mort de Port-Saïd soient transformées au moins en peine de prison, afin de calmer le jeu là-bas. Nous sommes contre la peine de mort. Il est temps de le faire entendre.

  Marietje Schaake, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, Egypt is on the brink of economic, political and social instability. This should trouble us and should make us take decisive action.

For two and a half years now we have heard that the EU will proceed according to the ‘more for more’ principle. More reforms towards human rights, democracy, rights for minorities and women will be rewarded with more market access and more support. We made the promise to the people of Egypt – and throughout the region – that we would replace our interest-driven politics and policies with a values-based partnership. It is my intention to keep you to that promise.

But what do we do? I would like to hear from you why you did not respond to Morsi’s power grab last November? That was the litmus test. Do you have a clear plan for how the ‘more for more’ principle will play out in practice? This Parliament looks forward to receiving it. Where are the pledged funds and how strong is conditionality? Can you also explain why you did not call on the Egyptian authorities to abolish the death penalty when no less than 21 people were sentenced to death? You have seen the demonstrations and the chaos. We may not have been able to prevent that, but we should have made it clear where we stand. These sentences are now confirmed.

High Representative Ashton, I call on you to step up your public support for the rights and freedoms of the Egyptian people. We should support the Egyptian protest against laws that would seriously limit civil society in doing its work. I call on you to make it clear to the Egyptian Government that it will not receive any direct funding until significant progress is made towards respect for human rights, the rule of law, democracy, and minority and women’s rights.

Let me clarify that it is not merely an issue of stopping the harassments, but also about making sure that laws will not be turned against women for a very long time. I believe we will lose the Egyptians and our credibility alike if we do not practice what we preach.

(Applause)

  Judith Sargentini, namens de Verts/ALE-Fractie. – Vicevoorzitter Ashton, ik was erbij toen u in november vorig jaar in Cairo met de Egyptische regering een afspraak maakte over intensieve samenwerking tussen Europa en Egypte voor de wederopbouw van Egypte. Want wie durfde er te investeren in een land waar de noodtoestand van kracht is en wie gaat daar nog op vakantie? De economie ligt praktisch stil. En natuurlijk hoort Europa dan een buurland te helpen, zeker een buurland dat zich ontworsteld heeft aan de dictatuur.

Het is echter zeer zorgwekkend om te zien dat onze delegatie nauwelijks weg was, of president Morsi gaf zichzelf extra bevoegdheden. Dat die bevoegdheden grotendeels weer zijn teruggedraaid, neemt mijn zorg niet weg. De aangekondigde wet op de financiering van ngo's is een niet te missen signaal dat de regering Morsi probeert het maatschappelijk middenveld onder controle te krijgen. Zimbabwe heeft ook zo'n wet en dat land is niet het goede voorbeeld. En dan dit weekend, de herbevestiging van de doodstraf van 21 burgers. Ook dat maakt ons ongelooflijk ongerust.

Ik heb eerder voorgesteld president Morsi hier in dit Parlement te ontvangen. Ik vind dat nog steeds een goed idee. Hij heeft ook tijdens onze ontmoeting in november gezegd dat hij dat wil. Dan zou ik hem directe vragen willen stellen. Hij hoort zich primair aan zijn eigen mensen te verantwoorden, maar dit Parlement wil ook weten hoe hij eigenlijk reële democratie in Egypte wil organiseren.

Maar omdat hij er niet is, stel ik een vraag aan u, mevrouw Ashton. Het gaat hier om: de vijf miljard aan leningen en fondsen en investeringen, die u in november heeft toegezegd en die Van Rompuy heeft bevestigd, volgens mij is daarvan nog geen cent van hier naar Egypte gegaan. Klopt dat? En is dat zo omdat Egypte niet aan onze condities kan voldoen? Ik wil dat land graag economisch en maatschappelijk erbovenop helpen, maar kan het nu onder de gegeven omstandigheden?

Elnökváltás: SURJÁN LÁSZLÓ úr
Alelnök

  Geoffrey Van Orden, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, the sad reflection is that by no account do matters seem to have improved in Egypt at all in the two years since the fall of Mubarak. Any hope of progress in the Middle East Peace Process depends very much on the security and stability of a country like Egypt – Egypt which of course signed the peace treaty with Israel in 1979, the guardian of the empty spaces of Sinai and with the ability to influence what happens in Gaza and indeed more widely in the Palestine Authority areas.

Baroness Ashton, you mention a further tranche of funding going to Egypt. We have been very generous in aid to Egypt in recent years. In fact, if we look back over the last six years, some EUR 9 billion of funding has gone in that direction, both pre-Mubarak and since Mubarak. I wonder if you can reassure us that this money is well targeted and being well controlled.

I also have another concern at the moment, which is the growth of unofficial policing groups – what you might call Islamist vigilantes – sponsored by Jama’a al-Islamiyya and the Muslim Brotherhood imposing their own form of harsh and arbitrary discipline on helpless people. I would be most grateful for your comments on this and on how it is going to impact on the rule of law and freedom.

Could I ask your indulgence, Mr President, because I wrote to Baroness Ashton a month ago about listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, but have not yet had her reply on this. We heard Shimon Peres speaking here, also making a plea for the listing of Hezbollah, and I would very much appreciate her comments.

  Fiorello Provera, a nome del gruppo EFD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, da due anni a questa parte i problemi dell'Egitto continuano purtroppo a peggiorare. Aumentano le discriminazioni e le violenze nei confronti dei cristiani copti così come verso le donne. Da alcuni giorni Porto Sahid è fuori controllo delle forze dell'ordine dopo la condanna a morte di 21 tifosi e il Sinai è un corridoio per il traffico di armi e di esseri umani senza controllo. Il fondamentalismo è sempre più aggressivo nei confronti delle minoranze religiose e intollerante nella società. La nuova costituzione, con i suoi riferimenti alla Sharia non rappresenta l'intera società egiziana, tanto meno i giovani che si sono battuti in piazza Tahrir. I rapporti con Israele, tradizionalmente buoni, sono sempre più difficili e compromettono la stabilità dell'intera regione.

In queste condizioni, si spiegano facilmente la mancanza di investimenti esteri e il forte calo del turismo, fondamentale per l'economia egiziana. Questo purtroppo è l'Egitto del dopo Mubarak, il risultato di tante speranze deluse: un bilancio tragico che impone una revisione della nostra politica di sostegno. La proposta di Lady Ashton e del Commissario Füle del "more for more" prevede anche un "less for less". Riflettiamo su quanto avviene e non sosteniamo senza critiche e senza condizione un paese in cui dilagano il fondamentalismo, la negazione dei nostri principi e una crescente instabilità. Breve domanda: qual è la situazione delle forze sindacali e la loro credibilità, la loro rappresentatività e la loro libertà?

  Willy Meyer, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor Presidente, señora Ashton, mi Grupo parlamentario entiende que la crisis que está viviendo Egipto —la crisis política y la crisis económica profunda, con violencia— tiene que ver con algo muy sencillo de entender: que la revolución de Tahrir emplazó a una serie de reformas importantes en busca de un Estado laico, en busca de la garantía de los derechos sociales y políticos de todas las personas que viven en Egipto, y el Presidente Morsi está cabalgando en otra dirección. Es tan sencillo como eso.

Una revolución que dejó mártires en la Plaza de Tahrir y que, sin embargo, hoy el Presidente Morsi intenta encorsetar, incluso con reformas constitucionales que van en la dirección contraria. Por eso, a mí me parece muy importante decir aquí, alto y claro, que la revolución de Tahrir está todavía inconclusa y que, desde luego, mi Grupo parlamentario está decidido a seguir apoyando todas y cada una de las reivindicaciones para que Egipto sea un país con una constitución laica, donde quepan todas las creencias religiosas, donde el fenómeno sectario no represente un problema, porque en la revolución de Tahrir nunca se mencionó.

Y, desde luego, esperamos que el Fondo Monetario Internacional no vaya a hacer lo que está haciendo también en Europa, es decir, condicionar las ayudas a ajustes que, para Egipto, para las condiciones de vida de los trabajadores y las trabajadoras, serían mortales. Al revés, yo creo que hay que elaborar un plan económico potente y fuerte que no castigue los salarios, como tampoco queremos que se castiguen en la Unión Europea.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). - Herr Präsident! Vor etwa einem Jahr starben 74 Menschen nach einem Fußballspiel in Port Said. Als Reaktion auf die nun gefällten Urteile gegen die Hauptverantwortlichen sterben wieder Menschen. Die sich im ganzen Land zuspitzenden Unruhen dauern nun schon seit Wochen an und richten sich sowohl gegen das brutale Vorgehen der Polizei als auch gegen die Politik der Moslembruderschaft. Zwei Jahre nach der Revolution versinkt das Land in Resignation. Soziale Missstände, Korruption, ein unzeitgemäßes Bildungs- und Gesundheitssystem und vor allem Christenverfolgung, das wird sich auch nach den nächsten Wahlen im Frühjahr kaum ändern, wo ja wieder – wie zu erwarten ist – die Islamisten gewinnen werden.

D. h., es muss für uns klar sein, wer nicht bereit ist, Frauenrechte zu gewährleisten, wer nicht bereit ist, Minderheiten zu schützen, wer nicht bereit ist, auch die christlichen Gemeinschaften in seinem Land zu schützen, der verspielt auch das Recht auf wirtschaftliche Unterstützung seitens der EU!

  Mário David (PPE). - Senhor Presidente, cara Alta Representante, não há muito tempo, e num documento aprovado nesta Casa, bem como num outro documento assinado por si e intitulado Uma nova estratégia para uma vizinhança em mutação, delineava-se a Parceria para a Democracia e a Prosperidade Partilhada com o sul do Mediterrâneo.

Dissemos então todos nós – Parlamento, Comissão, Conselho – que a execução da nova política de vizinhança se baseava numa responsabilização mútua e num compromisso comum para com os valores universais dos direitos do Homem, da democracia e do Estado de direito, da economia do mercado e do desenvolvimento sustentado e inclusivo.

O princípio basilar para esta nova política era o mais por mais, lembram-se? Dizia-se então que este apoio será tanto maior quanto mais rápidos e eficazes forem os progressos realizados a nível das reformas internas de cada país.

Ora, a revolução no Egito foi feita em nome da dignidade humana, da liberdade, e o povo egípcio sente que tal ainda não chegou. Para que houvesse um futuro com esperança e um futuro de esperança para todo e cada cidadão. E é essa falta de esperança que continua a alimentar um povo que corajosamente sai diariamente à rua para demonstrar a sua desilusão. Para que as diferentes comunidades possam coabitar pacificamente, para que os direitos das minorias sejam respeitados.

Pergunto-lhe: não estaremos nós a promover o mais por menos com os recentes 5 000 milhões de euros disponibilizados? Já agora para quê e a quem se destina essa verba? E quanto ao apoio inequívoco à sociedade civil, ou seja, quanto à chamada Parceria das Sociedades, no documento da Comissão, ou o bottom-up approach, no documento do Parlamento?

  Libor Rouček (S&D). - Mr President, a few weeks ago we marked the second anniversary of the Egyptian revolution. In that revolution, the Egyptian people and above all the young people demanded more freedoms and, of course, they wanted a better economic life. Two years later there is widespread frustration and disappointment that these goals were not achieved.

Egyptian society is being more and more polarised; there is no dialogue among the major political forces; there is increasing violence. We mentioned the economic situation. Egypt is running out of foreign currency and we should not forget that Egypt is one of the biggest importers in the world of wheat and cereals. In other words, if this situation continues, within a year we will be talking not only about a political crisis but also about a humanitarian crisis in Egypt.

So what should be done? As in any revolution there are no quick fixes; there is no quick solution. Revolution is a process, but we should stick to our values, to our goals to support the forces of human rights, civil rights and dialogue. In this connection, I would urge both the Commission and our Member States – and also ask colleagues here in the European Parliament, because we have contacts with political groups in Egypt, so let us use those contacts – to bring the major political forces in Egypt to one table. Let us start a dialogue, because I am afraid that without a dialogue there will be no political progress, and there will, of course, be no economic progress either in terms of investment or in terms of foreign tourists. As I have already indicated, I am afraid that we could have an economic and political situation within a year which will be much, much worse than the one we have now.

  Annemie Neyts-Uyttebroeck (ALDE). - Mr President, Egypt presents us with enormous challenges. There are so many that sometimes we do not know where to start.

So how should we proceed? I believe that the only way to proceed is to prioritise a number of concerns. The difficulty is that we want the Egyptian authorities to make a number of decisions, but they should make them themselves. We cannot substitute ourselves for them and that makes things difficult. If I can try to prioritise, I believe that first of all the 21 or 23 death sentences that were pronounced should be commuted to prison sentences. Secondly, I believe that the invitation to ‘witness’ the elections should be changed to an invitation to properly monitor those elections, so that we can do it a meaningful way. Thirdly, we probably should be talking to the opposition parties. I am not sure that their decision to boycott the election is the wisest of decisions. Of course it is theirs to take, but we should nevertheless keep contacts open. We should help with trying to unfreeze the monies and fortune of the Mubarak regime. Finally, I believe we should accompany the Egyptian authorities and the Egyptian people – and first among those the women – on the path towards more stability.

  Barbara Lochbihler (Verts/ALE). - Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Hohe Vertreterin! Ich begrüße es sehr, dass der EU-Sonderbeauftragte für Menschenrechte, Herr Lambrinidis, im Februar mit Vertretern der ägyptischen Regierung diskutiert hat, um zu sehen, wo im Einzelnen verschiedene Gesetzesvorhaben von unserer Seite unterstützt werden können. Sie haben ja detailliert darauf hingewiesen.

Ich möchte an dieser Stelle heute nur eine Situation hervorheben: dass es eben immer wieder zu exzessiver und unverhältnismäßiger Gewalt gegenüber Demonstranten kommt. Nur selten werden Polizei- und Armeeangehörige zur Verantwortung gezogen. Es scheint, als stünden sie über dem Gesetz. Seit dem Sturz von Mubarak starben mehr als 130 Menschen bei Protesten, Tausende wurden schwer verletzt. Die EU muss dies in allen Gesprächen thematisieren und auf Änderungen bestehen.

In dieser Situation ist es völlig unverantwortlich, dass Mitgliedstaaten Exporte – Waffenexporte – nach Ägypten genehmigen, darunter Kleinwaffenmunition oder gepanzerte Fahrzeuge, die auch zur Bekämpfung von Demonstranten eingesetzt werden können. Das ist völlig unvereinbar mit einer menschenrechtsorientierten Politik!

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). - Voorzitter, onlangs heeft Europa aan Egypte vijf miljard euro toegezegd en daarin overtrof Europa verreweg de regering-Obama. Obama heeft sinds het vertrek van Moebarak één miljard dollar aan Egypte toegezegd. Dat is één verschil. Een ander verschil is de manier waarop de Verenigde Staten en Europa opereerden. De Verenigde Staten hebben vanaf het begin duidelijk en openbaar aangegeven een set voorwaarden te verbinden aan die één miljard dollar. Een van de voorwaarden was bijvoorbeeld dat Egypte moest voldoen aan het programma van de IMF.

Je mag dus verwachten, Voorzitter, dat Europa, dat een enorme som - veel meer dan de USA - beschikbaar stelt, ook veel meer en duidelijke voorwaarden zou stellen. Te meer gelet op de situatie in Egypte. Want wat zien we in Egypte? De christenen zijn er hun leven niet zeker. De grondwet functioneert slecht. We hebben pas in een uitzending van de staats-TV gezien dat president Morsi meebad voor de vernietiging van de staat Israël.

Bovendien staat Egypte zeer hoog op de lijst van corrupte naties in de wereld, dus je mag dan ook wel een enorme controle op de besteding van dat geld verwachten. Ik heb meneer Van Rompuy daar tijdens zijn bezoek aan Caïro niet over horen spreken. Daarom is mijn oproep aan de hoge vertegenwoordiger: 'vertel nou nog eens even precies wat de voorwaarden zijn'. En die moeten wat mij betreft betrekking hebben op mensenrechten, godsdienstvrijheid, de relatie met Israël, de bestrijding van de corruptie en een diepgaande controle op de besteding.

  Bastiaan Belder (EFD). - Voorzitter, de koptische organisatie Association of victims of abduction and forced disappearance meldt dat er bijna geen dag voorbijgaat zonder dat ergens in Egypte een koptisch meisje verdwijnt. Dezelfde organisatie beschuldigt het Egyptische ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken, alsmede plaatselijke politiefunctionarissen van directe medeplichtigheid aan deze gedwongen verdwijningen, respectievelijk ontvoeringen van vaak nog zeer jonge meisjes. Dertien, veertien jaar zijn ze, nog pubers dus! Naar verluidt is de situatie dermate dramatisch dat met name in Alexandrië en wijde omgeving koptische ouders hun dochters niet meer naar school durven te sturen. Salafistische sjeiks zouden het brein zijn achter de ontvoeringen en gedwongen islamiseringen van Egyptische christinnen.

Mevrouw de hoge vertegenwoordiger, gelet op de ernst van genoemde beschuldigingen vraag ik u of uw dienst over identieke informatie beschikt, en wanneer dit niet het geval is, deze klachten serieus door de Europese diplomatieke dienst op hun waarheidsgehalte te laten onderzoeken. In dit geval zie ik uit naar uw spoedige terugkoppeling.

  Χαράλαμπος Αγγουράκης (GUE/NGL). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, δεν μπορώ να μην εκφράσω την έντονη διαμαρτυρία μου για το γεγονός ότι, με αφορμή το τραγικό συμβάν σε βάρος του Γιώργου Παπαστάμκου, στον οποίο εύχομαι ό,τι καλύτερο, διαπίστωσα μια απαράδεκτη κατάσταση εδώ στο Ευρωκοινοβούλιο. Κάτι ανάλογο μπορεί να συμβεί σε οποιονδήποτε, ιδιαίτερα στους εργαζόμενους, γι’ αυτό η προβληματική κατάσταση πρέπει να ξεπεραστεί όσο γίνεται πιο γρήγορα.

Όσον αφορά το θέμα που μας απασχολεί, θυμάμαι σ’ αυτή την αίθουσα είχε ειπωθεί εκ μέρους της κ. Αshton ότι η πολιτική που ακολουθεί η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση στην Αίγυπτο είναι λεφτά, αγορά, «mobility», όπως είχε πει. Γι’ αυτό το λόγο δεν μου κάνει καμία εντύπωση που υπάρχει αυτή η κατάσταση στη χώρα αυτή. Δεν υπάρχει καμία προοπτική, οι άνθρωποι βλέπουν ότι η εκμετάλλευση είναι η προοπτική τους και πολύ περισσότερο αυτές οι προοπτικές γίνονται ακόμη πιο σκληρές λόγω του ανταγωνισμού των Μεγάλων Δυνάμεων για τα πετρέλαια και το φυσικό αέριο της περιοχής, όπως βλέπουμε να συμβαίνει στην Ανατολική Μεσόγειο, με ανταγωνισμούς, με στόλους, με πολέμους, και γι’ αυτό το λόγο πρέπει να τεθεί τέρμα σ’ αυτή την πολιτική.

  Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI). - Voorzitter, het is duidelijk: Egypte glijdt steeds verder af. Christenen worden onderdrukt en duizenden vluchten het land uit. YouTube werd bijna verboden, de sharia vormt de basis van de grondwet en kritiek op de islam is verboden. Meer en meer vrouwen worden mishandeld, het aantal blasfemiezaken neemt toe en ga zo maar door.

Hieruit blijkt wel hoe naïef en voorbarig het was te spreken van een Arabische lente. In plaats daarvan zijn we getuige van een islamitische winter, precies zoals voorspeld. En wat doet de Europese Unie? Die zegt vijf miljard toe aan dit verschrikkelijke regime.

Wat moet de burger in Europa hier wel van denken? Overal in Europa wordt snoeihard bezuinigd, maar de EU heeft wel geld over voor een dictatoriaal regime in Egypte. De EU denkt dat de democratie te koop is. Maar nog geen week na het bezoek van de EU-Egypte taskforce sprak Morsi zijn decreet uit, dat hem boven de wet zou plaatsen.

Wees niet naïef, democratie is niet te koop! Moslimbroeder Morsi gaat gewoon door met de invoering van zijn sharia-agenda. De toezegging van vijf miljard is belachelijk en moet worden ingetrokken. En als u het écht juist wil doen, moet u de diplomatieke betrekkingen met Egypte nú verbreken.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). - Situaţia din Egipt a fost discutată în plen în urmă cu exact trei luni. Avertizam atunci asupra faptului că revoluţia egipteană este în pericol şi că societatea nu a fost nicicând atât de divizată. Din păcate, trebuie să constatăm că lucrurile nu s-au schimbat şi că este vorba despre o deteriorare constantă a situaţiei drepturilor omului, ca şi despre o adâncire a diviziunilor sociale.

Pedepsele cu moartea pronunţate în procesul asupra evenimentelor de la Port Said de acum un an, reprimarea brutală a manifestaţiilor din ultimele zile, anularea alegerilor legislative, declararea stării de urgenţă în mai multe localităţi, înrăutăţirea situaţiei femeilor, presiunile la care sunt supuse organizaţiile societăţii civile, toate acestea sunt profund îngrijorătoare.

La doi ani după căderea regimului Mubarak şi la nouă luni după alegerea preşedintelui Morsi, tranziţia politică egipteană este sub semnul întrebării, pentru că e jalonată de violenţe, contestare şi polarizare.

În acelaşi timp, semnalele pe care le primim de la organizaţiile societăţii civile indică faptul că Europa nu trebuie să abandoneze Egiptul. Dimpotrivă, trebuie să fim prezenţi şi să utilizăm instrumentele de care dispunem, pentru a ne asigura că un proces politic incluziv, bazat pe dialog naţional autentic şi implicarea tuturor forţelor politice democratice demarează în sfârşit. Este timpul să vorbim mai puţin despre principiul more for more şi să îl aplicăm efectiv.

  Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Ashton, diciamoci le cose per come sono. L'Egitto si trova dinanzi a un bivio: o si creano le condizioni per completare il processo di transizione, assicurando una stabilità e quelle riforme democratiche ineludibili, o il rischio è l'avvio di un processo di disgregazione, con l'apertura di una fase di instabilità e di tensioni civili e sociali rilevanti, che non riguarderanno solo quel paese ma l'insieme della regione.

Noi dobbiamo essere pienamente consapevoli che la strada da percorrere è stretta e piena di difficoltà, aggravata anche da una crisi economica pesantissima e non vi è dubbio che il nostro compito è quello di assicurare un sostegno perché il processo di transizione democratica raggiunga l'esito da noi sperato. È vero: occorre pazienza. Tuttavia e proprio per questo è importante il nostro atteggiamento e le azioni che oggi mettiamo in campo.

Penso a due questioni immediate: le elezioni legislative di aprile sono importanti ma chiedo se ci sono le condizioni perché il monitoraggio dell'Unione europea possa avvenire, di fronte alla volontà di boicottaggio dei partiti dell'opposizione. Lei che cosa pensa di fare a questo riguardo? La seconda questione riguarda la nostra politica di vicinato, che va confermata. Ma Le chiedo se non ci sia oggi la necessità di una ristrutturazione di questa politica perché possa essere più efficace e possa produrre risultati concreti e duraturi.

  Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). - Dziękuję bardzo. Egipt jest ważnym partnerem handlowym Unii, która wspierała arabską wiosnę i nadal udziela temu krajowi znaczącej pomocy. Obok tych i innych stwierdzeń zawartych w projekcie rezolucji dotyczącej sytuacji w Egipcie, sformułowanych przez naszą grupę ECR, znalazł się jeden niezwykle ważny zapis: domagamy się, by położono większy nacisk na zapewnienie wszystkim obywatelom wolności sumienia, wypowiedzi i przekonań. Stanowczo stwierdzamy, że to do rządu egipskiego należy zagwarantowanie wolności religijnej chrześcijan mieszkających w Egipcie i że koniecznie trzeba zatrzymać falę emigracji chrześcijan z Egiptu. Nie pierwszy raz Parlament Europejski ujmuje się za chrześcijanami, którzy są najbardziej dyskryminowaną grupą wyznaniową na świecie. Według sprawozdania organizacji Open Doors zawsze istniało napięcie pomiędzy mniejszością chrześcijańską i większością muzułmańską w tym kraju. Ale w ostatnim okresie prześladowania chrześcijan znacząco się zaostrzyły i dlatego też po raz kolejny zwracamy się do wiceprzewodniczącej Komisji Catherine Ashton, aby nieustannie podnosiła tę kwestię podczas rozmów z władzami Egiptu. Dziękuję bardzo.

  Νικόλαος Σαλαβράκος (EFD). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κυρία Ashton, με ιδιαίτερη έκπληξη έμαθα από εσάς σήμερα ότι διαθέτουμε 5 δισεκατομμύρια για την Αίγυπτο από το υστέρημα των Eυρωπαίων πολιτών. Χρειαζόμαστε πάντως, πιστεύω, ένα πολιτικό όραμα με ξεκάθαρους στόχους όταν δίνουμε χρήματα. Αγαπάμε την Αίγυπτο, αγαπάμε τους πολίτες της Αιγύπτου, αλλά θέλουμε να έχουμε κατεύθυνση προς τη δημοκρατία, όχι προς την ακρότητα.

Η κυβέρνηση Μόρσι καθημερινά παραβιάζει τις αρχές της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και εμείς συνεχίζουμε να χρηματοδοτούμε. Την ίδια ώρα σε μας, στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, η φτώχεια αυξάνει. Πώς θα το δικαιολογήσουμε αυτό στον Ευρωπαίο φορολογούμενο; Το θέμα, πιστεύω, ότι δεν είναι μόνο χρηματικό αλλά και ιδεολογικό. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση πρέπει να τιμά τις αξίες της και τις διμερείς διαπραγματεύσεις που έχει υπογράψει για τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα και τη δημοκρατία, που πλήττονται βαναύσως στην Αίγυπτο, ιδιαίτερα των Χριστιανών.

Παρακαλώ πολύ να το προσέξουμε το θέμα.

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE). - Mevrouw Ashton, geachte collega's, we zien in Egypte dat de situatie sterk verandert. We zien een toenemende druk op de christenen. We zien een toenemende druk op de rechten en vrijheden van vrouwen, hun positie wordt onmogelijk. Alle fundamentele rechten en vrijheden worden in feite met de grond gelijk gemaakt. Er is geen onafhankelijke en onpartijdige justitie meer. De hoge commissaris heeft het zelf gezegd, er is teveel geweld en daar komt ook nog de terdoodveroordeling bij.

Mevrouw Ashton vraagt hier aan het Parlement om van die vijf miljard 500 miljoen vrij te maken en ook voor de rest van de toezeggingen steun te geven. Maar als ik het goed begrijp, Voorzitter, dan kan 'more for more', ook betekenen dat als men zich niet aan de afspraken houdt, 'less for less' wordt. De vraag is nu hoe u, mevrouw Ashton, dat samen met de collega's in de Raad gaat invullen.

  Saïd El Khadraoui (S&D). - Voorzitter, mevrouw de hoge vertegenwoordiger, ik sluit mij aan bij diegenen die zich zeer bezorgd hebben uitgelaten over de verontrustende incidenten, de chaotische politieke ontwikkelingen en de enorme economische uitdagingen. Ik geloof dat wij, en ú in het bijzonder, op een zeer consistente en heldere manier duidelijk moeten blijven maken dat bepaalde ontwikkelingen voor ons onaanvaardbaar zijn. Ik verwijs bijvoorbeeld naar het toenemend geweld, het optreden van de ordediensten, de schending van vrouwenrechten, de nieuwe ngo-wetgeving ook, die de ontwikkeling van een kritisch middenveld onmogelijk maakt.

Welnu, wij hebben vorige week nog een aantal mensenrechtenactivisten gezien en zij – of ten minste een aantal van hen – zeggen ons dat de mensenrechtensituatie zelfs slechter is dan in het Moebarak-tijdperk. En dat kan uiteraard niet. U heeft zeer terecht benadrukt dat democratie veel meer is dan naar de stembus kunnen gaan. En ik vraag u dat consequent te herhalen.

De tweede grote kwestie is uiteraard de economische toestand. Egypte zal niet stabiel worden indien er geen hoop en perspectief gegeven kan worden aan de modale Egyptenaren. Het is een bijzonder complex probleem dat men niet makkelijk zal oplossen. Egypte zal dat ook niet alléén kunnen oplossen. Mijn vraag is dan ook de volgende: welke initiatieven gaat u nemen om met Egypte en andere internationale partners een duurzame oplossing te vinden om dit grote land uit het dal te laten kruipen, en hoe rijmt u dit met het 'more for more'-principe?

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Komisarz! Mam wrażenie, że jesteśmy rozczarowani, że ta Arabska Wiosna – nie tylko w Egipcie, ale także w innych krajach – przynosi zupełnie inne owoce, inne rezultaty niż te, jakich oczekiwaliśmy. Oto na plecach szlachetnych demonstrantów z centrum Kairu do władzy w Egipcie doszli ludzie, którzy w wielu obszarach są znacznie mniej tolerancyjni, niż obalony prezydent Mubarak, to gorzki paradoks. Zostaliśmy więc w pewnym sensie oszukani, albo daliśmy się oszukać, i – podkreślam – nie chodzi tu tylko o Egipt. Z całą mocą musimy protestować przeciwko dyskryminacji chrześcijan w Egipcie, ona się coraz bardziej nasila. To jest rzecz absolutnie – chciałem bardzo mocno to podkreślić – niedopuszczalna. Musimy przeciwko temu protestować, tym bardziej, że jest to pewna spirala niechęci i nienawiści do chrześcijan.

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE). - Dziękuję bardzo, Panie Przewodniczący! Pani Wysoka Przedstawiciel! Wiele wątków zostało tu podniesionych. Dołączam się do głosu chociażby posła Czarneckiego, mówiąc, że rzeczywiście w Egipcie znowu wrze, sytuacja nie jest stabilna i to jest powodem pewnego rozczarowania opinii publicznej w Europie czy Stanach Zjednoczonych. Chciałbym zwrócić uwagę w szczególności na dwa aspekty: pierwszy – to jest niby aspekt wewnętrzny, wewnętrznego bezpieczeństwa, jednak mający skutki na zewnątrz – to jest kwestia Synaju i bezpieczeństwa na obszarze, gdzie dominują Beduini. Tam właściwie bezkarnie operują dzisiaj odziały Hamasu czy Islamskiego Dżihadu, dokonując ataków rakietowych na Izrael. Są sygnały wywiadowcze z różnych państw mówiące o tym, że jest to wielkie zagrożenie dla sąsiada Egiptu, dla Izraela. Te ataki mogą nasilić się wzdłuż całej granicy egipsko-izraelskiej. Wielki przemyt broni, wielki przemyt materiałów wybuchowych – to jest to, czego władze egipskie niestety w tej chwili wydają się nie kontrolować. Druga rzecz – drobna, ale ważna – to jest kwestia funkcjonowania w Egipcie organizacji pozarządowych, fundacji z Niemiec czy ze Stanów Zjednoczonych, czy też z innych krajów Europy. Wydaje się, że Wysoka Przedstawiciel powinna – mam nadzieję, że to robi – zwracać uwagę władzom egipskim na to, że tego typu organizacje nie przynoszą nic złego, a jedynie pomagają w rozwoju społeczeństwa obywatelskiego i demokracji.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - A lentidão e as hesitações são normais em qualquer transição para a democracia mas o Egito parece estar a regredir democraticamente com muitas e muitos dos que arriscaram as vidas na Praça de Tahrir a continuar a ter de as arriscar, corajosamente, para não deixar a revolução ser desviada.

O processo constitucional, em vez de congregar as forças políticas sobre as reformas necessárias, tem criado um clima de tensão, violência e sectarismo pouco favorável à realização de eleições transparentes em 2013.

Assumindo a estratégia mais por mais, a União Europeia tem de passar mensagens inequívocas e coerentes ao Presidente Morsi e outros governantes líderes do povo egípcio de que construir uma democracia implica a participação de todas as forças políticas nas grandes decisões para a transição.

Preocupa a obstrução à participação política das mulheres e o constante assédio e violência de que têm sido vítimas por parte das autoridades, as tensões sectárias contra a minoria religiosa copta, o sistemático uso da tortura, a ameaça da pena de morte, a falta de lei e ordem no Sinai onde emigrantes são barbaramente explorados, detidos, torturados e mortos sem que as autoridades façam alguma coisa.

É importante que a União Europeia apoie financeiramente o Egito nesta fase em que os seus cidadãos se veem em condições económicas que se degradam aceleradamente, mas os 5 000 milhões não valem nada e serão até contraproducentes se não estiverem ligados a uma assumida condicionalidade no quadro de uma política de mais por mais. Temos que ser claros, dizendo que não toleramos as violações de direitos humanos e os sectarismos que, de facto, comprometem o processo revolucionário no Egito.

  Hans-Gert Pöttering (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Ich habe Anfang März 2011 auf dem Tahrir-Platz in Kairo mit wunderbaren jungen Menschen gesprochen, die für ihre eigene Würde eintraten, für Demokratie, für Freiheit und für Recht; und wir alle waren sehr zuversichtlich. Heute sehen wir, dass dieses Ägypten, für das wir so viel Sympathie haben, auf einer Rutschbahn weg von Freiheit und Demokratie ist.

Frau Vizepräsidentin, Sie haben von den Nichtregierungsorganisationen gesprochen. Es gibt einen neuen Entwurf aus dem Ministerium für soziale Angelegenheiten mit 25 Artikeln, der den Nichtregierungsorganisationen – etwa 41 000 in Ägypten – jede Luft zum Atmen nimmt und jede politische Betätigung untersagt. Man nimmt nicht Bezug auf den NGO-Entwurf des Parlaments unter Vorsitz von Anwar al-Sadat, dem Neffen des ermordeten Staatspräsidenten, das aufgelöst wurde. Und Anwar al-Sadat sagt zu diesem neuen Entwurf aus dem Sozialministerium: Die Moslembruderschaft ist in altem Denken gefangen, sie will alles kontrollieren. Auf diese Weise wird sie die Zivilgesellschaft ersticken.

Wir fordern von Präsident Mursi das, was er zugesagt hat: dass es eine öffentliche Debatte über dieses NGO-Gesetz aus dem Sozialministerium gibt, und dass erst das neue noch zu wählende Parlament darüber entscheidet. Wir fordern Religionsfreiheit, nicht nur für Moslems, sondern auch für Christen. Wir fordern die Aussetzung der Todesstrafe. Wir sind für einen Dialog mit der Regierung, aber mit einer klaren Botschaft. Wir sind für Hilfe, aber geknüpft an Bedingungen. Die Menschenrechte müssen eingehalten werden.

Wir ermutigen Sie, Frau Vizepräsidentin, dabei, wenn Sie dies so verwirklichen!

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). - Señor Presidente, Egipto es un país clave en el mundo árabe. El éxito o el fracaso de los procesos de cambio que conocemos como Primavera árabe se juega, en buena medida, en Egipto. La situación no es buena en el plano económico, como ya se ha dicho. El paro aumenta, así como los problemas de liquidez del Estado, y las reformas económicas no avanzan. Con todo ello, las negociaciones con el Fondo Monetario Internacional para la obtención del préstamo necesario no prosperan.

Pero más grave me parece, incluso, la situación política. Los procesos de transición y cambio democrático no son sencillos. Requieren, como condiciones básicas, grandes dosis de diálogo entre las fuerzas políticas y sociales, y voluntad de consenso que se plasme finalmente en grandes acuerdos. Pero de todo esto carece el Egipto de hoy. La nueva Constitución consiguió un apoyo político y social bastante frágil. Las fuerzas políticas siguen enfrentadas. La polarización, como se ha dicho, crece. Así lo muestran las circunstancias de la reciente visita del Secretario de Estado Kerry y el rechazo de las elecciones legislativas del próximo abril.

La Unión Europea tiene que implicarse firmemente en esta situación. Tenemos, en primer lugar, que impulsar y favorecer el necesario diálogo entre las fuerzas políticas. Tenemos que trasladar claramente la necesidad de llegar a acuerdos y consensos. Me preocupa que, si los europeos no nos implicamos más, otros actores que defienden otros modelos políticos y que tienen más cercanía ideológica con los Hermanos Musulmanes sean los que más influyan sobre el modelo político del Egipto del futuro.

Egipto, Señorías, está en nuestra vecindad. Es un país líder. Debemos implicarnos resueltamente en beneficio de Egipto, del éxito de la Primavera árabe y del futuro de las relaciones mediterráneas. Y, señora Ashton, también nuestra credibilidad como actor político está en juego.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D). - Mr President, I have heard many colleagues speaking about Egypt and how the Arab Spring is turning into an Islamic winter. I do not agree with their view. This bleak analysis is based on an incorrect understanding of the driving forces at hand in Egypt and elsewhere and on unrealistic expectations of a smooth and quick transition. The mistake is to focus exclusively on the strength and intentions of Egyptian Islamists vis-à-vis the secularists. I am convinced instead that the democratisation of Egypt will depend more on the quality of institution-building than on the so-called ‘Islamist factor’. Therefore, instead of fretting over Islamists, we need to have a deeper conception of a political transition in Egypt and we should strive to bolster institutions and economic reform. I believe that what the EU has done until now is quite correct and deserves the support of Parliament.

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). - Mr President, high youth unemployment in many post-Arab Spring countries is a social time bomb, according to President Van Rompuy speaking in January of this year. President Van Rompuy also stated that 50 million jobs would have to be created in the next two years for all the young people in the region about to enter what is now a severely depressed labour market.

The European Union is Egypt’s main source for foreign investment and development cooperation. Recently, the EU and its associated financial institutions offered a total in excess of EUR 5 billion to Egypt in grants, concessional loans and loans for the period 2012-2013. Despite the assistance we are providing, there are constant reports of political and constitutional problems. Parliamentary elections to the House of Representatives are scheduled to take place in April, and we need to ensure that these take place in a democratic and transparent fashion.

We need to invest in Egypt’s success for selfish and selfless reasons. I commend the High Representative and her staff for the work done to date. A stable region and a stable Egypt is crucial to our goals in that part of the world. The EU is well respected in this region and has a very important role to play in building international stability and interdependence. Interdependence is both the strength and the objective of the whole European project. This is a country that requires close contact and support so that democratic norms can take root.

  Boris Zala (S&D). - Situácia v Egypte je dôsledkom revolúcie aj demokratizácie. K nej patrí aj vnútorný vývoj Moslimského bratstva, adaptácia islamskej vízie demokratickým praktikám. To nie je ľahký proces.

Existujú názory, že pre Európsku úniu či Spojené štáty je výhodné nechať Mursího padnúť. Vraj by to odvrátilo hrozbu novej autokracie, zdiskreditovalo Moslimské bratstvo a umožnilo nástup k moci liberálnej opozícii alebo armáde.

Tento postup by bol strategickou chybou. Islamskú politiku nemožno potlačiť, ale snažiť sa ju urobiť demokratickou. Tak ako sa to po druhej svetovej vojne podarilo kresťanom a vznikli kresťansko-demokratické strany. Moslimské bratstvo potrebuje prejsť procesom transformácie na viac-menej štandardnú stranu. Na to je potrebná skúsenosť s reálnym vládnutím a zodpovednosťou. Bez tejto transformácie nemá egyptská demokracia šancu.

  Sari Essayah (PPE). - Arvoisa puhemies, hyvä komissaari, Euroopan parlamentti haluaa tukea Egyptin askelia kohti demokratiaa ja ihmisoikeuksia. Sen vuoksi onkin erityisen tärkeää, että EU:n tuki sisältää ehtoja, joilla voimme seurata ihmis- ja perusoikeuksien toteutumista.

Olemme seuranneet huolestuneina perustuslakiuudistusta ja vaalilain etenemistä. Tässä tilanteessa on hyvin ymmärrettävää, että oppositio ei ole ollut halukas osallistumaan vaaleihin, kun niiden vapautta ja oikeudenmukaisuutta ei ole pystytty varmistamaan. Samoin islamistipuolueen nouseminen valtaan on herättänyt perusteltua huolta erityisesti lasten ja naisten oikeuksien toteutumisesta, samoin myös uskonnollisten vähemmistöjen, erityisesti koptikristittyjen, aseman puolesta.

Todellinen demokratia edellyttää kansalaisjärjestöjen työn tukemista ja kansalaisyhteiskunnan rakentamista eikä suinkaan niiden työn hankaloittamista niin kuin tällä hetkellä Egyptissä näyttää tapahtuvan. Siitä huolimatta haluan rohkaista assosiointisopimuksen tiellä jatkamista, sillä on varmasti järkevämpää pidemmällä tähtäimellä, että Egypti niin taloudellisesti kuin myös poliittisesti vakautuu. Se on äärimmäisen tärkeää paitsi Egyptille itsellensä niin myös koko alueelle erityisesti arabikevään myllerrysten jälkeen.

  Peter Šťastný (PPE). - Rastúce pouličné násilie s početnými obeťami na životoch a zranenými, zlyhávajúci dialóg medzi vládou a opozíciou, rapídne zhoršovanie hospodárskej situácie, ako aj rastúci počet zneužívaných žien v Egypte sú mimoriadne znepokojujúce. Taktiež obmedzenia týkajúce sa slobody náboženského vyznania, činnosti novinárov, práva na pokojné verejné zhromažďovanie či financovania mimovládnych organizácií považujem za neprijateľné. Proces transformácie si vždy vyžaduje vytrvalé úsilie a odhodlanie všetkých zúčastnených.

Je nevyhnutné vyjadriť podporu egyptskej občianskej spoločnosti, apelovať na dodržiavanie slobôd spolu s prijatím právneho rámca na boj proti beztrestnosti a ochranu ľudských práv a vyzvať vládu na okamžité začatie národného dialógu so zainteresovanými stranami. Vláda tiež musí zabezpečiť slobodné, spravodlivé a transparentné voľby za účasti všetkých zložiek v záujme pokračovania v procese prechodu k skutočnej demokracii.

  Alf Svensson (PPE). - Herr talman! När vi tidigare här i kammaren ofta använt uttrycket "den arabiska våren" så citerar vi i det sammanhanget inte så sällan också Condoleezza Rice, som sade "Vi satsade på stabilitet för att få demokrati och vi fick ingetdera".

Jag tror att det nu finns en risk att vi åter hamnar i den situationen, så stabiliteten blir vad vi vill prioritera kanske före att stryka under hur angeläget det är just med respekten för mänskliga fri- och rättigheter.

Vi vet nu att Egypten är nära en kollaps både på politikens och ekonomins område och det är alldeles självklart att vi ska hjälpa Egypten. Det är inte så att vi garanterar och främjar säkerheten i EU om vi inte hjälper.

Jag tror inte alls att man kan se det som något man kan välja mellan, utan vi behöver finnas där och bry oss om och hjälpa till, men det är naturligtvis oerhört angeläget att vi får besked ifrån Muhammad Mursi och övriga i Muslimska brödraskapet att det är demokrati inte enbart så att säga administrativt sett utan även värdemässigt.

Vi talar nu om observatörer och vi är naturligtvis lite imponerade och glada över att EU ska få komma med observatörer, men det räcker inte. Ett val som administreras alldeles korrekt tekniskt sett kan ju för den skull vara helt odemokratiskt och det är helt uppenbart för oss hittills att det är de värdena som demokratin har som måste strykas under.

  Nora Berra (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, Madame la Haute représentante de l'Union pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité, mes chers collègues, en Égypte – un certain nombre de mes collègues l'ont rappelé –, ce sont les minorités, les femmes et la jeunesse, qui, au nom du respect des droits humains, ont poussé la dictature d'Hosni Moubarak en dehors de la vie politique.

Je constate, aujourd'hui, que la situation empire de jour en jour pour ces minorités. Les femmes se retrouvent dans une situation pire qu'elle ne l'était avant le début des révolutions. Les Frères musulmans ont pris le pouvoir et ne tiennent compte, en aucune façon, du respect des droits des femmes. Pire, encore, ils les bafouent au nom d'une idéologie et d'une soi-disant morale islamique.

À l'heure où les manifestations anti-Morsi ne cessent de s'amplifier et où la tension se trouve au plus haut, le nombre de victimes de viols ne cesse de croître en Égypte et, à entendre les déclarations des autorités, il semblerait que les coupables de ces viols soient les femmes elles-mêmes.

Reda Al-Hefnawy, membre du parti de la liberté et de la justice, qui appartient au groupe des Frères musulmans, a déclaré récemment que: "Les femmes ne doivent pas se mêler aux hommes pendant les manifestations. Comment peut-on demander au ministère de l'intérieur de protéger une femme qui se trouve au milieu d'un groupe d'hommes." Et le général salafiste Afifi d'ajouter: "Les femmes attirent parfois le viol en se mettant dans une situation qui en fait des objets de viols."

Telle est la situation que subissent, actuellement, les femmes égyptiennes. Telles sont les conséquences d'une longue et difficile révolution qu'elles ont menée avec détermination pour le respect des droits humains.

Nous devons agir face à cette position du régime égyptien. Nous, membres du Parlement européen, instance législative et démocratique, devons encourager l'Égypte à mettre en place des lois antidiscriminatoires. L'Union européenne doit encourager les forces de sécurité à appréhender et traduire en justice les auteurs de tels actes. Nous devons également réclamer que soit mis un terme à toutes les brutalités policières et encourager les forces de police à faire ce qu'elles sont censées faire: protéger les civils.

(Applaudissements)

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Silvia Costa (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Ashton, ieri abbiamo approvato in Aula la relazione sulle donne nel Nord Africa e, in particolare, sui paesi che hanno conosciuto le rivoluzioni chiamate "Primavera araba". Non vi è dubbio che tutte le donne di questi paesi che noi abbiamo incontrato in questi mesi ci hanno detto che per loro la battaglia per la democrazia e la libertà e la battaglia per i diritti delle donne sono un'unica battaglia e che questa transizione è una lunga e difficilissima transizione, che vede in loro ancora le protagoniste, nonostante violenze, sopraffazioni e intimidazioni.

L'Egitto è, fra i quattro paesi che abbiamo esaminato, l'unico che, per esempio, vede soltanto il 2% di donne a sedere nella rappresentanza parlamentare, a fronte di un 19-20% circa degli altri tre paesi. Questo la dice lunga sulla difficoltà ulteriore di questo paese: la percentuale è stata imposta con una legge elettorale, anche la precedente, ma è assolutamente inadeguata.

Penso che noi dobbiamo inserire nella nostra strategia "more for more", di fronte alle violenze che oggi ci sono e alle intimidazioni, due precondizioni: che ai tavoli negoziali le donne siano presenti e che ci sia attenzione ad alcuni obiettivi…

(Il Presidente interrompe l'oratore).

  Sajjad Karim (ECR). - Mr President, may I first congratulate you on the leadership you have shown when it comes to Egypt.

What we did yesterday, the United States is only coming forward with today, so well done European Union on that front.

However, I have to ask myself as a member of your taskforce, which went with the mantra of ‘more for more’, what does that mean?

What has happened to the Egyptian women who were tortured, raped and sexually abused in Tahrir Square on 25 January? Today they are now presented simply as ‘women who asked for it’. That quite clearly is unacceptable.

What does our ‘more for more’ mantra mean?

When I look at the Coptic Christians and minorities, they are targeted, they are fleeing, they are persecuted. Rather than seeing hope spreading through the region, today I see nervousness only.

When I met with their Parliament on two occasions, I heard the sort of language they speak, and as one Lancastrian to another, you will know the very cool-headed approach that we take.

I am sure Commissioner Füle, who was a witness to one of those parliamentary...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). - Arvoisa puhemies, kyllä minun mielestäni meidän talvinen säämme maaliskuussa kuvaa hyvin sitä takatalvea, joka arabikeväästä seurasi. Ongelma on siinä, että valtaan päästyään muslimiveljeskunta ei ole ollut kiinnostunut demokratiasta ja hyvästä hallinnosta vaan poliittisesta kontrollista.

Egyptillä ei ole ollut lainsäädäntövaltaa melkein vuoteen oikeuden linjattua, että Mursin vaalilain perustuslaillisuus on todettava korkeimmassa oikeudessa. Vaalilainsäädännön on tehnyt islamistien johtama suura-istuin, ja lainsäädännön mukaan Mursi liittolaisineen saisi suhteettoman paljon valtaa. Toivonkin, että hallinto ratkaisee tämän kiistan rauhanomaisesti.

Erityisen huolissani olen uskonnollisten vähemmistöjen oikeuksien takaamisesta Egyptissä. Paikalliset koptit ovat arvioineet, että kristityillä on ehkä suurempi oikeus puhua uuden hallinnon myötä, mutta samalla toisilla on suurempi vapaus polttaa kirkkoja ja levittää heistä vääriä tietoja.

  Olle Schmidt (ALDE). - Mr President, I have a question for Baroness Ashton concerning kidnapping in the Sinai desert.

What is happening there is awful. While it might be deemed a minor problem, given the situation in Egypt generally, I would not share that view. I think that we in the European Union can actually help here by assisting the Egyptian authorities. What we see now are daily atrocities: tortures, kidnappings and attempts to get money by blackmailing citizens all over the world. So, the next time you talk to the Egyptian authorities, I would urge you to try to assist them, because this cannot go on.

I would add that there is currently a court case in Stockholm in which three people are, I hope, to be tried for kidnappings and attempted blackmail.

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). - Situácia v Egypte sa postupne stáva kritickou. Vývoj ukazuje, že ideály Arabskej jari sa bohužiaľ vytrácajú a egyptská spoločnosť sa čoraz viac polarizuje. Sme svedkami nielen častejších masových demonštrácií, ale aj reštrikčnej politiky zo strany štátnych inštitúcií a obmedzovania politických a občianskych práv, ba čo viac, v mnohých prípadoch sa podkopávajú taktiež ľudské práva, práva menšín a práva žien.

Pre EÚ je Egypt v severnej Afrike strategická krajina. Bohužiaľ, stáva sa zlým príkladom demokratickej transformácie. Treba preto, aby Únia využila všetky svoje prostriedky na posilnenie demokracie, občianskej spoločnosti a základných ľudských a občianskych práv. Verím, že pani vysoká predstaviteľka sa bude razantne zasadzovať za tieto princípy. Chcel by som ešte raz upozorniť pani Ashtonovú na kauzu slovenskej občianky pani Azabovej, ktorá v Egypte už niekoľko rokov márne hľadá svojho uneseného syna.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). - Herr Präsident! Zwei Jahre nach dem Arabischen Frühling steht Ägypten, dessen Währungsreserven seit der Revolution ja um ein Drittel geschrumpft sind, finanziell mit dem Rücken an der Wand. Das wissen wir.

Ohne Reformen wird der IWF sicher keine Kredite auszahlen. Streicht Kairo indessen die staatlichen Subventionen für Lebensmittel und Benzin, ist ein Aufstand der Armen wahrscheinlich. Auch zeigen die gewalttätigen Unruhen, wie wenig Kontrolle sowohl Mursi als auch die Opposition über die Menschen auf der Straße haben. Hinzu kommt der einst unter Mubarak die Macht sichernde Polizeiapparat, der sich seit dem Präsidentensturz verselbständigt hat und von Korruption und Willkür durchdrungen ist. Dass die Armee mancherorts Polizeigebäude schützen muss, das gab es zuletzt vor zwei Jahren.

Die Moslembrüder haben die innenpolitischen Gegensätze verschärft. Statt der ersehnten Freiheit und Demokratie hat der Arabische Frühling nur eine Islamisierung Ägyptens gebracht. Da Ägypten noch auf lange Zeit instabil bleiben wird, sollte meines Erachtens die EU endlich eine Strategie entwickeln, wie sie mit islamisierten Staaten umgeht!

(A „catch the eye” eljárás vége.)

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, I would like to thank all who have contributed to this really important debate. What has been so valuable in this is the recognition that, for every Member who has spoken, what happens in Egypt is understood to be of real importance to the European Union.

These are our neighbours – 85 million people who are on a journey whose destination we want to help them reach and support to ensure that it encompasses the values that we hold. We believe that is the reason the Egyptian people started out on the journey.

The ‘more for more’ principle is a real one. The EUR 5 billion is not money that we have got sitting in a suitcase somewhere. These are contributions from the European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. They are mainly loans, not gifts, and they are done on the basis of the work that is done by the Egyptian authorities to make an agreement with the IMF. In other words, they are deeply conditional. Without that conditionality, of course, they would not be prepared to put their money into Egypt.

When we did the taskforce, one of the key objectives was to try to bring together all of the different potential investors in Egypt – private sector and public sector – in a more sensible format to make it clear to the Egyptian authorities that there was a genuine commitment to try to help and support them. But they also had to do things to ensure that support was forthcoming, both economically and politically. That is what it is all about. So the money is waiting and will be made available but it does depend on agreements with the IMF and, just as importantly, the movement on the political dialogue which so many of you have spoken about. I want to be clear what it is because there was obviously some misconception. I hope that makes you feel more comfortable about that.

In everything that we do with the Egyptian authorities – sometimes in a very lively way and sometimes very quietly – we are absolutely clear about our view on where they are trying to go and how they are moving forward. I have talked with President Morsi and with his team about some of the things that they have been doing. Sometimes I do not do it in a very public way. You would not expect me to. You would expect me to be able to talk with them quietly, just as when Secretary of State Kerry went. He did the same. There is a public dialogue and there is also a very important private dialogue going on.

But when it comes to issues like the death penalty, I have all my life stood up for the same principle that this European Union believes in, namely, that it is fundamentally wrong. I have said that publicly many times and I will say it again. Of course, they should look again at the death sentences and they should of course commute them without question. You believe that and I believe that, so I do not know why it has been suggested that I have not said things when I clearly have.

It is very important that we continue the regular visits. I go – I have been to Egypt I think 12 times since I took office – but many colleagues go every week. We go to talk about the economic questions and the political issues. As I have said, Stavros Lambrinidis went to talk in particular about the issues of human rights and to meet with them. We were pleased when they asked us to send expertise and advice on this NGO law for all the reasons that have been indicated here.

I am very concerned about what is happening with women in Egypt. I was very concerned when Helga Schmidt came back at the weekend and contacted me to tell me the stories that she had heard. Many of you have heard them too. We do everything we can to support women – as we have done throughout – to give them independence and certainty in their future. That is why, with UN Women, we did the programme of support for ID cards which enable women to open bank accounts, to be distinct and separate, to get healthcare themselves, to be reliant on no one but themselves and to be able to function effectively in their communities. It is a real problem in the urban communities and also in rural communities. President Morsi knows that one of the first issues I always raise with him is what is happening to women. It is not only fundamentally important for all the values we hold, but if the economy is going to go forward, grow and develop, they are going to need the intelligence, wisdom and support of the women in the community as well. It is, as I say in my colloquial language, a ‘no-brainer’ to understand that.

We also know that this journey is extremely difficult. I agree with all that has been said about ensuring that we are supporting religious minorities. The Coptic Christians have been mentioned several times and we are in touch with them. Our delegations talk with them a great deal and we work with them in the way that they ask us to because it is also very important, when working with different communities, that we do it in a way that is sensitive to how they wish us to act. We would always do that. That is what we do. This country is embarking on a long journey. It is a very difficult time. My analysis is that we in the European Union have to try to work and support the people of Egypt – and I emphasise the people of Egypt. They have had their elections, they have made their choices and they will continue to do that, but as I have said so many times, this is about building a democracy that is not about one election. It is about the elections in 20, 30 and 50 years. It is about knowing that the institutions are going to make sure that democracy is real and about the protection of people’s rights. I will continue to work, not only in Egypt but everywhere I possibly can, to try to achieve that because that is what this Union more than anything else for me is all about.

I also just wanted to say that I have mentioned the Slovakian woman and the little boy many times when I have been in Egypt and made clear that I had done so when I was in Bratislava a week or so ago. I would just say to Mr Van Orden that I have actually replied to his letter. I know that I have signed it and I apologise if it has not reached him.

I would just say on Hezbollah – which I know is not part of this conversation – that we have information from Bulgaria. There are preliminary indications. I asked them again on Monday and they say it is progressing. We have started the conversation, but you will appreciate that we are waiting for more information from them before we can go forward in any way.

Honourable Members, please do everything you can, with all the contacts you have, to support the people of Egypt in the way that you do. Please make contact with the women and please continue your contacts with religious groups. Please continue to say the good things that we want to see happen in Egypt. We want them to succeed. We want these people to have a real future and we will do everything we can to stand with them and support them in that journey. That is what we should do.

  Elnök. − Hat állásfoglalásra irányuló indítványt⁽¹⁾ juttattak el hozzám, melyeket az eljárási szabályzat 110. cikkének (2) bekezdésével összhangban nyújtottak be.

A vitát lezárom.

A szavazásra 2013. március 14-én, csütörtökön 11:30-kor kerül sor.

Írásbeli nyilatkozatok (149. cikk)

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), par écrit. – Ce débat intervient à un moment crucial pour l'Egypte. La situation est critique : le projet de Constitution n'est toujours pas prêt, les élections viennent d'être reportées et les institutions s'affaiblissent; l'instabilité est grande, l'économie - en particulier le secteur du tourisme - fonctionne au ralenti. Surtout, la situation en matière de droits de l'homme se dégrade ; les libertés d'association, de croyance et de la presse sont bafouées chaque jour. Enfin, il y a la situation des femmes : elles subissent, au quotidien, violences, agressions et dégradation de leurs droits. Le moment est crucial, mais notre attitude l'est tout autant. Nous devons encourager les Egyptiens à trouver rapidement la voie qui les engagera vers la stabilité du pays. Cette voie passe par la poursuite du travail constitutionnel, par la stabilisation des institutions nationales, ce qui améliorera le climat des affaires et favorisera la relance économique. De plus, le gouvernement égyptien doit absolument rétablir le dialogue avec les citoyens. Nous devons les rassurer ensuite : nous le savons, nous pouvons tous citer des exemples de l'histoire de nos pays respectifs, le chemin vers la démocratie est long et les tentations de "revenir en arrière" sont nombreuses. Soyons vigilants!

  Bogusław Sonik (PPE), na piśmie. – Od początku arabskiej wiosny wszyscy przyglądamy się sytuacji w Egipcie w drodze do demokracji. W ostatnim czasie jednak byliśmy świadkami niepokojących wydarzeń. Pomimo początkowych sukcesów dwa lata temu sytuacja w Egipcie staje się coraz bardziej skomplikowana. Oczywiście wszyscy zdajemy sobie sprawę z faktu, że rozwój demokracji i budowanie państwa prawa wymagają czasu. Czerpiąc wiedzę z doświadczeń tzw. „nowych państw członkowskich”, jesteśmy świadomi, że należy widzieć polityczną transformację jako długotrwały proces. Z drugiej jednak strony jako sąsiedzi i partnerzy promujący demokrację i prawa człowieka jesteśmy zobowiązani do wspierania mieszkańców Egiptu. Obecna sytuacja w Egipcie jest wciąż daleka od stabilizacji politycznej, czego dowodem są liczne rozruchy i starcia z opozycją czy w końcu wprowadzenie stanu wyjątkowego. Ponadto wielokrotne doniesienia o łamaniu praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności: nadużycia i przemoc stosowana przez policję, naruszenia wolności słowa, myśli politycznej oraz religii budzą niepokój i zdecydowanie zasługują na międzynarodową odpowiedź. Podzielam pozytywną reakcję Wysokiej Przedstawiciel na zaproszenie UE do obserwacji nadchodzących wyborów oraz otwarte podejście Egipcjan do rozmów z partnerami międzynarodowymi na temat praw człowieka. Jednakże korzystając z partnerskich relacji i zaproszeń ze strony egipskiej, UE powinna wspierać rząd przy opracowaniu ustaw gwarantujących prawa człowieka i wolności obywatelskie, włączając ustawy zapewniające przejrzystość organizacji pozarządowych.

(1) Lásd a jegyzőkönyvet.

13. Ядрени заплахи и правата на човека в Северна Корея (разискване)

  Elnök. − A következő pont a Bizottság alelnökének/az Unió külügyi és biztonságpolitikai főképviselőjének nyilatkozata – Nukleáris fenyegetések és emberi jogok Észak-Koreában (2013/2565(RSP))

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, North Korea remains the most isolated country in the world and one of the most hostile to its neighbours. Its people, apart from a small elite, suffer daily deprivation. An insufficient food supply keeps them dependent on international donors.

Despite a third generation of leaders, some inconclusive attempts at economic reform and a changed global context, there does not appear to be any positive change. While the people suffer, the regime squanders resources on a large military and on developing sophisticated offensive weapons. The Six-Party Talks, which could offer the country a way out of its isolation, remain stalled. Despite hopes for change under new leadership, North Korea appears determined to continue its long running programme to develop a ballistic nuclear weapon capability.

Honourable Members, we witnessed a rocket launch in December 2012 and a nuclear test in February. These provocative actions were followed by a series of threats when the international community protested. We have condemned in the strongest possible terms the latest nuclear tests. They pose a blatant challenge to the global non-proliferation regime and a serious threat to lasting peace. At the same time we and the United States have consistently made clear that if the North Korea took the path of engagement and positive change, we would respond.

I have raised the issues that really concerned me about Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) with my US and Chinese opposite numbers. In particular I have strongly encouraged China to exert pressure on the regime in Pyongyang. This will be high on my agenda when I visit China next month to develop relationships with the new leadership.

We of course remain in touch with South Korea and the new South Korean administration has expressed clear willingness to adopt a policy of engagement. Honourable Members will also note what China has been saying recently in stepping up its dialogue.

The International Community, working through the Security Council, has shown unprecedented unity in sending clear messages to the DPRK that it will not accept continued violations of the international non-proliferation regime. UN Security Council Resolution 2094 agreed on 7 March 2013 to impose a range of new restrictive measures, particularly in the financial sector. It makes clear that the UN Security Council will take further action if North Korea continues to flout international rules.

I really welcome the diplomatic efforts of the United Staes and those of China and Russia which made unity in the UN Security Council possible and who, as immediate neighbours, have important interests at stake. We have strongly and consistently supported the Six-Party Talks over the years. We both have economic and security interests in the region too. We have supported the UN regime and systematically imposed sanctions following the Security Council resolutions after the nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009 and most recently December 2012 and February 2013.

After the most recent events, we have prepared new measures in line with the Security Council Resolution: a ban on key components for the ballistic missile sector, trade in conventional arms and some financial transactions by the North Korean Central Bank and other government bodies.

We remain determined to take action in response to new provocations – the latest of which is North Korea’s unilateral declaration that the 1953 armistice is ‘invalid’ and leader Kim Jong-Un threatens to ‘wipe out’ a small South Korean island, as a priority target in the event of military conflict.

Honourable Members, this sort of provocation is totally unacceptable and this is precisely the reason why the 18 February 2013 Foreign Affairs Council adopted a new package of restrictive measures, which further reinforced the measures adopted by the Security Council on 22 January 2013.

We remain deeply worried about human rights situation in North Korea. We will co-sponsor the resolution with Japan in the Human Rights Council in Geneva on establishing a Commission of Enquiry into human rights violations there.

Meanwhile, we have provided assistance to people in the DPRK on purely humanitarian grounds. In 2011, we provided EUR 10 million to respond to urgent food needs channelled through the World Food Programme. This assistance was directed to the most vulnerable people to improve the feeding of children less than five years of age in orphanages, pregnant women, elderly and disabled people.

We will continue to assist the UN in its efforts to keep the international community united. This is the only way we can uphold the non-proliferation regime and support the people in North Korea, who deserve better.

  Elmar Brok, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Hohe Beauftragte/Vizepräsidentin, Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Baroness Ashton, ich möchte Ihnen sehr herzlich für das danken, was Sie heute vorgetragen haben und was in den letzten Wochen erreicht worden ist. Nordkorea ist ein feudalistisches Land, das die eigenen Menschen ausbeutet, unterdrückt und unglaublichen Leiden unterwirft, wie das kaum sonst irgendwo in der Welt der Fall ist, aber ein Land, das gleichzeitig aggressiv ist.

Wenn ein solches Land entgegen den Regeln Nuklearwaffen entwirft, baut und testet und dies mit einem Raketenprogramm für Langstreckenraketen verbindet, dann ist hoher Alarm angesagt. Wenn gleichzeitig, wie Sie sagten, das Waffenstillstandsabkommen von 1953 aufgekündigt wird, alle die Kontaktlinien, die zufällige Konfliktfälle aufhalten könnten, gekappt werden und jegliche Kommunikation abgebaut wird, Truppen zusammengezogen werden, dann sind das Vorgänge von unmittelbarer Gefahr, wie wir sie in den letzten Jahren nirgendwo hatten. Da ist einmal die unmittelbare Kriegsgefahr, die von einem solchen Regime ausgeht, da sind aber auch die Auswirkungen, die langfristig die gesamte Region verändern können. Denn, wenn ein solcher Staat von dieser Aggressivität diese nuklearen Kapazitäten besitzt, wird das auch dramatische Auswirkungen in der gesamten Region haben – bis hin zum Wunsch auch anderer Staaten, Nuklearwaffen zu haben, um sich wiederum zu verteidigen.

Dies würde meines Erachtens das Ende des Nichtverbreitungspakts bedeuten. Wenn wir auch noch Iran mit einbeziehen, dann sind wir hier an einem Scheideweg von dramatischer Bedeutung, wo die Atomwaffe zum normalen Instrument jedes Staates wird. Damit ist die Gefahr eines Nuklearkriegs in einem Umfang wieder gegeben, wie wir ihn bisher nie gekannt haben.

Hier spielt, das sagten Sie richtig, China eine entscheidende Rolle. Es ist gut, dass man China so eingebunden hat und dass es dies mitgemacht hat. Aber nur mit China, von dem Korea in vielen Dingen so gewaltig abhängt, ist es möglich, hier Druck auszuüben. Deswegen möchte ich Sie ermuntern, das gerade mit China zu besprechen und die Entscheidungsträger zu überzeugen, dass sie hier zu weiteren Maßnahmen greifen können, damit die Botschaft in Pjöngjang ankommt.

  Ana Gomes, em nome do Grupo S&D. – As ameaças de ataque preventivo nuclear por parte do regime norte-coreano são inaceitáveis provocações não apenas contra os vizinhos Coreia do Sul e Japão e contra os Estados Unidos mas realmente contra a segurança global.

Exigimos que a Coreia do Norte respeite as resoluções do Conselho de Segurança, o Tratado de Não Proliferação, o Acordo de armistício de 53, o Pacto Bilateral de Não Agressão com a vizinha Coreia do Sul e dizemos que a declaração de rutura do cessar-fogo por parte da Coreia do Norte põe em risco a sua própria segurança, isolando-a ainda mais.

A economia norte-coreana, centrada no poderio militar e na corrida ao armamento nuclear, determina a extrema pobreza em que vive o sacrificado povo norte-coreano enfraquecido também pela opressão, a sistemática violação dos direitos humanos, a propaganda mentirosa do regime.

A liderança norte-coreana pode ser feudal, opressiva ou lunática, mas realmente vive neste mundo e só persiste neste curso perigosamente provocatório porque tem as costas quentes, porque se vale do suporte económico, comercial e político da vizinha China.

A China, como membro permanente do Conselho de Segurança da ONU, tem especiais obrigações de zelar pela paz e pela segurança mundiais, começando por casa e pelo desequilibrado vizinho do lado.

A China não pode deixar aprovar sanções contra Pionguiangue do Conselho de Segurança da ONU e depois fechar os olhos às suas violações nas fronteiras comuns. Isto incentiva a irresponsabilidade do regime norte-coreano.

Ninguém como a China pode ajudar a trazer Pionguiangue à razão. É crucial que a Coreia do Norte retome as negociações no âmbito das conversações entre seis partes a fim de encontrar caminhos para uma península coreana livre de armas nucleares e capaz de assegurar direitos elementares e qualidade de vida aos coreanos do norte e do sul.

Sem deixar de promover e aplicar as sanções internacionalmente decretadas contra Pionguiangue, a União Europeia deve manter e, se possível, intensificar o diálogo e o contacto com o regime norte-coreano, se possível alargando ao que exista de sociedade civil na Coreia do Norte, mas é sobretudo sobre a China que a nossa pressão tem que se exercer de forma firme.

  Jelko Kacin, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the crisis on the peninsula is a virtual one for the most part, but the dictatorship is very real and incredibly cruel.

Recent events in the north of the Korean peninsula, and especially the provocations, go beyond any predictable and acceptable modes of behaviour of political leaders at home or in the international arena. Nerve-wracking dancing on a knife’s edge and an extension of labour camps for political re-education is unacceptable and irresponsible and is reckless playing with the international community and the lives of the citizens of both North and South Korea.

There is oppression and torture of North Korea’s own citizens on the feeble pretext of an external threat to the country. No one poses any kind of threat, military or political, to the North Korean state, economy or citizens apart from their own regime. The new dictator from the Kim dynasty is testing every neighbour’s nerves – even those of its largest trading partner and ally, China. Enough is enough. The Security Council of the United Nations has been unanimous. It may well be that Kim Jong-Un wants political reforms, economic development and perhaps even a better standard for his citizens, but this display of military muscle and propaganda war is a poker game that is simply too dangerous. We do not need to participate in this sabre-rattling.

Memories of the 46 innocent victims of the torpedo strike on the South Korean patrol vessel Cheonan exactly three years ago are still very vivid. Seoul, our important partner, deserves all our solidarity and support, but also recognition for its measured and constructive response. We demand that the regime change its attitudes to its own citizens and begins democratisation by respecting basic human rights.

This is the right topic for us, for the EU, for Parliament and not the threatening show of fire power, exploitation of people and additional threats with imaginary circumstances.

  Tarja Cronberg, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, the Greens join in the condemnation of the nuclear test and the missile activities carried out by North Korea. We also demand that it abstain from further tests and condemn the official announcement that the country reserves the right to carry out a preventive nuclear strike.

We call for the leadership of North Korea to abide by the Charter of the United Nations and urge the North Koreans to return to the NPT and ratify its additional protocol. The DPRK should re-establish its pre-existing commitments to a moratorium on missile tests and it should sign and ratify the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty.

All this said, our group regrets that the EP resolution does not talk more about what all the other nuclear weapon states could and should do in order to eliminate once and for all the risk of nuclear strikes or, even worse, a nuclear war. The nuclear weapon states, including some of our EU Member States, should cut the link between their status and prestige and the possession of nuclear weapons. Thus, there would be less incentive for countries who want to boost their international standing to do so by acquiring a nuclear arsenal. North Korea is one of them.

We need to intensify worldwide efforts for nuclear disarmament. The NPT is really in a crisis and the countries with existing nuclear weapons both within the NPT and outside should activate themselves in nuclear disarmament. I am very glad that the European Parliament has endorsed Global Zero and two thirds of the Members underwrote this, which now has become official EP policy. This is a good starting point. Now we must act more resolutely for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

  Marek Henryk Migalski, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Komisarz! Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! Dzisiejszy temat debaty to zagrożenie nuklearne i prawa człowieka, czyli dwie rzeczy. Rzeczywiście jest tak, że brak praw człowieka, brak demokracji w Korei Północnej powoduje, iż reżim północnokoreański może być zagrożeniem dla pokoju na świecie, a zwłaszcza dla bezpieczeństwa w regionie. Powinniśmy ciągle pamiętać o mieszkańcach Korei Północnej, o Północnych Koreańczykach, którzy dziś cierpią, być może w najbardziej opresyjnym, najbardziej totalitarnym reżimie, który istnieje w chwili obecnej na świecie. Powinniśmy wobec tego wraz z Amerykanami, wraz z rządem południowokoreańskim, dbać zarówno o bezpieczeństwo i przeciwdziałanie temu zagrożeniu nuklearnemu, jak i o dobro mieszkańców Korei Północnej, bo oni dzisiaj najbardziej cierpią z powodu rządów partii komunistycznej w Korei Północnej.

  Helmut Scholz, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Ashton! Vor genau zwei Jahren hat uns ein Erdbeben vor der Ostküste Japans noch einmal vor Augen geführt, welche Bedrohungen für die Menschen entstehen, wenn wir nicht beginnen, die Atomtechnologie zu bannen. Das gilt für ihre friedliche Nutzung. Das gilt aber noch viel mehr hinsichtlich ihres Einsatzes zur Durchsetzung politisch-militärischer Ziele. Die Folgen von Kernstrahlung sind für den Menschen immer verheerend! Diese konkreten Erfahrungen mussten wir bereits machen – in Hiroshima und Nagasaki, in Tschernobyl, Harrisburg und Fukushima.

Wer aber heute ernsthaft damit droht, Kernwaffen gegen Menschen einzusetzen, gehört eindeutig in die Schranken verwiesen. Das Parlament muss unmissverständlich klar machen, dass es kein Recht auf einen Präventivschlag mittels Kernwaffen gibt. Es gibt dieses in keinem nationalen Recht und schon gar nicht im Völkerrecht. Dies gilt für alle Staaten der Welt. Das gilt ganz klar auch für die KDVR.

Wir dürfen aber nicht aus dem Blick verlieren, dass sich die Entwicklungen auf der koreanischen Halbinsel nicht im freien Raum und nicht außerhalb der Geschichte vollziehen. Sie haben tiefgreifende Wurzeln, die mehr als ein halbes Jahrhundert alt sind. Die nuklearen Raketenwaffen in Korea sind nicht Ursache, sondern Folge dieses Konflikts. In der anhaltenden Konfrontationslogik auf der koreanischen Halbinsel sind sie jedoch zwischenzeitlich Bestandteil des Konflikts geworden.

Auch wenn wir in diesem Punkt unterschiedlicher Meinung sind, es muss uns klar sein, dass sich eine Lösung dieses Konflikts nur im Kontext einer komplexen politischen Regelung in der Region ergeben kann, in die sich vor allem China und die USA unmittelbar und deeskalierend einbringen müssen und als so genannte Schutzmächte dafür auch politische Verantwortung tragen. Damit – mit der Überwindung dieser Ursachen – wären Minimalvoraussetzungen gegeben, ...

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)

  Diane Dodds (NI). - Mr President, the illegal nuclear tests conducted by North Korea last month clearly threaten regional and international security, and I therefore support tougher trade sanctions on the government there. However, there is a greater tragedy underlying recent developments. Hidden behind North Korea’s never-ending pursuit of nuclear weapons is the reality that much of its population has been deprived of food and many are living in forced labour camps. They are impoverished and alone. The World Watch List ranks North Korea as the most difficult place on earth to be a Christian, with arrest and torture commonplace. This persecution is wholly unacceptable.

Parliament should use this debate today to promote the fundamental rights of freedom of association and religion. It should give a voice to the thousands of North Koreans who refuse to give up hope that one day their faith may be recognised. Vice-President/High Representative, I am interested in your idea of a commission of inquiry and I would be grateful if, in your summing up, you could elaborate on how you see this working.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). - Mr President, Baroness Ashton: James Clapper, the Director of the US National Intelligence, said yesterday to Congress that North Korea for the first time poses a serious threat to the United States, as well as to its East Asian neighbours.

There has been a third nuclear test, launching intercontinental missiles, and while Iran is playing at gaining time to complete these programmes, North Korea has started demonstrating a total lack of respect for its international commitments. But North Korea cannot act alone. I think China is playing a crucial role here, and while China seems to be embarrassed by North Korea’s behaviour, it is still ideologically linked to this state; there is a dictatorship of Communist parties in both states, and apparently China is not interested in the collapse of the North Korean regime.

Another aspect is cooperation between North Korea and Iran. There is clearly cooperation on developing missiles, but there must also be nuclear cooperation. So there is a network of undemocratic solidarity, which is supporting such countries as Iran and North Korea, and we should answer with a clear network of peace-loving states that unite in …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Μαρία-Ελένη Κοππά (S&D). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η καταδίκη μας για τις νέες προκλητικές ενέργειες της Πιονγκ-Γιανγκ είναι απερίφραστη. Είναι ωστόσο σημαντικό να αποφευχθεί η περαιτέρω κλιμάκωση και να επικρατήσει η λογική της ειρήνης στην περιοχή. Το καθεστώς της Βόρειας Κορέας πρέπει να φροντίσει τις πραγματικές ανάγκες του λαού που ζει ήδη σε συνθήκες ανθρωπιστικής κρίσης, να βελτιώσει την κατάσταση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων και να πάψει να επενδύει σε ανώφελα εξοπλιστικά προγράμματα.

Αυτό ακριβώς είναι το μήνυμα που στέλνει το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο με το αυριανό ψήφισμά του. Είναι ιδιαίτερα σημαντικό που το κείμενο δεν περιορίζεται μόνο στις πυρηνικές φιλοδοξίες της Πιονγκ-Γιανγκ. Οι νέες πυρηνικές δοκιμές της Βόρειας Κορέας και η κατάσταση σε σχέση με το Ιράν πρέπει ωστόσο να αποτελέσουν μια αφορμή για να ξανασκεφτούμε τι έχουμε κάνει λάθος σχετικά με τη μη διάδοση των πυρηνικών. Φοβάμαι ότι όσο επιτρέπεται σε κάποια κράτη να έχουν πυρηνικό οπλοστάσιο είναι δύσκολο να υπάρξει πειστικό επιχείρημα για την απαγόρευση σε άλλα να το αποκτήσουν. Επίσης, η τακτική της απομόνωσης και των κυρώσεων δεν έχει δώσει τα αναμενόμενα αποτελέσματα. Η λέξη-κλειδί πρέπει να είναι «engagement» και όχι απλώς «diplomatical isolation».

Πρέπει λοιπόν να δούμε πώς μπορούμε να εμπλέξουμε όλες τις πλευρές σε μια προσπάθεια για γενικότερο πυρηνικό αφοπλισμό. Οφείλουμε να οικοδομήσουμε στις αρχές του ανθρωπιστικού δικαίου, να κάνουμε σαφές ότι οι απειλές για πρώτο χτύπημα δεν έχουν κανένα νόημα. Μια τέτοια κίνηση είναι αυτοκαταστροφική για την ανθρωπότητα. Και αυτή η απλή λογική καθιστά παρανοϊκή την ίδια την ύπαρξη πυρηνικών όπλων στον κόσμο.

PRESIDE: MIGUEL ÁNGEL MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ
Vicepresidente

  Gerald Häfner (Verts/ALE). - Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Das nukleare Säbelrasseln ist überaus gefährlich. Wir müssen alles tun, um für eine friedliche und atomfreie koreanische Halbinsel zu sorgen.

Ich teile, was von den Kolleginnen und Kollegen bisher gesagt wurde. Dennoch glaube ich, dass es nicht genügt, sich nur darüber zu unterhalten. Nordkorea ist eine Diktatur, die alle ihre Bürger in Angst, Abhängigkeit und Gefangenschaft hält. Es gibt keine Freiheit zu reisen, weder innerhalb des Landes, noch aus dem Land heraus. Die Menschen sind Opfer eines Steinzeitkommunismus, der keine Freiheit zulässt, keine freie Meinungsäußerung, keine Freiheit der Presse, keine Demokratie – nichts, was Ausdruck menschlicher Freiheit wäre. Der UN-Sonderberichterstatter für die Situation in Nordkorea spricht von schwersten Menschenrechtsverletzungen auf neun verschiedenen Gebieten, angefangen vom Recht auf Leben, auf Gesundheit, auf Ernährung, bis hin zu Folter und dem Verschwinden in riesigen Gefangenenlagern, zu öffentlichen Exekutionen, bei denen Frauen und Kinder gezwungen werden, zuzuschauen, und vieles mehr.

Was wir also brauchen, über die Antwort auf diese atomare Provokation hinaus, die auch eine Ablenkung sein kann, ist die sofortige Einsetzung einer Untersuchungskommission der Vereinten Nationen, um die Menschenrechtslage in Nordkorea noch im Monat März in allen Aspekten zu untersuchen und dann die weiteren Schritte zu ergreifen, die das internationale Recht und das Völkerrecht zulassen.

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). - Dziękuję bardzo, Panie Przewodniczący! (Myślałem, że maszyna jest zepsuta cały czas jeszcze, ale mikrofon działa.).

Dziękuję za głos, Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowna Pani Wiceprzewodnicząca Komisji! Koleżanki i Koledzy! Dwa tygodnie temu byłem członkiem delegacji Parlamentu Europejskiego na 22. sesję Rady Praw Człowieka ONZ w Genewie. W trakcie tego pobytu mieliśmy okazję do rozmowy z Navanethem Pillay, Wysoką Komisarz ds. Praw Człowieka, a wcześniej sędzią Międzynarodowego Trybunału Praw Człowieka, która podzieliła się z nami, reprezentantami tej Izby, swoimi obawami i obserwacjami dotyczącymi tragicznej sytuacji praw człowieka w Korei Północnej. W miniony poniedziałek specjalny sprawozdawca ONZ przedstawił właśnie też podczas sesji Rady Praw Człowieka swoje wnioski i zaproponował powołanie specjalnej komisji śledczej do zbadania przypadków łamania praw człowieka w Korei Północnej, a rezolucja w tej sprawie ma być przyjęta jeszcze w tym miesiącu. To znaczy, że nasza debata odbywa się we właściwym momencie, a nasza rezolucja może być ważnym głosem, zarówno dla wspólnoty międzynarodowej, jak i – mam nadzieję – dla reżimu północnokoreańskiego, że nie ma zgody na to, co się w Korei dzieje: na masowe egzekucje, na głód ćwierć miliona ludzi, którzy spędzeni są do specjalnych obozów tylko dlatego, że wyrażają poglądy niezgodne z oficjalną linią władz koreańskich. Dziękuję bardzo.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). - Declaraţiile agresive ale Coreei de Nord, care au culminat recent prin anunţul de rupere a acordului de armistiţiu cu Republica Coreea, întreruperea comunicării între cele două state şi ameninţarea cu un atac nuclear sunt profund îngrijorătoare.

Republica Populară Democrată Coreeană trebuie să îşi tempereze pornirile războinice şi să evite o deteriorare a relaţiilor sale cu comunitatea internaţională. În joc se află bunăstarea cetăţenilor săi, care suferă de foame, sărăcie, depind de ajutoarele internaţionale pentru a supravieţui şi sunt izolaţi din punct de vedere economic şi politic. Soluţia la impasul în care se află Coreea de Nord se află sub semnul dialogului şi al conduitei paşnice. Aceasta trebuie să reia moratoriul privind testele cu rachete şi să renunţe la armamentul nuclear, aderând la Tratatul privind neproliferarea armelor nucleare.

Aşa cum au spus şi antevorbitorii mei, este în interesul şi în responsabilitatea Chinei, în calitate de membru permanent al Consiliului de Securitate al ONU şi principal partener al Coreei de Nord, să urmărească menţinerea stabilităţii în regiune. Aceasta trebuie să convingă Pyongyangul să reia negocierile în format de şase, esenţiale pentru o soluţionare paşnică a situaţiei în Peninsula Coreeană. În acelaşi timp, cred că Uniunea Europeană trebuie, de asemenea, să menţină canalele de comunicare cu Republica Populară Democrată Coreeană.

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D). - Sytuacja w zakresie praw człowieka w Korei Północnej jest oceniana jako jedna z najgorszych na świecie. Zbiorowe egzekucje – w tym egzekucje nieletnich – niewolnicza praca, przymusowe aborcje, represje polityczne, prześladowania religijne, handel ludźmi, tortury, gwałty, morderstwa to główne zarzuty, jakie wysuwają międzynarodowe organizacje monitorujące przestrzeganie podstawowych ludzkich wolności. Same sankcje nakładane przez ONZ czy Unię niewiele zmienią. Dlatego obok sankcji konieczne jest prowadzenie stałego dialogu. Przede wszystkim trzeba wypracować wspólne stanowisko wobec Korei Północnej, a raczej wobec reżimu w Korei Północnej. Sytuacja jest bardzo poważna, chodzi bowiem nie tylko o bezpieczeństwo w regionie, ale też na całym świecie. Oczywiście dialog z koreańskim reżimem, w tym dotyczący jej programu nuklearnego, musi zawierać potępienie łamania praw człowieka, a także wyraźne oczekiwanie, że to łamanie praw człowieka się skończy.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D). - Mr President, I share the strong universal condemnation of the latest nuclear threat by North Korea. It is a blatant challenge to the non-proliferation regime and, as Madam Ashton said, a serious threat to lasting peace in the Korean Peninsula and to security in North-East Asia.

At the same time, I believe it is the appropriate moment to remember that no nation should own nuclear arms, not Iran, not North Korea, and not their critics who take the moral high ground. Global security cannot be guaranteed by a select club of nuclear powers that retain the privilege to annihilate all. Until we overcome this double standard, making the possession of nuclear bombs in itself illegal, we are unlikely to make even minimal progress in this area.

  Boris Zala (S&D). - Mr President, if the EU wants to become more directly involved in the Korean stand-off, it should first of all upgrade its political presence in the East Asian region. Our activeness in Myanmar shows that this is possible.

As for the nuclear crisis, the EU can also contribute, for instance, by making use of its strategic partnership with China and Russia. The Chinese position vis-à-vis the North Koreans will be decisive, but Russia’s will be no less important. Keeping both powers engaged and constructive is a huge task and one that offers ample scope for EU diplomatic action.

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

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). - Arvoisa puhemies, emme voi hyväksyä Pohjois-Korean poliittista uhkapeliä, mutta emme myöskään sitä, miten se sortaa omia kansalaisiaan vankileireillä. Viime viikolla julkaistiin arvio, että tilanne vankileireillä on pahentunut entisestään. Siellä ilmenee systemaattisia ihmisoikeusrikkomuksia, kuten kidutusta, raiskauksia, teloituksia ja nälkiinnyttämistä. Amnestyn mukaan Pohjois-Korea on nyt myös eristänyt vankileirinsä. Suoja-alueet, joilla liikkuminen on kielletty, näkyvät selkeästi satelliittikuvissa. Vankileireillä saattaa olla jopa 200 000 vankia poliittisista syistä, ja heitä käytetään orjatyövoimana.

YK:n ihmisoikeuskomissaari on sanonut, että maan ihmisoikeustilanne on yksi maailman huonoimmista mutta samalla sen raportointi ja ymmärtäminen ovat heikoimmasta päästä. Pohjois-Korea kiistää itse vankileirien olemassaolon eivätkä kansainvälisen yhteisön pakotteet ole helpottaneet tilannetta. Toivonkin, että korkea edustaja Ashton vastaa, mikä on EU:n strategia Pohjois-Korean humanitaarisen...

(Puhemies keskeytti puhujan.)

  Janusz Władysław Zemke (S&D). - Chciałbym bardzo podziękować. Tak się stało, że w ostatnich latach byłem dwukrotnie w Korei Północnej. W oparciu o moje kilkutygodniowe obserwacje chciałbym podzielić się dwiema uwagami: po pierwsze, bardzo wolno, ale jednak zauważalne są tam jakieś pierwsze próby zmian. Zauważalne są przykładowo wstępne próby tworzenia rynku i drobnego handlu. Nigdy przedtem tego tam nie widziałem. I po drugie: efekty może przynieść wyłącznie oddziaływanie wielostronne i narastający nacisk o dyplomatycznym charakterze połączony z przemyślanymi sankcjami. Kluczowe w tej materii jest oczywiście współdziałanie Unii z Chinami, gdyż w praktyce jest tak, że jest to jedyny kraj, z jakim Korea musi dalej się liczyć. Dziękuję.

  Barbara Lochbihler (Verts/ALE). - Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Hohe Vertreterin! Wir haben uns im Menschenrechtsausschuss mit der Menschenrechtslage in Nordkorea befasst und haben es sehr begrüßt, dass die EU als Schwerpunkt beim Menschenrechtsrat Nordkorea gewählt hat. Wir begrüßen es noch mehr, dass Sie dazu beigetragen haben, dass es jetzt eine Sonderkommission gibt, die die schweren Menschenrechtsverletzungen dort untersuchen soll.

Ganz besonders möchte ich hervorheben, dass es Belege dafür gibt, dass die politischen Straflager – man schätzt, darin befinden sich ungefähr 200 000 Menschen – sich ausdehnen; es gibt Satellitenbilder dazu. Und wir müssen davon ausgehen, dass dort nicht nur Erwachsene, sondern auch Kinder sind, die harter Zwangsarbeit und auch Nahrungsentzug ausgesetzt sind. Dass die EU gegenüber wem auch immer die Existenz dieser politischen Straflager anspricht und darauf drängt, dass sich die Verhältnisse dort ändern, das halte ich für besonders prioritär.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, North Korea remains one of the most isolated and brutal dictatorships in the world, with a dangerous nuclear programme which risks a regional nuclear arms race. The recent atomic tests and ballistic missile experiments with weaponising its nuclear payload mean that the international community, via the Six Powers, and the EU now, must redouble its efforts to get the DPRK to sign the CTBT and reunify peacefully with the South.

My personal suggestion is that the price for this is to get China fully on board and to ensure its cooperation – as it cannot tolerate the idea of US troops on its border – by the promise of a complete US demilitarisation of the Korean peninsula and for a united, unified Korea to become a member of the non-aligned movement (NAM). We must remember that Russia is still angry that NATO expanded to East Germany, which it wrongly claimed was promised would not happen, which is why China needs a very strong and huge carrot to abandon its North Korean ally. An NAM, reunited Korea, with even perhaps a transitional government with elements of the DPRK...

(The President cut off the speaker)

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

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, I think we are all united in our views on what is happening in North Korea. This is a brutal regime, a regime which treats its people appallingly.

As I have said, there will be a co-sponsorship with Japan in the Human Rights Council in Geneva to get this committee of investigation into what is happening there set up. Any of you who, like me, have studied and read accounts from people who have come out of North Korea will be fully aware of the horror and terror that is exerted on the population. Combined with that, as I have said, is what is happening in terms of simply not providing the basics for the people of North Korea. We continue to give support in terms of food aid through the World Food Programme.

I agree with what has been said about cooperation with China. In fact, I have been discussing North Korea with China in my strategic dialogues for some time, trying to persuade China of the importance of enabling the people of North Korea to really be able to open up and to actually try to apply the right kind of pressure on them. I believe that exerting their pressure would be of enormous significance. Meanwhile, we have to continue with the pressure that we put on them, ensuring that we fulfil our obligations through the Security Council. We must ensure that North Korea is under no illusion about the views that we hold and our desire to see them re-engage with the international community, but to continue the pressure on them until they do so.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). - Herr Präsident! Ich bin ganz begeistert von Ihrer grundsätzlich sehr korrekten Führung der Amtsgeschäfte. Sie achten auch auf die Zeit. Deswegen bin ich etwas verwundert, dass ich mich zwar bei Ihrem Vorgänger zu „Catch the eye“ gemeldet habe, Ihre charmanten Damen mich fragen, ob es auch ich war, der sich gemeldet hat, ich Ja sage, und das dann offensichtlich irgendwo verloren gegangen ist. Dass man mir aber, obwohl kein anderer Kollege da ist, das Wort nicht erteilt, verstehe ich nicht. Ich bitte daher um Berücksichtigung gemäß „Catch the eye“ beim nächsten Tagesordnungspunkt.

  El Presidente. − Perdone, señor Obermayr, tiene usted razón. Tenía intención de darle la palabra, pero, al cambiar de página, se me ha pasado. Si quiere, tiene usted un minuto para intervenir, aunque sea después de la intervención de la señora Vicepresidenta.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). - Mr President, I would like to speak on the next issue.

  El Presidente. − Tomamos nota de ello para el punto siguiente. Para cerrar el debate se han presentado seis propuestas de resolución⁽¹⁾ de conformidad con el artículo 110, apartado 2, del Reglamento.

Se cierra el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar mañana jueves 14 de marzo, a las 11.30 horas.

(1) Véase el Acta.

14. Сирия, и по-конкретно хуманитарната ситуация там (разискване)

  El Presidente. − El punto siguiente en el orden del día es el debate a partir de la Declaración de la Vicepresidenta de la Comisión y Alta Representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad sobre Siria, con especial referencia a la situación humanitaria.

Se nos ha señalado que la señora Ashton tiene imperativamente que dejarnos a las siete en punto y, como creo que a todos ustedes les interesa escuchar el cierre del debate por parte de la Alta Representante, les pido encarecidamente que se ajusten al tiempo que tienen. Y a la señora Ashton también le pido que, en su presentación, procure ahorrar segundos para que podamos terminar el debate como es debido.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, thank you for your understanding. I go to Pristina this evening.

Can I begin by saying I learned with great sadness of the tragic death yesterday of Ahmad Shihadeh, a policy officer of the EU delegation in Syria. He was killed during a rocket attack on the Damascus suburb of Deraa, where he lived. Ahmad died while providing humanitarian help to the community. Our thoughts are with his family and friends and his colleagues in the delegation.

We know that the situation in Syria is appalling, that Bashar al-Assad should leave power, that the fighting should stop and that the country – according to some reports 70% destroyed – needs to be rebuilt.

This situation reflects in part the inability of the international community to find a coherent, united way to respond to the horror that is being perpetrated and to act collectively to protect the people. Without a Security Council mandate or a clear situation on the ground, military action by the international community is not under consideration.

I want to be clear too that on the occasions this year when I have put the arms embargo on the agenda of the Foreign Affairs Council – with all options to be discussed – no Member State has proposed that it be lifted to arm the opposition. All Member States have wanted to make sure that support is available for the people, and for the opposition, in the form of non-lethal equipment and technical assistance. This I reflected in my meeting with General Idris a few days ago, when I invited him to let me know urgently what assistance we could supply.

So we work in the situation we find ourselves in, with all its constraints. This is a messy and complicated situation on the ground. Not everyone involved in the fighting shares our values or our vision for the future of Syria. As Lakhdar Brahimi said when he came at my invitation to the Foreign Affairs Council this week, there is no easy solution; if there were, we would have found it by now. We have to work for a political solution that will lead to a lasting peace.

We should support all those who are actively trying to find that solution: Mr Brahimi and Sheikh Moaz al-Khatib in particular. And we should continue to talk with Russia and China especially, but also with all the members of the Security Council, as well as others across the region and indeed the world, in order to try to find a way through.

Commissioner Kristalina Georgieva, who has done a fantastic job as the Commissioner for Humanitarian Aid, has been very clear: from a humanitarian perspective, too, there are no military fixes. Humanitarian corridors, buffer zones and other ideas of the same kind are not viable solutions. As Commissioner Georgieva put it so clearly in a meeting with Members of the European Parliament – with a map of the conflict in her hands – where are we going to place a corridor or a buffer zone? How would we protect it and the humanitarian workers, in the absence of a Security Council resolution?

Our priority must be to help innocent civilians. As Commissioner Georgieva has explained to all of us, our chances of success greatly depend on our ability to maintain the neutrality of our humanitarian aid.

However, I issue a strong appeal to the Syrian authorities to allow more international humanitarian relief workers into the country to ensure that aid reaches all affected areas, and I reiterate my plea for all sides to respect international humanitarian law.

The brutal violence used by Bashar al-Assad and his regime – leaving 70 000 dead, a million fleeing from Syria and three million people displaced internally – cannot be justified under any circumstances.

We are constantly trying to adapt to the situation on the ground. Every single financial instrument available to the EU and its Member States has been engaged in our joint efforts to assist Syrians inside and outside the country, to provide assistance to refugees and their host countries, to support human rights activists in raising their cases, to support students to continue their studies and to help people simply to survive.

However, we have to be more effective and innovative, and we have expanded our help to the Syrian Opposition Coalition and its Assistance Coordination Unit as well as the Free Syrian Army. Syrians – wherever they are – must not feel abandoned by the international community. We are looking into the best way of channelling our assistance across the lines of fire and taking measures on the ground to reach those who need support, although we must also make sure our support reaches the right people and does not fall into the hands of extremists.

So far, we have provided EUR 100 million of non-humanitarian support. It is not yet enough, but we are determined to do as much as we possibly can. We are also leading the international donor coordination efforts and are preparing the ground for joint assessment activities for the important work to come once this conflict is over.

Both inside Syria and in neighbouring countries, we are the biggest donor in this crisis. I have already paid tribute, and I do so again, to the work of Kristalina Georgieva. Following the Kuwait conference on 30 January, the total of our humanitarian assistance will reach EUR 600 million. EUR 436 million is already committed: EUR 200 million from the EU budget, the rest from Member States.

I want to thank this House for helping in mobilising the funds from the Emergence Aid Reserve. The last tranche became available in December, but I have to tell honourable Members that we know that more is going to be needed.

That assistance provides shelter, support, emergency health care, water and sanitation, implemented by the Red Cross, by UN organisations and by the High Commissioner for Refugees, as well as NGOs. We are also mobilising in-kind assistance from EU Member States for refugees, using the EU civil protection mechanism – in April of this year for Turkey and in September for Jordan.

It is not easy. We want to reach more people in need. Together with our partners, we try to deliver assistance to all areas of Syria, including those that are fiercely disputed. Yet access is challenging – often impossible – and far too many innocent civilians are beyond the reach of our humanitarian agencies and workers. We have to find all the possible channels for delivering this assistance.

We know too that the constant stream of refugees puts an unsustainable burden on the socio-economic and, in some cases, political stability of the neighbours of Syria. One illustration: eight per cent of Lebanon’s inhabitants are refugees, and in Jordan the figure is six per cent. The situation is becoming critical. Like you, I have been to visit the camps and have seen the terrible situation there.

We cannot rule out that the conflict will drag on. We have to be prepared for a direct impact on the European Union too. Similarly, we have to prepare our ‘day after’ planning, and that means continuing to ensure that we are able to bring about, even now, a minimum of normalcy, with a governing authority ensuring order wherever possible, and with basic services being supplied.

Success, of course, depends on the willingness of all members of the international community to rally behind a political solution. We have to keep up the momentum, we have to avoid initiatives starting to disappear, and we have to support efforts to explore willingness on both sides to engage in the first steps of any approach.

We know from our recent contacts with Mr Brahimi, when he came to the Foreign Affairs Council, and from meetings with Sheikh al-Khatib that they are serious but they are cautious. Yet we agree that a political solution is necessary. In this spirit, we will continue to act with the clear intention of showing Assad that the EU is mobilising all efforts to oppose what is happening.

What is most important is to keep the momentum of al-Khatib’s initiative by creating space for dialogue, to work closely with Russia, with Arab partners, with our contacts in Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia – in short, to explore all options of engagement that can lead to some form of political dialogue further down the road. As Lakhdar Brahimi said to me and our Ministers a few days ago, the ‘Assad must go’ slogan is not a substitute for a political process, and a process is what we need if we are going to get out of this current impasse.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor Presidente, señora Alta Representante y Vicepresidenta de la Comisión, Señorías, quisiera que mis primeras palabras fuesen para expresar mi reconocimiento a la persona que ha muerto en la oficina de la Comisión Europea en Damasco. Hoy, que el egoísmo se erige casi como valor o —diría— como contravalor máximo, creo que este Parlamento y la Unión Europea tienen que prestar tributo de admiración, de reconocimiento y de respeto por todos aquellos que entregan su vida por defender los valores que inspiran a la Unión Europea.

Créame, señor Presidente, que me pesa volver a participar en un debate sobre la situación en Siria. La Alta Representante ha explicado bien cuál es la situación: 70 000 muertos, tres millones de desplazados en el interior del país, un millón de desplazados en los países vecinos y el 70 % del país destruido; y la comunidad internacional bloqueada por el veto chino y el ruso en el Consejo de Seguridad.

El otro día, el Grupo ALDE invitó al Comandante en Jefe de las fuerzas de oposición siria, quien dijo que, si dispusieran de los medios necesarios, podrían resolver la crisis y el problema en un mes. Mientras tanto, el Consejo de Ministros se ha reunido con el Enviado Especial Conjunto de las Naciones Unidas y de la Liga de los Estados Árabes y no ha adoptado ninguna conclusión.

Creo, señor Presidente, que hay una serie de preguntas que se imponen: ¿cuáles serían los términos de ese posible acuerdo político? ¿Qué pasa con el derecho y la responsabilidad de proteger? ¿Qué significan los «non-lethal equipments and technical assistance», señora Ashton? ¿Vamos a tener que seguir esperando a que los Estados Unidos nos saquen las castañas del fuego?

Creo realmente que estamos en una situación muy embarazosa, muy complicada. Usted nos ha dicho que dos Estados miembros que habían hablado de un levantamiento parcial del embargo no han planteado esta cuestión en el Consejo de Ministros. Señor Presidente, estamos verdaderamente en una situación dramática y lamentable, y creo que el mayor error que se puede cometer en estas circunstancias, cuando hay vidas humanas en juego, es precisamente el miedo a no cometer un error.

  Véronique De Keyser, au nom du groupe S&D. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Haute représentante, personnellement, je ne pense pas que ce soit ne rien faire que de se lancer dans une bataille humanitaire qui, aujourd'hui, dépasse tout ce qu'on a connu auparavant. Et je pense que cette bataille humanitaire est difficile, mais qu'elle est urgente et qu'elle tue parfois presque autant que la guerre.

On l'a dit, il y a un million de réfugiés à ce jour et ce chiffre augmente encore tous les jours. La situation déstabilise tous les pays de la région. Elle déstabilise le Liban. Elle déstabilise la Jordanie. Il faut saluer les efforts de la Turquie dans cette opération d'accueil. C'est presque du jamais vu, mais, hélas, la courbe est ascendante.

En même temps, un rapport des responsables de l'Unicef nous dit que, si la communauté internationale ne remplit pas ses engagements financiers nécessaires à cette aide humanitaire, ils seront en cessation de paiement dès le mois de mars et ils ne sauront plus fournir d'aide humanitaire. Et on entend Médecins sans frontières, on voit Mme Georgieva, nous dire qu'il y a à la fois des difficultés financières et des difficultés d'accès. Qu'on ne me dise pas que cette bataille-là ne vaut pas la peine d'être livrée. Je pense qu'aujourd'hui, avec le nombre qu'elle met en jeu de vies humaines, de femmes qui accouchent dans des camps, d'enfants qui sont aujourd'hui dépourvus de vaccination, de tout, ce n'est tout de même pas rester impuissant que de s'attaquer à cela.

Alors, maintenant, comme vous l'avez dit, la solution ne peut être que politique. Peut-on se servir d'un armement pour dire "ça va faire pression pour une négociation politique". Personnellement, je n'y crois pas. Je crois à une solution politique, mais j'ai l'impression – connaissant un peu la région – que la fourniture d'un surplus d'armement à un camp rebelle extrêmement hétérogène, que je respecte, et qui se bat de manière remarquable, que l'octroi d'un excès d'armement, dans cette guerre asymétrique, ne va pas faire moins de morts, mais plus, et qu'il faut mettre surtout l'accent sur le côté politique.

L'impuissance politique que nous ressentons aujourd'hui, je la ressens, vous la ressentez sans doute, mais elle ne trouvera pas de solution dans un surcroît d'armes. Ceux qui, dans l'opinion publique, et ils sont nombreux, veulent aider aujourd'hui les révolutionnaires syriens de la première heure, doivent faire attention avant de choisir leur camp.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, Baroness Ashton, we are now two years on from the start of the revolution and we are now at a death toll of 70 000, and we continue to see – and to say – that we need a political solution. Well, we have been working for such a solution for two years and the outcome is 70 000 dead in Syria and 70 000 new refugees every day.

In one of the refugee camps in the north, there are more than 10 000 children. They have nothing at all: they have gone for weeks without milk, for days without food; there are hardly any toilets and there is no heating. In these camps, where there are currently more than one million refugees, children die every day – and what we are doing?

Yes, we give money. Of course, we send aid. But almost none of that money or that aid is going to these people. No: our aid is going to the areas held by the regime because that, Mr President, is the way that the UN and the Red Cross work – through governments, through regimes, through Assad. That is why almost all our money is currently going only to the people loyal to Assad. It is not going to Aleppo, nor to Idlib, nor to Homs. Even worse, a few weeks ago three convoys were sent for the first time to the north of Syria bringing the wrong goods to the wrong places.

We have to understand that this is a humanitarian disaster. Our search for a political solution, as you describe it, has seen not only 70 000 killings, but also the development of a humanitarian disaster, and we rapidly need to change our way of seeing the problems in Syria.

First of all, Baroness Ashton, you know that General Idris, whom you have received, has asked for weapons. His argumentation is very clear: the embargo is currently working against the victims of Assad, not in favour of them. Fortunately, we are now seeing a change in a number of countries. Britain is now to send armoured vehicles; the Americans have promised armoured vehicles and what they call ‘non-lethal’ weapons. In my opinion, this is the first step towards ending the embargo – an embargo which, I repeat, is only working against the victims.

Then we have to do something on the issue of aid. We must try to ensure that this aid is given directly to the liberated areas. We should know that most of northern Syria has been liberated and is under the control of the Free Syrian Army, so it is not so difficult to do. Most of the camps lie right at the border with Turkey, so we need to stop thinking that we first require the approval of the Assad regime in Syria before we can act. There is now also – as has been confirmed to you by General Idris – a network organised by the Syrian National Council and the Free Syrian Army to distribute aid to the people who really need it. So the task is not so difficult. Do not tell me, Baroness Ashton, that it is difficult! Such words are for bureaucrats, but we are both politicians, and we need to find solutions. I hope that in the coming weeks you can bring about a dramatic change, at least on the humanitarian aid front.

  Hélène Flautre, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, je crois que Mme Ashton parlait aujourd'hui de neutralité de l'humanitaire et elle ajoutait cette phrase: "J'espère que le droit humanitaire sera respecté par toutes les parties." C'est vraiment ce qu'on appelle "se payer de mots".

Le principe de neutralité est en train d'être pulvérisé par la partialité de la délivrance de notre aide humanitaire sur le terrain – je ne reviens pas là-dessus. Vous avez, quand même, entendu l'histoire des camions qui arrivent à l'aéroport de Damas et envoient toute l'aide humanitaire dans les zones qui sont contrôlées par le régime? J'espère qu'on vous raconte des choses comme cela. Par conséquent, arrêtons un peu de parler de neutralité et essayons d'apporter, réellement, une aide impartiale, ce qui est très loin d'être le cas.

Vous dites que toutes les parties pourraient respecter le droit humanitaire alors que vous avez en face de vous un régime dirigé par Assad. Il tire sur les hôpitaux comme si c'étaient des cibles militaires. Il tue les médecins comme si c'étaient des combattants. Il envoie des Scuds sur sa population. Il détruit systématiquement les boulangeries pour créer la famine. Vos espoirs – je suis désolée de vous le dire, Madame Ashton – sont donc totalement vains et démentis tous les matins sur le terrain.

Il faudrait donc peut-être – comme vous le constatez d'ailleurs après les horreurs qui se multiplient sur le terrain – essayer de changer un peu l'approche. Et changer un peu l'approche, c'est peut-être considérer que, dans les zones qui sont libérées aujourd'hui, il y a cette Syrie de l'après-Assad qui est en train de se construire, par l'initiative des conseils locaux, par la coalition qui, jour après jour, rétablit les services de base. Ici et là, il y a des exemples tout à fait intéressants: l'eau potable, la farine, le pain, les services de santé, la justice et même un tribunal qui continue son travail dans la zone libérée d'Alep, le Conseil de la magistrature qui va être rétabli... Il faut donc voir cette Syrie de l'après-Assad qui est en train de se construire et il faut l'aider. Il faut l'aider absolument!

Puis, il faut arrêter de se faire peur et de se raconter des histoires. Qu'est-ce que l'ASL? La description en a été faite la semaine dernière au Parlement européen. C'est 300 000 personnes, dont 100 000 sont armées. Parmi ces 300 000, il y a 5 000 islamistes et djihadistes. Et parmi ces 5 000 , 4 500 sont syriens et 500 sont de l'étranger. Arrêtons de projeter nos fantasmes sur la situation syrienne et travaillons sérieusement. Oui, il faut...

(Le président retire la parole à l'oratrice)

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, each time we debate Syria the situation appears more desperate. Both sides are determined that they can win this war and seem content to entrench themselves in a battle of attrition regardless of the human cost. Assad, in particular, has reached the stage where he is prepared to reduce his once great country to a wasteland of rubble and blood, all for the purposes of retaining power and escaping justice – a megalomaniac’s Pyrrhic victory.

It is all too easy to become desensitised, but we must continue to reinforce the scale of this barbarity: a staggering 70 000 civilians killed, and a million or more displaced people causing a full-blown refugee crisis which has the potential to destabilise the region, in particular Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. The Lebanese Government, in particular, has taken a laissez-faire attitude which has exposed traumatised refugees to even more suffering. As with so many crises of this kind, women and children have suffered the most. Indeed one crucially under-reported feature of this war is the prevalence of rape as a weapon of terror. We also saw the ‘Save the Children’ report today which described children being used as informants and even as human shields.

It is hard to know how much worse the situation could become before Moscow feels compelled to do something to help or the Free Syrian Army can become armed and prevent arms going to the Salafists from the West, but in the meantime we must deploy every resource at our disposal to galvanise the international community and end this disaster.

  Bastiaan Belder, namens de EFD-Fractie. – Voorzitter, alle buurlanden van het zo bloedig verscheurde Syrië slaan momenteel alarm. Zij waarschuwen voor een imminente, regionale catastrofe. Kernwoorden daarbij zijn de aloude interne islamitische tweespalt tussen soennieten en sjiieten, en grensoverschrijdend jihadisme.

Intussen melden internationale media dat Europese landen zoals Frankrijk en Engeland op Jordaans grondgebied Syrische milities trainen en tegelijkertijd informeren Kroatische kranten dat vanaf het vliegveld Zagreb sedert maanden grote partijen wapens worden verzonden naar Syrische milities.

Mevrouw de hoge vertegenwoordiger, berusten deze mediaberichten op de feiten? En zo ja, hoe verhoudt zich deze betrokkenheid van lidstaten en een toekomstige lidstaat met het Europees beleid ten aanzien van de brandhaard Syrië?

Het hoeft geen betoog dat ik de humanitaire situatie erg dramatisch vind. Het meest schokkende dat ik heb gezien de laatste tijd, was een Syrische christin, ik denk een vrouw van tussen de dertig en veertig jaar, bij wie letterlijk een kruis in haar mondholte was gestoten. Hoe eerder aan deze vreselijke catastrofe een einde komt, des te beter. Laten we ons werkelijk inspannen om tot een politiek vergelijk te komen, maar dat kan niet samengaan met militaire interventie.

  Willy Meyer, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor Presidente, señora Ashton, en mi Grupo, evidentemente, estamos a favor de que se lleve a cabo una investigación rigurosa e imparcial de todos los crímenes terribles que se están perpetrando contra la población civil, atribuidos tanto al Gobierno como a la oposición, para condenar a los culpables.

Pero estos crímenes no deben alentar una intervención militar como las que se realizaron en Afganistán, en Irak o en Libia. Yo creo que deberíamos aprender, de una vez por todas, de las consecuencias de la intervención de Afganistán; no sabemos cómo salir de Afganistán, que está más talibanizado y, detrás, hay un reguero de muertes. Yo creo que la única solución posible es la apuesta política por una salida negociada, para que el pueblo sirio se ponga de acuerdo para buscar su autodeterminación.

Las noticias que aparecen en la prensa, de la magnitud de que los Estados Unidos están dando instrucción militar a fracciones de la oposición, fracciones que han secuestrado recientemente a veintiún cascos azules en los Altos del Golán, o del bombardeo de Israel sobre Siria, no son alentadoras. Van en el sentido contrario a lo que mi Grupo pretende. Y lo que pretende mi Grupo es llamar a las partes a la paz.

Efectivamente, no se puede echar más gasolina a este conflicto y, por lo tanto, merece la pena una concertación para dar todo nuestro apoyo al Enviado Especial de las Naciones Unidas, para que, de una vez por todas, las partes dejen de convertir a Siria en una cuestión geoestratégica y realmente prevalezca la paz.

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, Syria is, of course, anything but a democracy, but not many countries in the Middle East are, including of course its fiercest critic, Saudi Arabia. Nor for that matter are all of Mr Assad’s opponents in Syria democrats.

The Syrian government’s handling of the protest was, from the beginning, grossly disproportionate, but its brutality has sometimes been matched by the opposition. We can judge a regime also by its substantive policies. Before the conflict, women were relatively liberated in Syria. Religious minorities, particularly Christians, were free to worship without interference, although, of course, some Christians have been attacked by Islamist members of the opposition.

It is all very well to bemoan the huge humanitarian toll of the conflict, but that is what happens when neither side is capable of winning decisively. It is also what happens when the protagonists are armed, albeit covertly, by outsiders.

How long will it be before the armed forces of Member States are dragged into the conflict and body bags start to be flown home to Europe? How ethical was it, and is it, for the West to encourage other people to risk their lives to advance the West’s political agenda: that is, depriving Iran of an ally and Israel of an adversary? Was regime change really worth 70 000 lives?

The priority now must be to bring the bloodshed to an end. That can happen only when there are talks, without preconditions, on neutral territory.

  El Presidente. − Señorías, como les he indicado al principio de este debate, la señora Ashton tiene imperativamente que dejarnos a las siete porque sale para Pristina.

A mí me parece que sería más razonable darle la palabra ahora para que responda y reaccione ante los Grupos, que no pasar al turno de oradores que intervienen a título individual sin que después pueda contestar la Vicepresidenta.

Otra posibilidad sería darle la palabra al Comisario Füle después de dicho turno, pero me parece más pertinente que la señora Vicepresidenta reaccione ante las intervenciones de los Grupos políticos.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). - Mr President, I object. This is a democratic body. She is here to listen to us.

  El Presidente. − No voy a tener en consideración su objeción y voy a dar la palabra a la señora Vicepresidenta, porque el debate lo ordena el Presidente.

  Catherine Ashton, Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, I apologise that I have to leave, but of course I did not anticipate the terrible events of earlier today. I would otherwise have been with you for a longer period of time but, as you know, I have to go to Pristina this evening for the talks.

I wanted to answer on three or four key points that have been made. The first is that already you can hear the debate that I have seen in so many places in this House about how to effectively support the end of violence. Honourable Members here have talked about whether or not to engage in the supply of weapons in exactly the same conversations that, in my experience, have been happening in forums all over the world.

The first and most important issue that you wanted to discuss this evening was about how to get the humanitarian aid out. I accept that this has been incredibly difficult to do. Honourable Members know how important it is to try to work as effectively as possible with the agencies and the NGOs. If Commissioner Kristalina Georgieva had been here she would have again talked about the importance of ensuring that we keep humanitarian workers safe and humanitarian aid flowing as efficiently as possible. But it is because we know that it needs to be more effective that we have been working hard with the coalition to look at how we can work through their committee to get aid into different areas in Syria that we have not been reaching as effectively as we might have done.

My final point concerns the countries of the region and those who have increased their populations dramatically by the number of refugees. We are putting a lot of support into those countries and working with them very effectively but it is a very big problem. The numbers – as you have rightly indicated and as honourable Members have described – are increasing day by day. We get messages every day about how many people are crossing the borders, and we have to expect that influx to continue to grow.

Honourable Members, I share your deep concern and frustration about the situation. Every day we try to work out a more efficient and effective way to help and support the people, and we will continue to do that.

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE). - Mr President, I hope that Mrs Ashton can answer my question, because what I saw yesterday is that you had an External Affairs Council meeting and you spoke with Russia on a constructive dialogue or engagement.

Did you also speak on the Syrian question and on the delivery of arms and on the UN Security Council? That is more important for me than only having constructive engagement about Syria.

Secondly, you did not answer what we already asked for in Parliament in our resolution, which is safe havens for all the people who are now on the move in Syria. Three million citizens there are no longer living in their own houses.

Thirdly, the delivery of non-lethal weapons: France, the UK and the United States all promised this, but is there anything already done? Those would be my questions to Mrs Ashton.

  Catherine Ashton, VPC/HR. − Mr President, I should say to the honourable Member that I am always happy to answer questions in any way that I can.

The first thing to say is that when we were discussing Russia, which is getting ready for the European Council discussion on Russia, we talked about a whole range of different ways in which we engage with Russia. For example, we engage with them on the Iran E3+3 talks which, as you know, I led recently in Kazakhstan and will do again in two weeks time. We try to always work on our relationships and, when I meet with the Russian Foreign Minister, Syria is always on the agenda; and indeed in the Summits with President Putin, so to the same.

It is really important that we carry on engaging with them on all the different issues that we are confronted with and try and persuade them of the need to move forward to find the solution that so far has eluded us.

Secondly, in terms of what the Foreign Affairs Council does on weapons and non-lethal aid: I have put on the agenda of the Foreign Affairs Council, twice, discussions on what we should do in support of the people of Syria. This is a conversation, a discussion, a debate that goes on in every single Foreign Affairs Council and many conversations in between. Always, I talk about looking at all options; because it is very important that we have those debates in the detail that really will make our deliberations move us forward.

Regarding the issues of non-lethal aid and technical assistance: this is partly a clarification of what exactly we are trying to do to support the people, and ensuring, within the legal frameworks we operate in, that we are clear about what we are doing and what we are not doing.

I have made clear that in those debates no Member State suggested that we should lift the arms embargo and provide weapons. Nonetheless, we will continue to come back to those discussions because it is important to keep that debate going.

One of the big considerations, and it has been raised here already, is that in anything we do we have to answer the question: Do we think this will prevent deaths or do we think that this is actually going to make things more difficult? That, I have to say, is part of every discussion that we need to have.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - A crise agrava-se, como já foi dramaticamente descrito hoje, na Síria, nos países vizinhos.

A União Europeia tem-se empenhado no apoio humanitário e presta homenagem ao funcionário da delegação em Damasco, Ahmad Shihadeh, que pagou com a vida a sua dedicação a ajudar o povo sírio.

Mas o apoio humanitário não chega, não é meio para se alcançar uma solução política. Eu não defendo que se forneçam armas quando não se sabe a quem e como as vir a controlar, mas outros fornecem, não nos iludamos, apesar do embargo.

É urgente a União Europeia investir mais em negociações políticas, envolvendo, desde já, os principais atores na resistência a Bashar el-Assad, para favorecer a emergência de forças políticas com uma agenda democrática não sectária, inclusiva de todas as minorias na Síria pós-Assad. O processo pode estar distante, ser duro e moroso, mas vai ser indispensável porque, depois de Assad, vai travar-se outra batalha, pela reconstrução da Síria, pela construção de uma Síria democrática contra as forças totalitárias e obscurantistas que aproveitam a presente guerra para se implantar no terreno.

É preciso também dizer à Rússia e à China, em todas as oportunidades, discretamente e com os megafones que a diplomacia consente, que está na hora de assumirem as suas responsabilidades por esta catástrofe humana de proporções incalculáveis que vai possivelmente votar a Síria, mais um país, à categoria de Estado falhado. Tudo porque bloquearam e bloqueiam a ação do Conselho de Segurança da ONU.

É preciso que os crimes de guerra na Síria de Bashar el-Assad e de outros, incluindo de forças rebeldes, sejam remetidos ao Tribunal Penal Internacional.

(O Presidente retira a palavra à oradora)

  Marietje Schaake (ALDE). - Mr President, let me start by offering my condolences on the death of Ahmad Shihadeh, a policy officer at the EU representation in Damascus. Sadly the days when the deaths of individuals in Syria make European news are rare. Even as people are murdered by tens of thousands, we are still searching for solutions. While millions are on the run and countless are wounded and missing, what is the value of a human life?

Commissioner Georgieva wrote today that we need a political solution, yet many, including European citizens, are taking up arms and joining extremist networks that take the space that is left by the international community. The people in Syria are increasingly crushed between the murderous regime and violent extremists. Today, opposition members even took to the streets to demonstrate against Al-Nusra. It is a huge mistake to pretend that all opposition consists of extremists.

We as the European Union must get aid to the people and take the initiative for a UN mandate enabling direct cross-border operations from Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. Let us get more deeply involved in what happens in the refugee camps, so women do not continue to be abused and extremists cannot infiltrate. We need a strategy for the day after Assad – in a country full of weapons, with deep wounds, where there is such a desire for revenge in an ethnically-mixed society.

Concretely, the EU should also take in more Syrian refugees itself. We need to put Hezbollah on the EU’s terror list and we must do more to push Russia and others blocking a real political solution to finally take a stance and stop the killing of innocent civilians in Syria.

  Rui Tavares (Verts/ALE). - Há algumas coisas que eu não entendo neste debate. Os refugiados estão nos campos na Síria, um milhão deles em situação de emergência. Nós aprovámos neste Parlamento, já por duas vezes, um pacote de emergência para reinstalação de refugiados que estão precisamente nesta situação. Três milhões de euros num envelope separado sem precisar de ir buscar dinheiro ao Fundo Europeu de Refugiados. Porque é que não é usado? Há mulheres que são vítimas de violência física e sexual nestes campos. As nossas prioridades do Fundo Europeu de Refugiados dizem que elas devem estar na linha da frente para reinstalação. Porque é que essa medida ainda não foi implementada?

Diz a Sra. Ashton: é muito difícil fazer um corredor humanitário na Síria. Nós temos melhor que um corredor humanitário, nós temos uma fronteira com a Síria. A União Europeia esquece-se muitas vezes que Chipre está a 60km por mar da Síria, próximo da cidade de Lataquia, onde chegam toneladas de armas mas de onde não sai um refugiado para o território da União Europeia.

Estes refugiados, muitos deles, estão a ser radicalizados em países como o Qatar ou a Arábia Saudita e depois, evidentemente, a União Europeia vai queixar-se quando a Síria cair nas mãos dos extremistas mas antes não fez nada para impedir que isso acontecesse.

  Sajjad Karim (ECR). - Mr President, Syria is being allowed to stew. On the one hand, we say to the people, stand up for your rights and fight for your freedom. On the other hand, we are leaving them to the mercy of this dictator. These are not my views, these are views that are expressed to me by ordinary people throughout the region. This is the message that they are beginning to receive.

On top of that, what is their experience now in places like Jordan? Like Lebanon? The immense pressures of refugees on ordinary people is becoming far too great for them to bear.

Whilst on the one hand we are seeking to get countries like the UEA, like Kuwait, like Saudi Arabia, to come on board and work with us in a coordinated fashion, even that is not going to be enough.

My very final point is this: the EU embargo. It is due for renewal soon and it will not be our finest hour if any of our Member States have to go it alone, but that will happen if leadership is not provided at an EU level.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD). - Koleżanki i Koledzy! W ciągu ostatnich dwóch lat sytuacja w Syrii ewoluowała od ograniczanego powstania do ogólnokrajowej wojny domowej. Jej koszty to zniszczony kraj, około 70 tys. zabitych ludzi oraz 4 mln uchodźców – chociaż te dane zmieniają się z dnia na dzień, jak podkreśliła pani Ashton. Przyparty do muru prezydent Assad zdecydował się na strategię podziału społeczeństwa wzdłuż linii religijnych i etnicznych. Syria to kolejny kraj, w którym dżihadyści ukradli demokratyczną rewolucję. Jakże daleko jest prawo szariatu, sądy w Idlib, wypędzenie chrześcijan z Al-Rakka czy zamach bombowy na Uniwersytecie w Aleppo od szczytnych idei demokracji i wolności, którymi kierowali się protestujący w marcu dwa lata temu. Z poparciem zagranicy islamiści stanowią dziś awangardę sił powstańczych: najlepiej uzbrojoną, wyćwiczoną, karną i nieokiełznaną. Ta wojna dała im finansowe, jak i militarne zasoby, oraz otworzyła możliwości, jakich nigdy wcześniej nie mieli. To nasz błąd. Niestety ostatnie wycofanie sił syryjskich ze Wzgórz Golan i oddanie pola bojownikom stanowi także zagrożenie dla kruchej stabilizacji na Bliskim Wschodzie. Co nam pozostaje? Sądzę, że należy uznać Al-Nusra Front za organizację terrorystyczną, przedłużyć embargo na dostawy broni z Syrii oraz scentralizować przez Brukselę lub ONZ wszystkie dostawy humanitarne.

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL). - Cinco mil sírios fogem todos os dias da violência para os países vizinhos. É, sem dúvida, uma catástrofe humanitária que decorre de uma guerra que não devia existir. Mas uma guerra que não se trava entre sírios pois, ao contrário do que se tem dito, o que mais tem existido neste conflito é a intervenção internacional.

Hoje é público e assumido que esta guerra é arquitetada, financiada e conduzida desde o exterior e que, portanto, sem a ação criminosa dos Estados Unidos da América, das potências alinhadas da NATO, de Israel e das ditaduras do Golfo Pérsico, a atual guerra não seria possível.

Os mesmos que são considerados terroristas no Mali são na Síria transfigurados em exército livre, como foram na Líbia designados rebeldes. Para os Estados Unidos, tudo vale para a destabilização da região do chamado Grande Médio Oriente, tudo vale para defender os seus interesses no controlo da economia mundial e na geopolítica.

Muito bem, queremos proteger os cidadãos sírios e queremos a paz. A melhor forma de o fazermos a longo prazo é promovermos uma solução política que só será possível se não participarmos na intervenção estrangeira em curso na Síria, ou seja, não apoiarmos o treino e armamento de terroristas que se dedicam a destruir, a atacar e a saquear edifícios públicos, a atentar contra infraestruturas energéticas e a raptar cidadãos. Os refugiados sírios agradeceriam.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). - Mr President, in a dispute where up to 70 000 people have been killed and a million refugees have fled the country since the crisis began two years ago, the question must be posed: what good is Baroness Ashton? What is her highly expensive and ineffective EEAS achieving to alleviate the situation?

The answer is very little, just typical EU lip-service – or you are an expensive lipstick, Mrs Ashton. Your authority is highly questionable. You represent 27 nations who have different outlooks. You have been heavily criticised here today by members of all political groups. Indeed, Mr Cameron said the UK was still an independent country when threatening to veto an EU extension to the arms embargo. What does that make you? Redundant?

The situation in Syria is deplorable. His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has today visited a UN refugee camp in Jordan and described the situation as heart-breaking. What will you do? Will you at least begin by putting Hezbollah on the list of terrorist organisations?

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). - Aj ja by som chcel vyjadriť znepokojenie a frustráciu z humanitárnej krízy, ktorá pretrváva v Sýrii. Obávam sa, že v najbližšom období sa bude ešte viac eskalovať a že môže nielen destabilizovať región, ale mať aj negatívny vplyv na štáty EÚ. Obávam sa tiež, že aj po prípadnom skončení občianskej vojny sa humanitárna situácia Sýrčanov nezlepší. Sýria je príkladom rozpadajúceho sa štátu a jeho stabilizácia a budovanie bude trvať desaťročia. Musíme preto bez ilúzií zhodnotiť situáciu a hľadať možné východiská.

Súhlasím s vyjadreniami o tom, že je potrebné politické riešenie občianskej vojny v Sýrii. Treba ho hľadať nielen v Sýrii, ale tiež mimo nej. V tomto smere by mala Únia zintenzívniť svoje politické a diplomatické postavenie. Otázku humanitárnej krízy však treba riešiť okamžite. Verím, že Európska únia má prostriedky, ktorými môže prispieť k riešeniu a pomôže zmobilizovať pomoc, ktorá by odbremenila štáty susediace so Sýriou. Eskalácia humanitárnych problémov v týchto krajinách totiž môže uvrhnúť celý región do hlbokej krízy.

  María Muñiz De Urquiza (S&D). - Señor Presidente, el 30 de junio de 2012 se firmó un principio de acuerdo en Ginebra para un Gobierno de transición en Siria, un acuerdo alcanzado por el Grupo de Acción para Siria, que incluía a los Estados Unidos, Rusia, China, la Liga Árabe, las Naciones Unidas, la Unión Europea, Turquía, Francia y el Reino Unido, es decir, el conjunto de la comunidad internacional. ¿Qué ha ocurrido para que se abandonara ese principio de acuerdo, que es lo más sólido que hemos tenido en relación con el conflicto de Siria?

Creo que hay que volver a las Naciones Unidas, que hay que volver a la vía diplomática, que hay que retomar ese acuerdo de Ginebra, y creo que la Unión Europea, además de reforzar el aspecto humanitario —como ha recordado la señora De Keyser y ha confirmado que se está haciendo la Alta Representante—, debería estar proponiendo ya algunas nuevas ideas, como el aligeramiento de sanciones en los territorios liberados y el lanzamiento de programas de ayuda para las poblaciones de esos territorios. Y creo que las propuestas de aprovisionamiento de armas a los rebeldes o de crear pasillos humanitarios que no se pueden gestionar no son ni responsables ni realistas.

Además, me parece muy paradójico que quienes están proponiendo aquí que se aprovisione de armas a los rebeldes saben que sus Gobiernos en el Consejo no están de acuerdo con esa medida, y es un poco demagógico plantearlo en el Parlamento Europeo sabiendo que es inviable.

Y habría que ser conscientes de que Arabia Saudí, el país que ha ejecutado hoy mismo a siete personas, está armando a los grupos rebeldes, y no necesariamente a aquellos que están promoviendo una transición democrática en Siria.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE). - Monsieur le Président, nous avons d'un côté, en Syrie, la pire des guerres qui soit, c'est-à-dire une guerre civile, et de l'autre côté, une communauté internationale que je trouve absolument impuissante à agir. Et il me semble que nous devrions, ici, nous concentrer sur ce que nous pouvons et sur ce que nous devons faire.

Il y a deux urgences. Évidemment, l'urgence humanitaire, tout le monde en a parlé. Il faut – Hélène Flautre l'a très bien dit tout à l'heure – acheminer, cela c'est extrêmement concret, l'aide humanitaire dans les zones libérées, et en passant par la coalition et par l'ASL. Et cela, c'est, concrètement, absolument possible.

Il faut, deuxièmement, aider davantage les réfugiés qui sont dans les camps des pays voisins, autour de la Syrie. J'ai visité un certain nombre de ces camps. Évidemment, le flux de refugiés ne cesse de s'accroître et ces pays ont besoin de notre aide et d'une aide supplémentaire. Et ça, à nouveau, c'est concret. Je pense en particulier au Liban, qui est dans une situation absolument catastrophique.

Troisième point sur le plan humanitaire, nous pouvons aussi agir en faisant preuve, nous, Union européenne, de solidarité, en améliorant, par exemple, le traitement des demandeurs d'asile et l'accueil des réfugiés chez nous, au sein de l'Union européenne.

Et puis, il y a une deuxième urgence, qui est évidemment l'urgence politique. La Ligue arabe a lancé un appel à la Coalition nationale syrienne pour que celle-ci désigne une instance exécutive et participe ainsi au Sommet arabe de Doha. J'aurais aimé que Mme Ashton me donne son point de vue sur cette initiative. Moi, j'estime très important que les forces d'opposition syriennes se dotent d'un véritable gouvernement et je juge essentiel que nous pesions de tout notre poids, que l'Union européenne veille avec eux à ce que cette opposition inclue et intègre l'ensemble des communautés ethniques et religieuses dans son projet politique pour la Syrie.

Cette manière-là de rassembler les uns et les autres le plus largement possible, c'est la seule permettant d'éviter demain l'engrenage de violences intercommunautaires dans une Syrie, j'espère, libérée de son régime. C'est une des conditions, me semble-t-il, pour gagner la guerre demain, et c'est une des conditions pour gagner la paix.

  Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE). - Monsieur le Président, la Syrie d'aujourd'hui, c'est 70 000 morts, deux millions et demi de personnes déplacées à l'intérieur du pays et un million de réfugiés dans les pays limitrophes. La situation humanitaire est catastrophique et dramatique en Syrie et l'aide apportée est dérisoire, au regard des besoins.

Le plus terrible concerne les enfants. Deux millions de Syriens mineurs souffrent de malnutrition, de maladies et de traumatismes multiples. Quelles actions envisagez-vous pour eux? La liste des morts s'allonge, alors qu'entre les agendas américain et suisse, l'Europe tergiverse.

L'Union doit, rapidement et fermement, mobiliser tous les acteurs, pour une sortie de crise effective et durable. Une volonté politique forte de l'UE permettrait de sauver des vies et de trouver une solution politique à la crise syrienne. Je demande à la Haute représentante de l'Union pour les affaires étrangères et la politique de sécurité de conclure d'urgence un accord sur l'aide humanitaire, permettant aux populations d'accéder aux convois par-delà les frontières et les lignes de front et garantissant la sécurité des travailleurs humanitaires, des structures médicales et des patients.

  Boris Zala (S&D). - Mr President, for nearly two years the European Union pursued a policy of restraint and caution in Syria. Perhaps it was the right strategy at the time, but instead of getting closer to a resolution, the civil war in Syria reached a stalemate that could last for years and devastate the country for decades to come.

I therefore support the calls of the British and French Governments to ease the conditions of the EU arms embargo so that we can provide adequate support to the opposition. However, it should be a decision taken by the EU as a whole, and of course, coordinated with the US, Turkey and the Arab League. Maybe such action could support the Arab League to intervene and help establish an interim government in Syria.

I am well aware of the risks of supplying lethal assistance to the rebels. However, as things stand today, and in view of the humanitarian situation in Syria, the risks of inaction are higher.

  Charles Goerens (ALDE). - Monsieur le Président, depuis que les drames ont éclaté en Syrie, la communauté internationale ne cesse de répéter qu'il n'y a pas d'issue militaire à ce conflit.

D'un côté, nous avons le régime syrien armé jusqu'aux dents, disposant de chars, d'avions et sans doute d'armes chimiques. De l'autre, nous voyons la coalition anti-Assad exposée, sans défenses suffisantes, à la barbarie d'un dictateur qui prend pour cible son propre peuple, lequel aspire à pouvoir vivre une vie normale, en jouissant des droits et libertés fondamentaux les plus élémentaires.

Nous ne pouvons que constater notre incapacité à faire, sur le plan militaire, ce qui serait nécessaire pour hâter la mise en place d'un processus politique. Pourtant, l'on voit mal l'alternative efficace à l'octroi d'une aide militaire, y compris la livraison d'armes aux forces rebelles, et ce, d'autant plus que le régime Assad voit ses livraisons d'armes assurées, notamment, par un État membre du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies.

Nos espoirs vont donc, en ces temps dramatiques, vers deux autres États membres du Conseil de sécurité, en l'occurrence, le Royaume-Uni et la France, qui ont prouvé par le passé qu'il ne fallait pas attendre l'accord des Vingt-sept pour arrêter les mesures appropriées.

Un dernier mot sur l'action humanitaire de Mme Georgieva. Son action est exemplaire, je tiens à le souligner. Ne réduisons pas, dans nos commentaires, son action à l'incapacité d'atteindre toutes les victimes. Elle est vraiment la dernière à devoir assumer cette responsabilité.

(Applaudissements)

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D). - Mr President, what is happening in Syria today is inconsistent with the maxim that history never repeats itself. An original tragedy that occurred in Afghanistan 30 years ago is being repeated today in the shape of an even greater tragedy. I say this because we know from reliable sources that most of the weapons sent to Syria by the United States and its allies for the purpose of toppling the Assad regime are ending up in the hands of Islamist extremists who are just like the Afghan Mujahideen of the 1980s.

We would be kidding ourselves if we thought that any outside player is capable of controlling the ultimate fate of the weapons that it supplies. Arming the Syrian opposition against a brutal but militarily-strong regime means drastically reducing the chances of a soft landing when Assad falls. If he falls, armed opposition will not demobilise, and it is again the Afghan lesson that should be learned. After 12 years of war and military occupation, the only solution is still the diplomatic and political one: that is the only solution that should be pursued today.

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

  Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE). - Îmi pare rău că Dna Vicepreşedintă nu mai este cu noi. Doresc să aduc în dezbatere problemele cu care se confruntă cei peste 525 000 de refugiaţi palestinieni aflaţi în prezent în Siria. Dacă, înainte de începerea conflictelor, aceştia constituiau una dintre cele mai sărace comunităţi, acum refugiaţii palestinieni sunt printre cei care au cel mai mult de suferit. Cifrele disponibile sugerează peste 1 000 de decese în rândul acestora, alţi peste 200 000 de refugiaţi palestinieni au fost deplasaţi în interiorul teritoriului.

Agenţia competentă a Naţiunilor Unite răspunde activ la nevoile refugiaţilor palestinieni, însă are nevoie de finanţări suplimentare. De la începutul violenţelor din Siria, Libanul a primit până acum peste 20 000 de refugiaţi palestinieni din acest stat, situaţia devenind extrem de greu de gestionat. Orice demersuri pentru rezolvarea crizei umanitare din Siria trebuie să ţină cont şi de refugiaţii palestinieni. Să nu uităm că aceşti oameni sunt de două ori refugiaţi: o dată s-au refugiat din ţara lor, iar acum din ţările care i-au primit.

  Franz Obermayr (NI). - Herr Präsident! Ich habe bei Frau Ashton leider vermisst, dass sie die Leistung der libanesischen Behörden gebührend würdigt, die ja vor eine schwere Aufgabe gestellt sind. Während einer Reise der Delegation für die Beziehungen zu den Maschrik-Ländern konnte ich mich vor Ort von der dramatischen humanitären Situation im Libanon überzeugen, insbesondere in den Camps, wo lediglich circa 300 000 Flüchtlinge registriert sind. Man spricht von einer Dunkelziffer von 800 000 bis 900 000, die bei Verwandten leben. Unvorstellbar, das entspricht fast einem Fünftel der libanesischen Bevölkerung! Das ist ungefähr so, als würde in zwei Jahren ein Drittel der Bevölkerung Wiens neu zuwandern.

Libanon ist überfordert, da müssen wir helfen. Aber auch die Arabische Liga ist gefordert zu helfen. So sollen hier die Golfstaaten, insbesondere Saudi-Arabien, nicht nur Gruppen, die salafistisch und fundamentalistisch sind, unterstützen, sondern sie sollen auch Flüchtlingen helfen. Das wollen sie aber anscheinend nicht, denn es würde sie in ihrer archaischen, patriarchalischen Behaglichkeit offensichtlich zu sehr stören. Die EU muss hier schon darauf dringen, dass diese Länder ihre Verantwortung auch übernehmen.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). - Arvoisa puhemies, suurimman vahingon sota saa aikaan niille, joilla on koko elämä edessään. Sekä kapinallisten että hallituksen joukot ovat värvänneet jopa 12- ja 13-vuotiaita poikia joukkoihinsa lapsisotilaiksi. Tämä on kansainvälisen humanitaarisen oikeuden rikkomus. Unicefin mukaan jopa puolet kiireellisen avun tarvitsijoista on alle 18-vuotiaita, joista yli 500 000 on alle 5-vuotiaita. Vaarana on siis kokonaisen sukupolven menettäminen sodan takia.

YK on arvioinut, että pakolaisten määrä saattaa kaksin- ellei kolminkertaistua tämän vuoden aikana, mikäli kriisi jatkuu. EU:n onkin tuettava Syyrian naapurimaita pakolaisvirtojen hallitsemisessa ja avun tarjoamisessa heille. Pakolaisten kohtelu on monin paikoin erittäin huonoa.

Kansainvälinen yhteisö ei ole tehnyt tarpeeksi Syyrian kriisin ratkaisemiseksi. Maan kansalaisia ei voida jättää oman onnensa nojaan.

  Ρόδη Κράτσα-Τσαγκαροπούλου (PPE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θέλω να τονίσω ότι η ανθρωπιστική βοήθεια δεν είναι αρκετή. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση έχει φερθεί με γενναιοδωρία. Πρέπει όμως να καταλάβουμε ότι τα ποσά που έχουν δεσμευθεί στη συνάντηση του Κουβέιτ πρέπει να καταβληθούν. Ήμουν στον Λίβανο πρόσφατα με τον κ. Obermayr και άλλους συναδέλφους και είδαμε ότι μόνον μέχρι τον Ιούνιο με την ταχεία αύξηση που έχει το μεταναστευτικό ρεύμα φτάνουν οι πόροι που έχει ο ΟΗΕ.

Πρέπει να πιέσουμε λοιπόν όχι για την καταβολή των δικών μας πόρων αλλά για την καταβολή από τους διεθνείς δωρητές και για τον συντονισμό αυτής της βοήθειας, τη μη πολιτικοποίηση αυτών που πηγαίνουν εκεί, γιατί και αυτό είναι ένας κίνδυνος, και δεύτερον, χρειάζεται να πιέσουμε για πολιτική λύση, διότι η κατάσταση γίνεται έκρυθμη στον Λίβανο, πιέζει για άλλους λόγους την Ιορδανία, ο δε Λίβανος είναι η μόνη χώρα που κρατά ανοικτά τα σύνορά της αλλά δεν μπορεί να απορροφήσει και το ρεύμα των προσφύγων που έχουν φτάσει εκεί.

Λοιπόν, με δεδομένα όλα μαζί τα εσωτερικά πολιτικά θέματα που ανακύπτουν, σίγουρα θα υπάρξουν αρνητικές επιπτώσεις στην περιοχή και στην παγκόσμια ειρήνη.

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

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, thank you very much. I have followed this discussion on this moving and important subject. I have also followed it because I have visited the region. Only last week I visited Lebanon, but I will come back to that.

I am also, of course, participating in all the discussions the Foreign Affairs Council is having on Syria so I can only confirm what Cathy Ashton, the High Representative, said here a couple of minutes ago on an arms embargo, about which there is really nothing I can add.

Let me make five other points, not substituting but in addition to what the High Representative said. The first point is about our role. With our role, with our assistance, with us being credible because whatever we pledged, we deliver on it: because of us this crisis is manageable. Without the European Union, we could hardly have described the crisis as being manageable.

The second issue: the truth is that a couple of months ago, we began thinking about starting to look at our assistance for the day after, trying to figure out what kind of modern, transformed Syria we would like to see. But as there is no light at the end of the tunnel, as there is only a bleak prospect for a political solution as the days and weeks pass, we are now focussing more and more on how to handle what is becoming a regional crisis.

It is not only Cathy Ashton as High Representative, it is not only Kristalina Georgieva, my colleague from the cabinet, and it is not only me: the whole Commission and all the Member States are trying to do their best because of the scale of the crisis, and I will come back to the scale of this crisis.

The next point is about getting the assistance first of all to those in Syria. Let me make it clear that we are trying to be innovative here. We are now working more closely with the Syrian coalition, with the Syrian Liberation Army, with the local authorities. We are trying to map out the needs and the possibilities on the ground. It is not an easy task, because although you might have some areas liberated, others are not and those areas pose a danger. But we are keen, facing this tragedy inside Syria, to be as innovative as possible in getting the assistance to those in need.

The next point is about assistance outside of Syria. Countries which are already suffering because of the huge amounts of refugees, like Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, will have to bear even more responsibility here, but they will not be able to do so without our assistance and support, and here the European Union is not one of the biggest, it is the biggest contributor to humanitarian aid.

However, we are not only financing the needs of the refugees. What is more and more important – I have just talked about the emerging regional crisis – is that we also support more and more the hosting communities in those countries, which are under greater and greater stress.

In Lebanon they prepared a plan in January on how to help the refugees, planning or forecasting, estimating that by summer time there were going to be around 300 000 refugees from Syria in Lebanon. That level was reached a couple of days before I went to Lebanon and some of my interlocutors were talking about a possible one million, or one and a half million refugees by the end of this year. Without us, proceeding with this integrated assistance, helping the refugees and at the same time the hosting community, Lebanon would not be able to withstand the pressure – Lebanon as we know it.

We are not forgetting the Palestinians, nor any other group, and I had a possibility in Lebanon to meet some of those who were registered by the UNHCR and some of those who have been registered by UNRWA, and I have heard a number of personal stories, including the personal stories of Palestinians fleeing Syria, then being put in one of the camps in Lebanon and, after being confronted with the conditions there, fleeing back to Syria, being confronted with the even more intensified fighting there, and fleeing again back to Lebanon. Those are the stories but one really cannot imagine the reality.

This is what is driving us to do more than just saying a political solution is needed. We are creating and using whatever the European Union is offering us to help alleviate the situation, not only in Syria but also the region around.

  El Presidente. − Se cierra el debate.

Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 149 del Reglamento)

  Joanna Senyszyn (S&D), na piśmie. – Sytuacja w Syrii jest katastrofalna i pogarsza się z dnia na dzień. Według ONZ, konflikt w Syrii pochłonął już ponad 60 tysięcy ofiar. 2 miliony osób opuściło swoje domy w poszukiwaniu bezpiecznego schronienia. Prawie milion osób uciekło przed skutkami wojny do pobliskich krajów: Jordanii, Iraku, Libanu oraz Turcji. W sumie 4 miliony ludzi potrzebuje pomocy, to jest o trzy miliony więcej niż w ubiegłym roku. Prawie 80 procent wszystkich uchodźców to kobiety i dzieci. Każdy kolejny dzień, miesiąc to kolejne ofiary. W pierwszej kolejności Syria potrzebuje pomocy medycznej oraz dostaw żywności i wody. W miarę rozprzestrzeniania się walk w różnych częściach Syrii udzielanie pomocy staje się coraz trudniejsze. Do tego dochodzą ciężkie warunki pogodowe. Poprawy wymaga komunikacja między kluczowymi partnerami dostarczającymi pomocy humanitarnej oraz koordynacja prowadzonych w tym zakresie działań. Potrzeba też regionalnego planu awaryjnego, gwarantującego stałość pomocy dla ludności lokalnej, w przypadku gdyby organizacje humanitarne musiałyby opuścić Damaszek.

15. Положението в Мали (разискване)

  El Presidente. − El punto siguiente en el orden del día es el debate a partir de la Declaración de la Vicepresidenta de la Comisión y Alta Representante de la Unión para Asuntos Exteriores y Política de Seguridad sobre la situación en Mali.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, the last time we discussed the situation in Mali, on 15 January, the situation was in full crisis. I want to explain the progress made since then, the European Union’s role in it, the challenges that remain, and what we are doing to support Mali – and the region – in overcoming them, so that the people of Mali can live in peace and security and return to the path of development.

I must pay tribute first of all to the efforts and sacrifices of one Member State, France, in driving the terrorists out of the cities and regions of the north, taking the battle to their retreats in the northern mountains. I pay tribute also to all those who have provided support to that effort, whether European, African or American, in particular the armed forces of Chad, who have made a significant sacrifice. Thanks to these efforts, the people of northern Mali have been liberated from control by the terrorists, but we must not underestimate the threat that remains. This requires security forces to remain present and active, to head off potential terrorist attacks in the future. But the situation is now very different.

We are today acting on all fronts in a coordinated manner. This is an illustration of what a comprehensive approach is all about and how we turned it into concrete actions. Since the extraordinary Foreign Affairs Council in January, we have convened two Crisis Platforms, with all EU services involved, in order to produce a comprehensive overview of our activities – covering the European Union Training Mission, our support to the African-led International Support Mission to Mali (AFISMA) and a quick identification of a stabilisation and development package.

We have also immediately deployed in the field an inter-service mission to support our delegation in Bamako. This has made it possible to identify European Union activities in the field of stabilisation and development, but also to start implementing them. Our work involves liaising diplomatic activity with security and policy development in a mutually reinforcing way.

On the security side, our long-term objective is to enable the Malian security services and armed forces to protect their own citizens. This is why we accelerated the planned launch of the EU Training Mission to 18 February. The Force Commander is there and the first counselling actions have already taken place. If things go according to plan, training of forces should begin in April. This has required great effort on the part of the Member States, but there has been a real collective will to act.

With this training mission, we aim to help the re-structuring of the armed forces to ensure their effectiveness and we plan to make sure that human rights is part of the training of the Malian troops. United Nations human rights experts are already in the field and we are also working with the African Union to provide monitors to AFISMA forces. It is encouraging that Mali has withdrawn five of its troops from Timbuktu following accusations of human rights abuses. This must be taken seriously.

There are still challenges in re-equipping the Malian forces, but we are working on it. It will take time for the Malian forces to be ready. The European Union is therefore supporting AFISMA with EUR 50 million, committed at the fund-raising meeting hosted by the African Union on 29 January 2013. A number of Member States are helping train and equip AFISMA troop-contributing countries.

As you know, converting AFISMA into a UN-hatted force would assure future funding. The discussions on such an option are presently going on in New York, where the United Nations Secretary General should report to the Security Council before the end of this month.

On the political track, the High Representative hosted a meeting in Brussels of the International Follow-up and Support Group on 5 February. The Malian Government presented its roadmap for the transition back to democratic and constitutional rule. The European Union has pledged to support its implementation.

On behalf of the High Representative, I would like to stress two key elements. Firstly, the establishment of the National Commission for Dialogue and Reconciliation on 6 March, which should bring together all the different political forces in the country, including from the north, to discuss how to rebuild the country’s political structures on an inclusive basis. It is essential that the political structure is free of military influence and inspires the trust of all communities. Secondly, the holding of presidential elections by end of July 2013, to re-establish a legitimate national government following the coup d’état a year ago, which interrupted the elections planned for April last year. Legislative elections will follow later. We will provide assistance to the electoral process and, as you know, we are examining the possibility of an electoral observation mission.

Finally, on the development and stabilisation track: European Union Development Ministers have agreed to gradually resume European Union aid to Mali. EUR 250 million is available under the EDF for state-building contract budget support and specific projects in the field of small irrigation and key infrastructure. An additional EUR 20 million of fast-disbursing assistance is available from the Instrument for Stability to support the restoration of public authorities and services in post-conflict areas, for reconciliation activities and for the first phase of the electoral process.

We will host two important meetings in the near future to support Mali. In early April the High Representative will co-chair, with Ms Bachelet, the UN Women’s Envoy, and with Romano Prodi, the UN Special Envoy for the Sahel, a meeting on Women in the Sahel. Their role will be vital in re-establishing a stable and viable future for the region. Women’s rights and gender balance must be an integral part of everything we do. Talent is wasted, wisdom is lost and economic opportunities are missed when a society refuses to break with inequality, whether in North Africa, Europe or indeed the Sahel.

Secondly, in mid-May, the European Union and France will convene in Brussels a High Level International Conference on Development in Mali, to bring together the key donors to coordinate our support for the reconstruction of the country. The Government of Mali will present its 2013-14 National Action Plan as a basis for our collective action to help restore the economy and government services.

The High Representative is conscious that solving Mali’s problems, in development and food resilience as much as in the struggle against terrorism and political exclusion, requires an approach that encompasses the whole Sahel region. That is the principle underlying the EU’s Strategy for Security and Development in the Sahel, which remains as relevant as ever. In the same spirit, a European Union Special Representative for the Sahel is to be nominated in the coming days.

The European Union will remain heavily engaged and fully committed to Mali and the region. It is in our interests to do so, as instability in the Sahel can threaten our own citizens. So we will continue to help the people of Mali in their efforts to re-establish their sovereignty, democracy and prosperity.

IN THE CHAIR: EDWARD McMILLAN-SCOTT
Vice-President

  Arnaud Danjean, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, merci d'avoir rendu hommage aux soldats français qui se battent depuis maintenant deux mois au Mali. Il est vrai que, parmi tous les dossiers que nous abordons aujourd'hui, qui sont des dossiers extrêmement importants, tragiques pour beaucoup d'entre eux monopolisant presque huit heures de débats de politique étrangère, il faudrait quand même rappeler que le Mali est le seul de ces endroits où les soldats d'un État membre de l'Union européenne combattent au nom de l'Union européenne, puisqu'il y a un soutien unanime des Vingt-sept, et tombent. La France a déjà perdu quatre soldats dans ce qui est une guerre.

Et j'espère d'ailleurs que, à l'occasion de cette année où la politique de sécurité et de défense commune est à l'agenda du Conseil, nous pourrons réfléchir un peu à la question de la solidarité, parce que la solidarité, ce ne sont pas seulement des dispositifs financiers, mis en œuvre lors des crises économiques et sociales. Ce devrait être aussi des mécanismes pour aider les États qui s'engagent au nom des autres et qui perdent des soldats au nom des autres sur des terrains d'intérêt commun, face à des menaces communes. Vous nous avez parlé de la stabilisation et de la sécurisation, qui restent des enjeux extrêmement sensibles, aujourd'hui encore. C'est loin d'être terminé, ces combats.

Je vous avoue que je m'interroge – et je m'inquiète un peu – sur le passage de témoin à une opération de maintien de l'ONU, parce que, si l'ONU est nécessaire pour donner une légitimité à toutes ces opérations sur le plan juridique, l'efficacité, le côté opérationnel des chaînes de commandement onusiennes ne nous ont pas laissé que des souvenirs impérissables, là où elles se sont déployées. Je m'interroge donc quelque peu sur les délais pris par cette mécanique et sur l'efficacité, qui se manifestera sur le terrain, de ce passage de témoin, qui est encore loin d'être achevé.

Sur le processus politique, vous l'avez rappelé, il y a encore beaucoup d'incertitudes. On nous a annoncé, il y a deux mois maintenant, lors d'un Conseil Affaires étrangères extraordinaire, la nomination d'un représentant spécial de l'Union européenne, qui viendra s'ajouter à un représentant spécial de l'ONU, qui s'ajoute lui-même à un représentant spécial de l'Union africaine. J'espère que nous ne nous embarquons pas dans des épisodes trop connus de manque de coordination et de dilution des responsabilités dans ce processus politique.

Par la force des événements que nous n'avons malheureusement pas su anticiper, avec une stratégie Sahel qui était pourtant décidée depuis 2011, nous sommes amenés aujourd'hui à considérer que le Mali est une zone prioritaire pour la mise en œuvre de cette fameuse stratégie globale, cette approche globale, que vous vantez. N'oublions jamais que l'approche globale, telle que nous la mettons en œuvre aujourd'hui, nous est imposée. Elle est subie. J'espère que, à l'avenir et à très court terme, l'Union européenne fera autre chose que de subir, qu'elle sera vraiment proactive dans la mise en œuvre de cette approche globale.

  Véronique De Keyser, au nom du groupe S&D. – Monsieur le président, je tiens à exprimer l'admiration que m'inspire aussi l'action que la France a menée; nous avons déjà eu l'occasion d'en discuter au moment où démarrait l'opération du Mali.

Nous savons que nos amis maliens appelaient au secours depuis très longtemps. Depuis près d'un an, ils nous appelaient, nous, Européens, et finalement la France y est allée quand il était presque trop tard.

Ce qui s'est déployé, aujourd'hui, mérite aussi nos louanges. Effectivement, et c'est presque surréaliste – pardonnez-moi, parce qu'on vient d'un débat sur la Syrie où on ne parvient qu'à adopter une attitude très défensive –, ici, de voir, dans un pays qui n'est pas plus simple que la Syrie, que nous avons pu, à la suite de la France, et après la stratégie Sahel de 2011, déployer un ensemble de structures et avancer dans un processus politique qui n'est pas encore terminé, mais qui pourrait se dérouler convenablement. Jusqu'à présent, je n'ose pas dire, compte tenu des soldats français qui sont tombés, que c'est une success story. Je n'ose pas le dire compte tenu aussi des femmes qui ont été violées à Tombouctou. Mais, je voudrais dire, tout de même, que c'est tout à l'honneur de l'Europe.

Il reste maintenant quelques points qu'il faudrait peut-être revoir. Je voudrais que la mission européenne de training qui vient de se mettre en place soit une mission arborant des drapeaux européens. On a dû, je crois, mettre à sa tête un général français – il est vrai que la France y est un acteur privilégié – mais il est, effectivement, temps que les couleurs européennes s'imposent là-bas. Nous avons été si lents à agir.

Une deuxième chose, je vous remercie, Monsieur le Commissaire, pour ce que vous avez dit sur la prise en compte des droits de l'homme et des droits de la femme. Droits de l'homme pour l'armée. Droits de la femme, je l'espère aussi, au niveau de la justice, parce que la commission de dialogue et de réconciliation, elle, réconcilie. Mais je voudrais que la justice se mette en place aussi et qu'il n'y ait pas d'impunité pour les crimes qui se sont déroulés là-bas.

Enfin, un point qui reste un point d'interrogation: tout cela ne nous permet pas encore de contrer le mal endémique que constituent le trafic de drogue, le terrorisme et le kidnapping. Je ne suis pas sûre que ce que nous avons mis en place permettra de venir à bout de ce fléau qui ronge l'Afrique en son centre.

  Louis Michel, au nom du groupe ALDE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, Monsieur le Secrétaire général, je viens de conduire une mission d'étude et d'information au Mali, au nom de l'Assemblée parlementaire paritaire ACP-UE.

Chers collègues, je voudrais vous faire part d'un certain nombre de considérations que m'inspire cette mission. De grands progrès ont été, évidemment, réalisés à la suite de l'intervention française mais, je crois, quand même, devoir vous dire qu'il reste un certain nombre d'incertitudes, de risques et de menaces.

L'initiative du Président François Hollande et de son gouvernement mérite tout notre soutien. Or, même si un certain nombre de pays européens se sont mobilisés, il faut bien admettre que leurs engagements demeurent, souvent, en-deçà des besoins, voire, dans certains cas, simplement déclamatoires.

Les contributions actuelles des États membres ne suffisent pas. Notre analyse nous conduit à lancer un appel pressant, pour que leurs contributions en hommes, en logistique et en matériel soient à la mesure de la prise de risque de la France et de l'enjeu que représente le conflit malien. Je veux le dire avec force: la guerre qui secoue le nord du Mali est une guerre qui dépasse largement le Mali. C'est une guerre qui nous concerne tous directement! Nous ne pouvons pas laisser la France, seule, face à ce défi. Cette mission nous instruit sur un certain nombre de réalités qui vont, d'ailleurs, à contre-courant d'un ressenti souvent approximatif de la réalité.

Ma première conviction est, aujourd'hui, que la cause du conflit malien n'est ni malienne, ni touareg, ni ethnique mais que ce conflit est le fait de mouvements non maliens, l'AQMI, le MNLA, le Mujao, l'Ansar Dine, le MIA. Tous ces mouvements se sont alliés pour le pire en fonction de leurs intérêts particuliers. Les djihadistes ont tiré les ficelles de ce jeu sordide. On le sait, le terrorisme est une menace globale. L'attentat d'Im Amenas en Algérie en est une illustration.

Ma deuxième conviction est que nous ne pouvons pas sous-estimer la posture et le statut particulier du capitaine Sanogo, promu président du comité militaire de réforme des forces de sécurité. Il reste un personnage inquiétant. Le mandat et la visibilité qu'on lui a confiés avec une grande légèreté, voire une grande imprudence, lui confèrent une capacité réelle de nuisance. Son rôle le met en contact, directement, avec toute la hiérarchie militaire, dont il se fait le porte-voix syndical. Les partenaires internationaux ont tout intérêt à accélérer la restructuration de l'armée. Cela me paraît vraiment urgent.

Ma troisième conviction, vous en avez parlé, c'est la transformation de la MISMA en force de maintien de la paix des Nations unies chargée de stabiliser le pays. Elle ne sera acceptable à mes yeux que, pour autant que cette force ne se limite pas au maintien de la paix, mais soit en mesure de faire du peacemaking et, donc nous ne saurions trop insister pour que le mandat de cette nouvelle mission permette des interventions fortes, fondées sur une éventuelle utilisation de la contrainte. Par conséquent, un mandat renforcé des Nations unies est incontournable à mes yeux.

Ma quatrième conviction, comme le disait le ministre français de la défense, Jean-Yves Le Drian, il y a deux jours, c'est qu'il faut entamer au plus vite le processus politique. Il a raison. Ce processus doit reposer sur trois exigences. Il faut organiser des élections le plus rapidement possible et ne pas donner le champ à des explications ou à des prétextes pour les retarder. Ce serait, de mon point de vue, une erreur. Le chronogramme qui a été proposé par le gouvernement me paraît juste. Deuxième exigence, on l'a dit, il faut activer la commission de dialogue et de réconciliation. Je suis d'accord, Monsieur le Commissaire. Si l'on veut que ce soit une commission apaisante, il faut qu'elle soit inclusive bien entendu. La troisième exigence dont on n'a pas parlé, aujourd'hui, c'est l'absolue nécessité d'associer les pays du champ et de la région. Il n'y aura pas de stabilisation au Mali si on n'a pas inclus dans le processus tous les pays de la région.

Enfin, cela vient d'être dit – et je partage évidemment cet avis –, il serait grand temps que l'Europe puisse parler et agir d'une seule voix et puisse jeter les bases d'une armée européenne capable d'être projetée dans des champs d'opération de ce type-là.

  Nicole Kiil-Nielsen, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, la rébellion touareg de janvier 2012, l'occupation islamiste du Nord, puis le coup d'État militaire ont généré une situation dramatique au Mali.

Dès janvier 2012, au moins 70 soldats maliens sont torturés et exécutés sommairement. Les civils subissent de graves exactions: abus sexuels, enrôlements d'enfants, exécutions, destruction de précieux sites culturels, des milliers de personnes déplacées.

Pour nous, écologistes, la guerre propre n'existe pas. Et ceux qui prennent la responsabilité de l'offensive armée doivent savoir qu'ils prennent la responsabilité de destruction et des violences contre les civils et, d'abord, contre les femmes.

Depuis le lancement de l'opération Serval, des exactions commises par des membres de l'armée malienne sont signalées. La mission de l'ONU dénonce des représailles contre certains groupes ethniques. Le ministre de la défense français, Jean-Yves Le Drian, a d'ailleurs appelé le commandement malien à être extrêmement vigilant. La lumière doit être faite et la justice appliquée à tous les responsables de tous les crimes commis depuis janvier 2012. Depuis plus d'un an hélas, on a réveillé les vieux démons de la haine ethnique entre Maliens de peau noire et Maliens de peau blanche, sur cette vaste zone désertée par tous les fonctionnaires.

Les institutions, qui pourraient prévenir les débordements dus à la radicalisation des groupes ethniques, font défaut: la police, la justice, l'éducation. Afin d'aider les Maliens à gagner la paix, l'Union européenne pourrait accompagner les autorités maliennes dans un processus de redéploiement des services publics dans le nord et, par ailleurs, organiser un certain nombre de services, comme une permanence téléphonique pour recevoir les témoignages des victimes, charger la Commission nationale malienne des droits de l'homme de surveiller les déclarations orales et écrites pour en extraire toute incitation à la violence ethnique, organiser une campagne de sensibilisation impliquant les différentes communautés et les chefs religieux.

En effet, les bénéfices de la mission UTM dont vous avez parlé, Monsieur le Commissaire, ne seront perceptibles qu'à long terme. Et c'est dès maintenant qu'il faut agir pour sécuriser la vie des populations maliennes.

  President. − Dr Tannock, before you start, can I also thank you personally for your help today to my colleague Georgios Papastamkos, after the accident.

  Charles Tannock, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I had only a minor role to play, with three other doctors, but when duty calls, we do our best in the circumstances. I was only concerned about the length of time it took for the ambulance and the emergency medics to come from the local hospital. It was far too long a delay, but we will talk about that some other time.

The two-month-old mission to Mali, led by France with some British support, has achieved its principle military objective of driving out the Jihadi extremists from Northern Mali’s towns and villages and has saved the country from an immediate fate that does not bear thinking about.

But the hard work is just beginning. The convergence of chronic political instability and ethnic resentment still remains and will become an easy target for foreign terrorists seeking to exploit the situation for their own perverted ends. The resulting collapse of human rights, which could potentially be felt for years to come, could provoke even more instability. We are now witnessing the start of a wearingly familiar insurgency of guerrilla warfare and Islamist suicide bombers, previously unthinkable in what was apparently a stable democratic country.

It goes without saying that once the French and the Ecowas troops withdraw, they must be replaced by a full UN peacekeeping mandate which is prepared to stay the course in the country for the foreseeable future. There must also be a just political settlement and process of national reconciliation and nation-building which respects Mali’s territorial integrity but which acknowledges the Tuareg people’s past legitimate grievances and incorporates them into the national systems of decision-making and sharing the resources of the country. Certainly the brutal summary justice meted out by certain Malian troops to Tuaregs accused of collaboration must end immediately, with the criminal perpetrators being brought to justice.

Human rights in Mali will be at the centre of my upcoming report on the Sahel and I greatly hope that the European Union, with its stabilisation and development skills, and the EU training mission to the armed forces of Mali can work with the Malians to rebuild their beautiful country and offer its citizens a peaceful, prosperous future.

  Jacek Włosowicz, w imieniu grupy EFD. – Dziękuję bardzo, Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Szanowne Koleżanki i Koledzy! Wiemy, jak ciągle poważna jest sytuacja w Mali i że była jeszcze bardziej poważna. Doszło do niej w ciągu kilku miesięcy przy biernej postawie społeczności i organizacji międzynarodowych. Mówił o tym na ostatnim spotkaniu grupy AKP przedstawiciel parlamentu malijskiego. Stwierdził też, że ze względu na mały potencjał gospodarczy i polityczny zainteresowanie problemami malijskimi społeczności międzynarodowej zaczęło się dopiero po ofensywie radykalnych sił islamskich w północnej części kraju. Stawiam zatem pytanie: czy nasza bierność nie powoduje wzrostu sił terrorystycznych w krajach leżących niejako na uboczu gospodarki i polityki światowej? W takich krajach jak Jemen czy Mali przez wiele miesięcy bez żadnych przeszkód mogą spokojnie trenować swoich żołnierzy oraz przygotowywać akcje terrorystyczne nie tylko na tamtejszych terenach, ale także na całym świecie. Dlatego należy zastanowić się, czy Unia Europejska powinna reagować tylko wtedy, gdy któreś z państw członkowskich czuje się zagrożone, czy może powinniśmy podejmować działania prewencyjne, nawet daleko od naszych granic, jeśli chodzi o walkę z terroryzmem, aby zło tłumić w zarodku. Dziękuję bardzo.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, je ne m'y attendais pas, parce qu'il y avait quelqu'un d'autre avant.

Je ne veux pas qu'on oublie que la crise malienne a été tout d'abord une crise politique et sécuritaire. Ce n'est qu'ensuite qu'elle est devenue une crise militaire. Mais il est vrai que tous ces aspects-là sont combinés.

Pour ce qui est de la phase militaire, il apparaît qu'on s'approche quand même d'un certain apaisement. Le ministre français de la défense a dit qu'il fallait encore trois semaines pour assurer la sécurité dans le nord-est. Il va de soi qu'on doit se poser la question de la sécurité à moyen et à long terme. Mon collègue Danjean a déjà abordé ce sujet et parlé de la nécessité d'avoir une vraie coopération européenne.

En outre, on a évoqué la possibilité de remplacer la Misma par une mission onusienne. J'ai vu l'annonce hier. Je suis un peu déçu d'apprendre que le mandat de cette mission n'interviendra pas avant avril. Je crois qu'on peut accélérer les choses.

Par ailleurs, la question politique se pose bien entendu. Mes collègues en ont déjà parlé. Je suis d'accord avec eux quand ils disent qu'il faut organiser les élections au plus vite, au mois de juillet si possible, comme annoncé initialement. Ces élections devraient poursuivre en priorité l'ambition d'une vraie réconciliation, en incluant bien sûr ici les Touaregs. L'Union, comme le commissaire l'a dit, peut aider ce processus électoral, avec une assistance technique et également une mission d'observation des élections.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - Senhor Presidente, a estabilização do Mali é essencial para a segurança de todo o Sahel, do norte de África, e também da Europa, e por isso eu presto homenagem à iniciativa da França e aos soldados franceses que ali se batem, alguns já tendo perdido a vida.

A missão de treino militar que a União Europeia lançou no mês passado, no contexto da Política Comum de Segurança e Defesa, tarda. As eleições de julho podem ser uma boa notícia, mas serão apenas uma etapa num processo político que tem de saber articular o esforço militar com um processo de reconciliação nacional que ainda não começou e com reformas que o Estado de direito exige e o respeito pelos direitos humanos, porque é de segurança humana para todo o povo do Mali de que se trata. E por isso é vital que a União Europeia incentive as autoridades malianas a embarcar num processo de reconciliação que envolva os representantes do povo tuaregue no esforço de consenso nacional sobre o futuro do Mali.

É também essencial que a União Europeia leve para o terreno uma estratégia ancorada na estratégia de segurança e desenvolvimento do Sahel, que combine esforço militar, ajuda ao desenvolvimento e boa governação e ajuda humanitária, que lute também contra a impunidade face a violações de direitos humanos e do direito humanitário, que continuam a ser cometidas no norte do Mali, tanto por islamistas como pelas próprias forças armadas malianas, como ainda há dias disse o Alto Comissariado da ONU para os Direitos Humanos.

A EUTM Mali é um passo na direção certa, numa engrenagem complexa. Interessa que os governos europeus entendam que é no Sahel, e no Mali em particular, que hoje também se acautela a segurança europeia. No Mali movimentam-se complexas redes criminosas e terroristas, que ameaçam não apenas os interesses europeus na região, mas que ameaçam a segurança dos nossos cidadãos em solo europeu. É por isso que a União Europeia tem também de repartir o esforço de segurança pelos seus Estados-Membros. E repartir em tempos de restrições orçamentais implica fazer uma gestão inteligente dos recursos existentes – humanos, militares e financeiros.

É por isso que afirmamos que o atual esquema de financiamento das missões da Política Comum de Segurança e Defesa não estimula a geração de forças e que o custeamento das missões pelos Estados contribuidores de forças impede vários membros de se envolverem nas missões da PCSD, como é bem demonstrativa a preocupante lentidão no posicionamento da EUTM Mali.

  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE). - Monsieur le Président, la France s'est engagée au Mali et je soutiens, évidemment, son action comme nous tous, ici. Mais la question de la stabilité du Sahel, la question de la lutte contre les djihadistes, ce n'est pas seulement l'affaire de la France, c'est évidemment notre affaire à nous tous, Européens. Je pense que, pour cela, nous devons, nous, Europe et États membres, agir, dans au moins trois directions.

Sur le plan militaire d'abord, la France est en première ligne. Cela a été dit mais je trouve qu'elle est en droit d'attendre des signes concrets et tangibles de solidarité de la part des États membres et de l'Union européenne. Certes, certains d'entre eux sont présents ou fournissent du matériel mais, sans doute, peut-on faire plus, mieux et donner corps sur le terrain, enfin, au concept de défense européenne.

Deuxièmement, sur le plan humanitaire et sur celui du développement. L'enjeu n'est pas tant, vous le savez, la question des réfugiés qui sont, aujourd'hui, accueillis dans des conditions – nous dit-on – apparemment décentes dans les camps de réfugiés des pays voisins. L'enjeu, c'est vraiment la dégradation de la situation au nord du Mali, de la situation économique, en particulier. Les routes commerciales sont coupées, les approvisionnements ne peuvent plus se faire et, donc, les situations s'y dégradent dangereusement sur le plan nutritionnel. Ajoutons à cela que l'économie locale, c'est-à-dire les éleveurs, les agriculteurs – qui sont déjà une économie fort fragile – est tout à fait en panne. Il faut donc intervenir pour le développement de ce nord du Mali, l'État malien ne pouvant le faire.

Sur le plan politique, enfin, il est évident que la réconciliation nationale est une obligation et l'ouverture d'un dialogue national, avant que les élections ne se tiennent, une nécessité. Le gouvernement a annoncé la mise en place d'une commission de dialogue et de réconciliation; ceci va, évidemment, dans le bon sens.

Mais ce que l'Europe doit dire, c'est que nous attendons des responsables politiques maliens, qu'au-delà de la mise en place de ce forum national, qui est une très bonne chose, ils créent vraiment les conditions du dialogue et du rassemblement national, en abordant l'ensemble des questions, les questions de l'armée malienne et des exactions dont nous avons parlé hier, et en intégrant aussi, à côté de la nécessité de construire un État fort, le besoin d'un processus de décentralisation.

La paix ne se gagnera que si le rassemblement de tous est rendu possible.

  Michèle Rivasi (Verts/ALE). - Monsieur le Président, je reviens du Mali, dans le cadre de la mission ACP-UE, où j'étais avec notre collègue, Louis Michel, et Françoise Castex.

L'analyse que j'en fais, c'est que, pendant vingt ans, il y a eu des élections démocratiques au Mali. Le Mali était même perçu comme un exemple de démocratie. Et pourtant, il y a eu le coup d'État et la guerre provoquée par des groupes terroristes.

Il faut analyser l'échec du développement économique, qui a délégitimé la démocratie politique. En effet, un quart de la population du Mali vit à l'extérieur et les gens n'ont pas vu l'apport de la démocratie dans leur vie quotidienne. Les jeunes quittent le pays, au risque de leur vie, car ils n'ont aucun avenir et ils sont susceptibles justement de se livrer et d'être recrutés par des mouvements terroristes.

Or, le pays a pourtant des atouts, que ce soit dans le secteur agricole, que ce soit dans le secteur minier. Il y a des mines d'or au Mali. Et il faut justement que la commission de dialogue et de réconciliation que veulent mettre en place le gouvernement transitoire et le président Traoré mette l'accent sur le développement économique, analyse les échecs du passé pour en tirer les leçons et dessiner de nouvelles bases économiques, face à la libéralisation du commerce international qu'on veut leur imposer et qui a conduit ce pays à l'échec.

  Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL). - Mr President, facts are stubborn things, and for those who have cheer-led the intervention in Mali, they may be uncomfortable things.

Because the reality is that the European forces are now engaged in training an army that Human Rights Watch has documented as being guilty of torture, summary executions and enforced disappearances, in particular targeting the Tuareg people and other ethnic minorities.

Why? Well you have to look beyond the tired rhetoric of fighting terrorism. The French defence minister gave the game away when he used the term ‘total reconquest of Mali’ when describing the French goals.

I think they wish to secure control of this strategic region and its rich resources, particularly oil, gold and uranium. The deployment of Irish troops to assist in training missions in Mali again exposes the lie of Irish neutrality.

Military intervention and military training will not solve the problems of the Malian people. It will only lead to further hardship and further spreading of the conflict.

The Tunisian revolution, which overthrew a French-backed dictatorship showed the way forward. This was a mass struggle by working people and the poor fighting for their own interests, including the right to self-determination, and against the rule of dictators and imperialism.

  Filip Kaczmarek (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowni Państwo! To bardzo dobrze, że od strony militarnej francuska interwencja okazała się skuteczna. Warto podkreślić, że sukces militarny nie rozwiązuje problemów politycznych, ekonomicznych i społecznych. W tej chwili jest 431 tys. uchodźców, a ponad 4 mln osób potrzebuje tam pomocy. Mali to kraj, w którym 80% rodzin żyje z tego, co zbierze na małych poletkach; to kraj, w którym 69% obywateli żyje poniżej granicy ubóstwa; to kraj, który zajmuje 175. miejsce spośród 187 w ogóle zakwalifikowanych przez Human Development Index.

Dobrze, że Komisja Europejska dostrzega te problemy i podejmuje też działania dotyczące współpracy rozwojowej. Zgadzam się, że wybory w Mali powinny odbyć się tak szybko, jak to jest możliwe, ale nie na dowolnych warunkach i nie za każdą cenę. Nie wiadomo, kto będzie kandydował, nie wiadomo, czy mieszkańcy północy kraju będą mogli brać udział w głosowaniu. Zdaniem wielu obserwatorów Malijczycy są pogrążeni w apatii, nie wierzą w to, że nowi liderzy doprowadzą do realnych i głębokich zmian. Cieszę się, że część państw członkowskich Unii Europejskiej aktywnie wsparła francuskie działania w Mali, np. pięciu polskich żołnierzy-logistyków już pracuje w Bamako. Wierzę, że wspólnym wysiłkiem możemy szybciej przyczynić się do rozwiązania problemów, o których mówiłem.

  Jean-Jacob Bicep (Verts/ALE). - Monsieur le Président, la France est intervenue au Mali, à la demande du gouvernement malien, afin d'éviter que Bamako ne tombe aux mains des narcotrafiquants et nous nous en félicitons.

Aujourd'hui, la situation au Mali est la suivante: nous avons une force d'intervention internationale qui met en place des dispositifs permettant de reconstruire ce pays. Il faut se féliciter de la conférence du développement qui va être mise en place. Il faut se féliciter, aussi, de la mise en place de la commission de dialogue et de réconciliation. Cette commission doit favoriser le dialogue intermalien, qui doit permettre de trouver une solution politique à la crise actuelle de ce pays.

En effet, il n'y aura pas de solution militaire au Mali. Toutes les parties présentes au Mali doivent prendre part au débat afin de trouver une solution politique. Le Mali institutionnel, tel qu'il était, a vécu. Il faut, aujourd'hui, mettre toutes les parties autour de la table pour trouver une solution politique à la situation de ce pays.

  Santiago Fisas Ayxela (PPE). - Señor Presidente, señor Comisario, no es la primera vez que intervengo aquí sobre Mali y, ante todo, quisiera reiterar mi homenaje a Francia y a los soldados franceses que han dado su vida en esta guerra.

Pero hoy quisiera centrarme en el tema humanitario. Quisiera recordar que la organización Acción contra el Hambre ha advertido de la situación de desnutrición en la que se encuentran unas 74 000 personas, que están en el campo de refugiados de Mbera, en la frontera con Mauritania, al que, además, llegan unas 400 personas cada día. Creo que esa es una situación preocupante que debemos tomar en consideración.

Y, sobre todo, también quiero referirme —ya se ha dicho aquí— a la situación de los derechos humanos y a las exacciones por parte del ejército de Mali. La Alta Comisionada Adjunta para los Derechos Humanos, Kyung-wha Kang, ha alertado de esa situación en las Naciones Unidas, de las exacciones contra los peuls, los tuaregs y el pueblo árabe; ha dicho exactamente: «los que permanecen en el país tienen miedo de ser objeto de ataques no por lo que han hecho, sino por lo que son». No quiero con eso olvidar las barbaridades que cometieron los terroristas, pero no deben pagar justos por pecadores en esta situación.

Por último, quiero decir que creo que la solución final para ese país no pasa solo por una victoria militar, sino por una solución política, que debe ser la reconciliación entre los diferentes pueblos que componen Mali.

  Françoise Castex (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, comme l'ont dit mes collègues Louis Michel et Michèle Rivasi, la mission que nous venons de mener à Bamako au nom de la coopération ACP-UE nous conforte dans les quelques priorités et les quelques urgences qui s'imposent.

Je vais en rappeler deux. Premièrement, avec la situation au Mali, l'Union européenne et toute la communauté internationale sont véritablement mises au défi de faire face au terrorisme. Dans nos discours, nous mettons régulièrement l'accent sur la lutte contre le terrorisme. Nous avons, au Mali, une occasion concrète d'agir et, si nous ne le faisons pas, nous aurons la responsabilité de ce qui pourra se passer dans l'ensemble de la région. Il ne faut pas laisser la France seule dans cette opération militaire et, plus que jamais, nous avons là besoin, d'urgence, d'une Europe de la défense.

Le deuxième point, c'est que cette agression dont est victime le Mali est une menace pour l'ensemble de la région. L'Union européenne doit prendre l'initiative d'une réponse globale, c'est-à-dire régionale, en demandant la tenue d'une conférence régionale, qui traitera de toutes les questions: la sécurité, la lutte contre le terrorisme, la lutte contre les narcotrafiquants, contre la criminalité et, bien sûr, le développement économique et le renforcement de la démocratie, sans lesquels il n'y aura pas de sécurité.

  President. − Before I announce the next speaker, can I just tell you that the new Pope is Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires, Argentina. This has been announced at the Vatican.

  Mariya Gabriel (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, comme vous l'avez dit, nous devons continuer à tirer les conclusions de ce qui s'est passé au Mali, de notre action et de nos interventions.

Aucune transition n'est aisée, mais celle que le Mali est en train de vivre se heurte à de nombreux défis. Au niveau externe, il y a ce que le Mali attend de l'Union. Au niveau interne, le Mali vit un processus sécuritaire, politique et militaire qui est semé de nombreuses embûches.

D'abord, il y a ce qui concerne l'Union européenne. Nous devons continuer à soutenir la mission de formation et insister davantage sur la réforme de l'armée. Le soutien de l'Union est essentiel pour la réalisation du calendrier électoral. L'envoi d'une mission d'observation électorale est nécessaire mais, surtout, aussi le suivi et l'assistance technique et d'expertise. Je me permettrais, ici, d'attirer l'attention sur les partenaires régionaux et la CEDEAO. Ils doivent jouer un rôle plus actif et plus important.

Au niveau interne, il me semble qu'il y a trois mots-clés: pacification, conciliation et construction. Concernant la pacification, la paix n'a pas de prix, mais pour l'avoir, il faut apporter des garanties pour assurer l'intégrité du territoire et la protection des populations civiles, notamment, les femmes et les enfants. S'agissant de la conciliation, je salue la décision de mettre en place une commission pour le dialogue et la réconciliation. Toutefois, je voudrais attirer l'attention sur ceux avec lesquels on négocie. Dialogue, oui, mais pas avec les terroristes! Enfin, la construction. Pour que l'État soit solide, la population doit éprouver un sentiment de justice. La poursuite de toutes les exactions commises et le rôle de la Cour pénale internationale, sont ici à prendre en compte.

La construction est notre défi commun. Développer notre partenariat, en agissant plus efficacement et plus rapidement, c'est ce que le Mali attend de nous.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). - Arvoisa puhemies, Malin tilanne on ehkä päässyt unohtumaan, kun media ei enää uutisoi siitä päivittäin. Tilanne on kuitenkin vielä yhtä vakava. On hyvä, että Ranska reagoi kriisiin nopeasti ja että se on saanut tilanteen ainakin osin haltuunsa. Olen myös tyytyväinen EU:n päätökseen lähettää koulutusmissio Malin puolustusvoimien kouluttamiseksi.

Malin kriisi on kuitenkin hyvin arvaamaton. Terroristit ja muut rikollisverkostot hallitsevat monia yhteisöjä, mikä myös pahentaa humanitaarista kriisiä ja vaikeuttaa avun saantia. Malin naapurimaat tarvitsevat tukea pakolaisvirtojen hallitsemiseksi, ja myös sisäisiä pakolaisia on autettava pikaisesti. Yksi suurimmista riskeistä on kriisin leviäminen alueella. Mali tarvitsee poliittisen sovitteluprosessin kiireellisten humanitaaristen tarpeiden lisäksi. Maan eri ryhmittymien ja väestön osien on neuvoteltava keskenään maan tulevaisuudesta ja tulevia vaaleja on alettava valmistella.

Käytän tilannetta hyväkseni ja toivotan uudelle paaville siunausta ja viisautta.

  Malika Benarab-Attou (Verts/ALE). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur Füle, d'abord, j'aimerais connaître votre approche, votre analyse, concernant la question du peuple touareg, ce peuple berbère qui vit au Mali, mais plus généralement, plus globalement, au Sahel.

Ensuite, je voudrais souligner un point qui n'a pas été abordé par mes collègues: le rôle essentiel de la diaspora malienne en Europe. Elle joue un rôle important, voire indispensable, en finançant des projets et en aidant de nombreuses familles qui, sans cela, seraient encore plus pauvres, mais aussi en nous transmettant sa connaissance fine du pays, du territoire malien. Il est important dans la stratégie que nous mettons en œuvre d'intégrer ces acteurs, médiateurs incontournables. Le ferez-vous, Monsieur le Commissaire Füle? Et de quelle manière?

  Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL). - Senhor Presidente, prossegue a intervenção militar da França no Mali, a pretexto do combate a terroristas islâmicos armados. Mas serão esses verdadeiramente os motivos, ou estaremos antes perante uma tentativa francesa de reconstruir a sua teia de domínio colonial, destruída por décadas de luta dos povos africanos, e assim controlar e explorar abundantes recursos naturais, como o petróleo e o urânio, nomeadamente num momento difícil de aprofundamento da crise?

O que eu gostaria de perguntar à Comissão é se não considera que as intervenções e as ocupações militares, como a realidade demonstra, só contribuem mais para o intensificar dos extremismos e do terrorismo. E também se considera, ou não, que as forças radicais islâmicas que operam no norte de África têm ligações estreitas com a chamada oposição armada na Síria, tão querida e protegida da Comissão Europeia.

  Michael Gahler (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Das ist schon wirklich ein Zufall, dass wir hier über Mali diskutieren, während der neue Papst verkündet wird. Beim letzten Mal saßen wir in Mali mit der Paritätischen Parlamentarischen Versammlung; während dieser Sitzung wurde auch der Papst verkündet. Es gibt offenbar irgendeinen Zusammenhang zwischen Mali und dem Papst.

Was ich eigentlich sagen wollte: Diese Mali-Krise sollte uns zum wiederholten Male deutlich machen, wie wichtig es ist, dass wir als Europäische Union unsere gesamte Toolbox, die wir uns in der Außen-, Sicherheits- und Verteidigungspolitik gegeben haben, auch endlich einmal zum Einsatz bringen. Es ist deutlich geworden, dass wir uns nicht immer darauf verlassen dürfen, dass ein Mitgliedstaat bereit ist, nach vorne zu gehen und dann im Namen oder im Auftrag aller die Kohlen aus dem Feuer zu holen, oder dass wir beim nächsten Mal wieder eine andere Koalition der Willigen zufällig zusammenstellen, in der Hoffnung, dass wir tatsächlich dann auch unsere Interessen durchgesetzt bekommen. Das sollte uns zu denken geben. Wir sollten insbesondere an alle Mitgliedstaaten, die es betrifft – und das betrifft sicherlich auch meinen eigenen – doch den Appell richten, die Beschlüsse, die wir mal gefasst haben – und ich möchte da nur auf den Rat vom Dezember 2008 hinweisen, wo wir einen level of ambition beschlossen haben –, dass wir die mal endlich umsetzen.

Zum anderen halte ich es für wichtig, dass wir die Kooperation mit der Afrikanischen Union und mit den Regionalorganisationen dabei verstärken, auch in der präventiven Zusammenarbeit. Wir müssen deren Truppen vorher trainieren, nicht erst, wenn die Krise da ist. Wir müssen dafür sorgen, dass auch in Afrika die Nachbarn gemeinsam üben können, damit, wenn Krisen auftreten, sie nicht erst warten und hoffen müssen, dass aus Europa oder sonst wo her etwas kommt. Ich hoffe, dass wir diese Kooperation mit der Afrikanischen Union auch tatsächlich hinbekommen.

  Luis Yáñez-Barnuevo García (S&D). - Señor Presidente, está en sus manos y en las del Presidente cambiar esa situación. Durante toda mi vida, como mi apellido empieza por «y», nunca me veían y nunca me ven. Estoy en la última fila; estoy haciendo voces y aspavientos; y hasta los ujieres, que me conocen desde hace nueve años, en los que he ocupado este mismo escaño, no hay manera de que puedan identificarlo.

Fui el primero que pedí la palabra —al comenzar estaba de Presidente Miguel Ángel Martínez—, y tienen ustedes que mejorar el sistema, porque así no puede haber igualdad de oportunidades. Una de las formas es que pongan ahora la «y» y la «z» allí, en primera fila, y la «a» aquí, y así podemos ir cambiando un poco.

Yo lo único que iba a decir sobre la situación en Mali —porque el resto ya lo han dicho la colega De Keyser y Arnaud Danjean— es que, además de una cuestión humanitaria y de estabilidad, es un problema de seguridad y defensa europea. Es un caso típico de riesgo y amenaza para nuestra seguridad colectiva, y es indignante que sea un solo país, Francia, el que ha dado la cara.

El mío, España, el Gobierno español, miró para otro lado y no ha aportado la ayuda, sobre todo personal y de militares, que hubiera sido necesaria. Pero esto no lo ha hecho solo España, sino todo el conjunto de la Unión Europea, que tiene —¿o es que no tiene?— una política de seguridad y defensa común, que ha destacado más por su ausencia que por presencia.

De estas palabras se deduce que apoyo fervientemente la intervención de Francia y que critico duramente que el resto de Europa se haya inhibido de una manera vergonzante.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, let me start by saying that some good questions were asked and I will consult High Representative Cathy Ashton to provide you with a good answer to your questions.

Can I refer to the three main issues in the discussion today? Firstly the security situation where French and Chadian operations have continued against the Jihadist strongholds.

Clearly, retraining the Malian Army and getting AFISMA operational is a challenging task. In the short term, the European training mission is getting underway; there are 21 Member States participating and the number is rising.

All these efforts are vital given the continued threat of asymmetric warfare.

It is equally important to ensure respect for human rights. Deployment of human rights observers is crucial to preventing abuses or documenting them. All perpetrators of human rights violations must be held responsible for their actions.

Secondly, on the development side, the European decision to resume gradual aid development cooperation is carrying its first results. It is important that the country’s normal economic life resume as swiftly as possible and that displaced people feel free and safe to return to their homes.

Thirdly, political progress in implementing the roadmap in a credible manner and making conciliation on national a reality is vital for long-term stability in Mali.

In this context, it is important that we follow up carefully on commitments made by the Government of Mali, including those related to the elections and a national inclusive dialogue. Elections alone will not cure the country’s problems. It needs a real effort to rebuild trust in the political system.

Malian ownership and international support are both crucial. Preparations for the international high-level conference in support of Mali in mid-May 2013 in Brussels are ongoing.

The Malian Government is committed to preparing a national strategy for early recovery which will constitute a basis for its appeal to the international solidarity.

VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS
Vizepräsident

  Der Präsident. − Damit ist dieser Tagesordnungspunkt geschlossen.

16. Състав на комисиите и делегациите: вж. протокола

17. Положението в Украйна (разискване)

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Vizepräsidentin der Kommission / Hohen Vertreterin der Union für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik zu der Lage in der Ukraine (2013/2569(RSP)).

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission, on behalf of the Vice-President of the Commission/High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. − Mr President, recent developments in Ukraine continue to present us with a paradox. On the one hand, the European Union-Ukraine Summit in Brussels just over two weeks ago took place in a constructive atmosphere with unequivocal commitments from President Yanukovych that Ukraine is determined to comply with all three areas specified in the Foreign Affairs Council Conclusions of 10 December 2012, namely: firstly, follow-up actions to remedy shortcomings identified in the conduct of the 28 October parliamentary elections; secondly, addressing the issue of selective justice and also preventing its recurrence through comprehensive judiciary reform; and, thirdly, implementation of the reforms defined in our jointly agreed Association Agenda.

If these commitments are fulfilled this would consolidate Ukraine democratically and would enable us to sign the Association Agreement, including a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, possibly by the time of the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius in November 2013.

Ukraine is well aware that we need to see determined action and tangible progress over the period until the Vilnius Summit. This steady process is important as there are a number of milestones between now and the Summit. In recent weeks we have worked intensively with Kiev at all levels to ensure that there is no gap between our expectations, and to help it deliver on the steps required to get us to signature in Vilnius. We have noted some encouraging signals from Kiev about a more efficient political steering of the process.

On the other hand, we note that the situation remains difficult. The blockage of the Rada is a rather graphic illustration of the stay of play. This is particularly disappointing after the encouraging cross-party resolution regarding the European agenda. Ukraine needs the authorities to create an environment that is conducive to dialogue as strongly as it needs a constructive opposition that can fully assume its responsibility towards the Ukrainian people.

Meanwhile, there are a number of developments which go contrary to the spirit of the commitments taken at the Summit. I already expressed my deep concerns about the recent legal proceedings on the annulment of parliamentary mandates based on contested or selectively applied legal grounds. I wish to note in particular the situation surrounding Mr Vlasenko. Let me say this openly: just as it is important that the work of the Verkhovna Rada is not being blocked, it is also important that this democratic institution works transparently and predictably following the letter and spirit of its own rules.

Recent developments underline once more the urgent need for judicial and electoral reforms in Ukraine. A recent preliminary judgement of the European Court of Human Rights also identified serious systemic problems in the functioning of the Ukrainian judiciary, in particular as regards the separation of powers.

I wish here to particularly commend the efforts of the European Parliament’s mission headed by former President of Parliament Cox and former Polish President Kwasniewski. Its determination with respect to addressing the matter of selective justice, notably the cases of Yulia Tymoshenko and Yuriy Lutsenko, deserves high recognition. This mission needs and has all our support as its importance cannot be overstated. It is key that this mission will be in a position next month to report that there has been clear progress. We have underlined this in every single interaction with the Ukrainian authorities in recent weeks and months.

Let me be very clear: if we want to sign the Association Agreement – and I am convinced we do, as it is in our shared interest – the way forward for the authorities is not through bringing more and more disturbing news. The time has come for sending some good news in dealing with selective justice. Unless the cases of Yulia Tymoshenko and Yuriy Lutsenko are properly addressed and there is sufficient confidence that there will be no more use of selective justice, we can hardly talk about conditions that are conducive to the signing of the Association Agreement.

The European Union must remain committed to the defined policy of sequenced engagement with Ukraine. We have established an unprecedented objective with Ukraine and we hope to be able to achieve it. On its side, Ukraine needs to take action on matters that will bring it closer to the European Union and reverse the recent backsliding.

Yesterday’s Presidential Decree by President Yanukovych, including the establishment of a high-level national coordination to oversee the implementation of the necessary steps, as set out in the December Foreign Affairs Council Conclusions, the recent Statement of the Ukrainian Parliament and the Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers on the European agenda’s priorities, show that there is determination in Kiev to achieve the objectives. Let me recall what I said before. It is important to ensure throughout the process that there is no gap between our expectations.

I very much look forward to hearing the views of this Honourable House.

  Gunnar Hökmark, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I should like to thank the Commissioner for presenting his view on Ukraine. It is important to send a clear message to the authorities and to the government in Ukraine because we can see what is happening in Ukraine in a broader perspective.

The European Union and the countries in the Eastern Partnership do share a European vision and European opportunities. The Eastern Partnership, with the hopes and promises about association agreements and deeper free trade agreements, was launched because these countries were moving towards democracy and the rule of law. The Eastern Partnership was meant to help them take these steps and benefit from deeper economic integration.

Now we can see a clear pattern in these countries. Compared to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Rose Revolution in Georgia and the corresponding moves and calls for democracy that we saw at that time, we are seeing another pattern today. Commissioner, I very much appreciate the fact that you underlined that there must be confidence that there will be no more use of selective justice in Ukraine if the conditions for an association agreement are to be met. That is important and I think that is an important message to all of these countries.

Turning to the case of Yulia Tymoshenko, we must be aware that this is not only a humanitarian problem. It is also a systemic and inherent problem for democracy in Ukraine. What should concern us is not only that, but the fact that it also seems as if the regime does not want to do anything about it. They have been moving in the wrong direction for far too long.

There is reason to be concerned about the escalation of human rights violations and the misuse of the judiciary for political purposes in Ukraine. Ukraine’s high court of appeal has removed the parliamentary immunity of two independent members of parliament who did not want to cooperate with the ruling party. Serhiy Vlasenko, a lawyer who is coordinating former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko’s defence in all politically motivated cases, has also been stripped of his parliamentary immunity. These are signs that Yanukovych’s ruling party is not doing what it should in order to meet the commitments made.

Furthermore, on Tuesday 12 February, Vitali Klitschko, the leader of the opposition party UDAR, called on the EU to introduce sanctions against the highest-ranking Ukrainian officials.

We see a pattern which we need to address in Ukraine and in a number of the other countries in the Eastern Partnership. Ukraine is at the centre of it, and the problem needs proper action. A clear message must be sent to Ukraine and those other countries, because otherwise we will see a dividing line of democracy and the rule of law, and Ukraine will not be in our part of Europe.

  Libor Rouček, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, we are receiving mixed messages from the Ukraine. On the one hand, we have the recent resolution of Verkhovna Rada on European integration. That is exactly what should happen: the political forces both in government and in opposition should work towards the Ukrainian goal of greater rapprochement with the EU through signing the Association Agreement and the deep and comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the EU. This endeavour is being supported by civil society, as evidenced by statements we have from almost 60 NGOs supporting this trend.

On the other hand, however, we have messages or pieces of information, which concern, for instance, Mr Vlasenko. There is a problem here, because for months we have been pointing to cases of selective justice. Honestly, we do not want to see members of parliament being stripped of their mandate. They were elected in free and fair elections, so they should do their duty and they should be allowed to do their work.

However, the Commissioner also mentioned that the work of the Verkhovna Rada has been blocked. Again, we should appeal not only to the government and the ruling party about how to behave, but also to the opposition. Neither stripping members of parliament of their mandate nor blocking the parliament is how one should behave in a democracy.

The European Parliament is trying to help. We have the mission by our former President, Mr Cox, and President Kwaśniewski, and we should fully support it.

I would also ask our colleagues, especially from the EPP, not to give up on the Ukraine, the Eastern Partnership and Georgia simply because the party to which they are linked loses to the opposition.

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

  Gunnar Hökmark (PPE), blue-card question. – Mr President, I would like to be very serious about this. No one should give up on democracy – neither in Ukraine nor in Georgia – and we shall not give up. I am saying this to you too, Commissioner Füle, with regard to development in these countries.

However, if we are not able to look beyond party politics and demand democratic reforms, then we have a problem, and I would like my colleague to focus on that point in his reply to me.

  Libor Rouček (S&D), blue-card answer. – I underlined this in my speech and I will underline it again: let us work together and show an example that we in this House are able to work together. Above all, we should protect the principles of human rights, civil rights, the rule of law and democracy, no matter who is or is not in power in Ukraine, Georgia or other countries. So let us adopt this policy. Let us work together and give an example to the political scene in our Eastern Neighbourhood countries and also in the Southern neighbourhood.

  Kristiina Ojuland, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, the recent bilateral summit has given rise to much hope that an association agreement will be concluded this year.

As President Van Rompuy said, this is the most advanced agreement of its kind to be negotiated by the European Union. This clearly illustrates our firm commitment to deepening economic and political relations with Ukraine.

At the same time, the EU has to stand by its values and needs to be sure that its closest partners will follow the same line. Among its current shortcomings, Ukraine needs to work hard to reform its election laws, implement economic reforms and eliminate its system of selective justice.

Alarmingly, we have witnessed the use of political motivations in several high-profile cases in Ukraine, including those of Yulia Tymoshenko and Yuriy Lutsenko. The judicial system must comply with the principle of separation of powers and must stand apart from politics. The recent news that Serhiy Vlasenko, the lead defender of Yulia Tymoshenko, has been stripped of his parliamentary seat does not bode well in this regard.

Tightening Ukraine’s bonds with the European Union will help solve these issues, but the agreement is achievable only with a strong political commitment from the Ukrainian side. Ukraine should not stay lingering between the EU and the Russian-led customs union.

There needs to be a clear choice. The Ukrainian leadership should see the strategic and economic benefits of sharing common European values instead of being in the same boat as Putin, Lukashenko or Nazarbayev.

At the same time, Europe must do everything to keep the door open for Ukraine. Besides strategic interests, the Ukraine offers enormous opportunities for the European Union.

  Rebecca Harms, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, geehrte Kollegen! Ich hatte gehofft, Herrn Wlasenko hier in Straßburg begrüßen zu können. Ich hatte ihn eingeladen, hierher zu kommen, nachdem ich letzte Woche das Gerichtsverfahren in Kiew verfolgt und dann am Ende gehört hatte, er habe zwar sein Mandat verloren, aber er dürfe als Anwalt weiter arbeiten. Was liegt da näher, als ihn hierher nach Straßburg einzuladen, weil sich ein Teil seiner Tätigkeit auch vor dem Europäischen Menschenrechtsgerichtshof in Straßburg abspielen wird, weil er natürlich weiter der Verteidiger von Frau Tymoschenko sein will. Er darf nicht reisen. Das ist keine Gerichtsentscheidung, sondern das ist eine Entscheidung, die sich entwickelt hat.

Außer dieser Geschichte rund um Herrn Wlasenko gibt es die beiden anderen Kollegen von uns im Kiewer Parlament, die ihre Mandate auf eine ähnlich dubiose Weise wie Herr Wlasenko verloren haben. Die Kollegen heißen Dombrowski und Baloga. Man sollte die Namen hier ruhig kennen. Sie kommen aus unterschiedlichen politischen Familien oder sind unabhängige Kandidaten.

Das große Problem, das wir immer wieder beschreiben, ist der Mangel an Rechtsstaatlichkeit. Ich glaube, man muss es den Ukrainern noch ein bisschen besser erklären, man muss es auch Präsident Janukowytsch noch ein bisschen besser erklären: In einem Rechtsstaat entscheidet der Wähler, wer in einem Parlament sitzt, und das gilt dann auch für eine Legislaturperiode. Und nur nach sehr strengen Regeln kann dieser Wählerwille korrigiert werden. In einem Rechtsstaat entscheidet natürlich auch der Wähler darüber, ob Frau Tymoschenko eine gute Energiepolitik gemacht hat oder nicht. Es entscheidet der Wähler, ob Herr Luzenko eine gute Innenpolitik gemacht hat oder nicht.

In der Ukraine ist es inzwischen Usus, dass politische Widersacher vor Gericht gezerrt werden, im Zweifelsfall ins Gefängnis gebracht werden. Und das ist tatsächlich politisch motivierte Justiz, es ist die Wiederkehr des sowjetischen Prinzips, dass das Recht von der Mehrheit gesetzt wird, und das ist aus europäischer Sicht völlig inakzeptabel.

(Beifall)

  Paweł Robert Kowal, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Dziękuję bardzo. Zbierzmy to, o czym rozmawiamy, czyli do tych nazwisk, które wymieniła Rebecca Harms, trzeba dodać też w wielu przypadkach nazwiska nawet obwodowych przedstawicieli, którzy – jak się dowiaduję – nie mogą uzyskać mandatu. Takie wiadomości dostaję na przykład z Tarnopola. Możemy wymieniać te nazwiska. Trzeba rozmawiać z władzami ukraińskimi o tym, jak zmienić system wyborczy. Czuję się za to osobiście odpowiedzialny jako szef kolejnych misji obserwacyjnych. Do tego należałoby dodać kwestię rządów prawa. Ale na koniec musimy sobie uświadomić, że jesteśmy politykami i mamy cel, który jest wielki. Chodzi o to, żeby pokazać, że Unia Europejska nie jest w kryzysie, że Unię Europejską stać na to, żeby otworzyć ręce i drzwi do młodych Ukraińców na Wschodzie, żeby powiedzieć, że niezależnie od tego, kto dzisiaj jest premierem, prezydentem, to przyszłość należy do nich. I wielkie dzieła – zwracam się z tym do komisarza, który się trudzi – tak, wielkie dzieła, Panie Komisarzu, mają wielkich wrogów i Pan doskonale o tym wie, tak jak my, bo pochodzimy z tej samej części Europy, że wielkie dzieła w naszej części Europy mają szczególnie wielkich wrogów. Będzie jeszcze wiele zakrętów do jesieni. Życzę Panu, życzę siłom politycznym na Ukrainie, i opozycji, i rządowi, żeby się uzbroiły w cierpliwość, bo nam w tym dziele mogą pomóc tylko silne i zdrowe nerwy, bo będzie jeszcze dużo trudnych momentów. A cel jest jasny: Europa nie może kończyć się na Bugu. Dziękuję.

  Jacek Olgierd Kurski, w imieniu grupy EFD. – Dziękuję, Panie Przewodniczący! Mówiliśmy dzisiaj w tym Parlamencie i w tej Izbie o dramacie w Mali, w Syrii, mówimy o dramatycznej sytuacji demokracji na Ukrainie, będziemy mówić zaraz o dramatycznej sytuacji w Chinach. One wszystkie mają wspólny mianownik: brak zrozumienia, brak miłości, brak pojednania między ludźmi. Dlatego cieszmy się dzisiaj w tej Izbie i radujmy z wyboru, jakiego dokonali kardynałowie w Rzymie, wybierając kardynała Bergoglio na papieża Franciszka. Bez zwycięstwa tych wartości, za którymi stoi Kościół katolicki, nigdy nie będzie pokoju, zrozumienia, zwycięstwa prawdy i dobra w świecie. Trzymajmy kciuki za nowego papieża, żeby mu się udało. Dziękuję bardzo.

  Ewald Stadler (NI). - Herr Präsident! Frau Kollegin Harms, wenn Sie gleichzeitig auch gegen Tschechien reden, weil Tschechien jetzt ein politisch motiviertes Verfahren der Politjustiz gegen den früheren Präsidenten Václav Klaus anstrengt, dann haben Sie eine gewisse Glaubwürdigkeit. Ich habe kein Wort der Kritik gehört. Dort spielt sich das Gleiche ab, wird aber nicht kritisiert.

Ich möchte Herrn Kommissar Füle für seine persönlichen Bemühungen danken, das Verhältnis zwischen der Europäischen Union und der Ukraine zu verbessern. Das ist ein sehr großes persönliches Verdienst von Ihnen! Dieses Assoziierungsabkommen liegt in beiderseitigem Interesse, aber schwergewichtig in unserem Interesse. Wir müssen ein Interesse daran haben, dass die Frage „pro-europäische Ausrichtung – ja oder nein“ in der Ukraine zugunsten der europäischen Ausrichtung entschieden wird. Das ist unser Interesse, dazu dient dieses Assoziierungsabkommen. Wir müssen ein Interesse daran haben, dass der Gastransit im Interesse Europas modernisiert wird. Das ist europäisches Interesse. Wir müssen ein Interesse daran haben, dass auch die Leistung der Ukraine im Rahmen des OSZE-Vorsitzes im Jahr 2013 zur Lösung des Transnistrien-Konflikts anerkannt wird. Daher wird sich das Verhältnis nicht verschlechtern oder verbessern, wenn wir das Assoziierungsabkommen nicht unterschreiben. Die Bemühungen bleiben aufrecht. Daher ist es im Interesse Europas, dieses Assoziierungsabkommen zu unterschreiben, um weiterhin die Bemühungen um die Verbesserung der Situation in der Ukraine fortzusetzen.

  Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). - Dziękuję, Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Dzisiejsza debata wypada ponad dwa tygodnie po szczycie ukraińsko-unijnym. Rezultaty tego szczytu są – co tu dużo mówić – zachęcające, albowiem przywódcy ukraińscy potwierdzili gotowość wdrażania reform wymiaru sprawiedliwości, zmiany w ordynacji wyborczej, przeprowadzenia większych zmian zarówno gospodarczych, jak i politycznych, z zapewnieniem wzmocnienia swobód obywatelskich i wolności słowa. Wiadomo jednak, że na naszych wzajemnych relacjach ciążą przypadki indywidualne. Niestety ostatnio do znanych od miesięcy nierozwiązanych problemów związanych z uwięzieniem premier Timoszenko i ministra Łuczenki dołączyła kwestia odebrania mandatu panu Własence. Czytając jednak oświadczenie parlamentu ukraińskiego z dnia 22 lutego, ciągle chcemy wierzyć, że integracja europejska i podpisanie układu stowarzyszeniowego są wspólnym celem elit politycznych i narodu ukraińskiego. W związku z tym zwracam się teraz do tych elit: jeśli tak faktycznie jest, to pamiętajcie Państwo, że maj – miesiąc, do którego zobowiązaliście się na konkretne decyzje – jest już za kilka tygodni. Nie więcej jak za 6 tygodni będziemy oczekiwać nie tylko słów, nie tylko kolejnych obietnic, ale rezultatów. Potrzebne są czyny. Na te czyny czekamy. Mówił o nich zarówno poseł Rouček, jak i Rebecca Harms, mówił Paweł Kowal. Wszyscy wiemy, o co chodzi, prosimy was o to, apelujemy: nie przegapcie szansy dla Ukrainy. Z naszej strony robimy, co jest możliwe: ułatwienia wizowe, gotowość do dalszych kroków. Jednak potrzebna jest deklaracja, decyzje i działania z waszej strony.

  Kristian Vigenin (S&D). - Mr President, this is not our first debate on Ukraine and it will surely not be the last. Why is Ukraine so important to us? Because we care about the country and its people, because it is the largest country in the Eastern Neighbourhood, and because it plays an important role in security in the region and in smooth energy supplies to the EU, etc.

We have negotiated the most ambitious association agreement ever with a third country. We are very close to signing and implementing it, putting an end to the so-called post-Soviet space and turning it into an EU-to-be space. The EU-Ukraine summit last month was another encouraging event in this direction, and had to be used to make further progress.

However, the closer we are, the more difficult it becomes to make those small steps which will put Ukraine irreversibly on the way towards gradual proximation and integration with the EU.

What is the problem? I have heard enough excuses, accusations, explanations and promises. The fact is that Ukraine is becoming a hostage to endless factionalism and fighting, in which all sides are using every weapon they possess. Is it really so difficult for the President and Government to address the EU’s simple and clear requests, when such a big achievement is at stake? Why, again and again, does the judiciary take actions that have a predictable negative impact in Brussels? The judiciary must be independent, but it must also be responsible in relation to the fulfilment of national goals.

In that regard, how come that an MP – a lawyer who is, incidentally, a defender of the imprisoned opposition leader – cannot foresee the outcome of his non-compliance with the law? I appeal to my Ukrainian colleagues in the Verkhovna Rada: please, both majority and minority Members, stop these suicidal fights, take a deep breath, look around and see what kind of future you are building – or rather failing to build – for your people. The elections are over. Learn the lessons, fulfil the OSCE requirements so as to make the next elections better – and respect one another if you want Ukraine to be respected too!

I call on my colleagues in the European Parliament. Let us not import those political tensions or reproduce them here. Let us export to Kiev our ability to find constructive compromises. A final warning: the Cox-Kwasniewski mission has offered a last chance.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Marek Henryk Migalski (ECR). - Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Szanowni Państwo! Dzisiaj kilkakrotnie porównano Ukrainę do Gruzji. Jeszcze 3 lata temu Ukraińcy mogliby się z takiego porównania cieszyć. Dzisiaj nie jest to już powód do zadowolenia. Na szczęście nie jest tak, że dzisiaj można porównywać Ukrainę do Białorusi czy do Rosji. Ale nie wiemy, jak będzie za następne 3 lata. I to jest ważne ostrzeżenie. Myślę, że wszystkich tych, którzy mówili wcześniej przede mną, można określić jako przyjaciół Ukrainy. Ale też Ukraińcy, władze ukraińskie, politycy ukraińscy muszą zrozumieć, muszą sobie i nam też dać szansę. Przed Ukrainą i przed Unią Europejską stoi wielki cel. Byłoby wielkim grzechem – i po stronie polityków unijnych, i po stronie polityków ukraińskich – gdybyśmy tego wielkiego celu nie osiągnęli. Dlatego warto to uświadomić tym, którzy są po naszej wschodniej stronie, żeby rzeczywiście wykorzystali tę wielką szansę dla Ukrainy. Dziękuję bardzo.

  Jacek Włosowicz (EFD). - Dziękuję, Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Koleżanki i Koledzy! Budujemy relacje krok po kroku pomiędzy Ukrainą i Unią Europejską. Oczywiście nie odbywa się to bez przeszkód i problemów. Mam tu na myśli chociażby przesunięcie podpisania umowy stowarzyszeniowej pomiędzy Unią i Ukrainą ze względu na nieprzestrzeganie zasad państwa prawa, w tym również praw człowieka. W 2011 r. stosunki między Ukrainą i Unią znacznie się ochłodziły z powodu wyroku na Julię Timoszenko, skazaną za nadużycia przy zawieraniu przez jej rząd kontraktów gazowych z Rosją. Jako poseł miałem niejednokrotnie okazję odwiedzić naszego wschodniego sąsiada. Rozmawiając szczególnie z młodymi obywatelami Ukrainy, widziałem ich proeuropejskie nastawienie. Mam nadzieję, że wspomniana umowa przyczyni się do zacieśnienia i polepszenia wzajemnych stosunków i będzie to realny i duży krok w naszych relacjach oraz że nie odstąpimy od wcześniej obranego proukraińskiego kierunku. Dziękuję bardzo.

  Adrian Severin (NI). - Mr President, I believe the only real urgent issue at present in our relations with Ukraine is bringing to fruition the association agreement we have negotiated with that important neighbour who is not yet a Member.

It is a well-known principle of diplomatic negotiations that nothing is agreed before everything is agreed. In this case, either we have an agreement and that means that everything is included in it, or there are things which were not yet agreed and we have to go on with the negotiations.

But to attach to a bilateral agreement unilateral extracontractual conditionalities is unprofessional, arrogant and counterproductive.

This is not policy, but politics. We cannot promote our values in Ukraine by interfering in the petty management of the country or by encouraging the internal opposition’s blockage tactics.

To that end, we must first build a deep political partnership allowing for the harmonisation of our strategic interest.

Otherwise, we might eventually learn that Ukraine did not fulfil our conditionalities but it signed another agreement with another partner which does not cherish our values.

That would be a geostrategic disgrace.

  Paweł Zalewski (PPE). - Mr President, we are discussing the situation in Ukraine once again. Unfortunately, as has been the case before, we are discussing the deterioration of the political situation there.

Serhiy Vlasenko is being stripped of his mandate as a member of the Ukrainian Parliament. We have to stick to our values when we are talking about these issues. We have to be very strict and very tough as regards our European values, above all in relation to the rule of law. But we also have to be very clear. We have to remember that our reference point is the interests of Ukraine as a nation and the interests of the European Union.

I believe we should always refer to the opinion of Ukrainian civil society. Yesterday there was an important meeting, the Sixth Maidan Reload Discussion, which brought together leading NGO experts from Kharkiv, Kiev, Lviv and other cities. Their position was that in spite of all the irregularities, despite the problems with the rule of law, Ukraine and the EU should sign an association agreement. That is the instrument with which to repair Ukraine. That is the instrument with which to reform the country. We have to remember that, and we have to send a clear position from the European Parliament to the Ukrainian people that we want this association agreement to be signed.

  Evgeni Kirilov (S&D). - Mr President, this is a crucial milestone in relations between the EU and Ukraine. Both sides have agreed on the most advanced association agreement which the Union has ever negotiated, as colleagues have pointed out. It will bring benefits for the citizens of both the EU and Ukraine.

The EU is committed to Ukraine’s economic growth and modernisation and, of course, the purpose of Ukraine’s association is comprehensive Europeanisation and a move towards European standards in all areas. The agreement is a powerful tool for this transformation. Ukraine is a country of great potential and it is clear that it needs to do more to meet the necessary standards and values and to address problems, including problems with selective justice. By the way, we should also show some humility and say that in a number of our countries we still face some of these problems.

Declarations of Ukrainian aspirations towards integration with the European Union are not enough, of course. However, the recent resolution of the Verkhovna Rada on EU integration is a positive sign and, also on a positive note, I understand that President Yanukovych has today signed a special decree addressing some Ukrainian commitments specified in the February summit conclusions. We have to do everything possible to more actively engage Ukraine in this process and support Parliament’s special envoys to Ukraine, Mr Kwasniewski and Pat Cox.

It is now time for us to send a clear signal of support to the country. Ukraine can no longer afford to stay at the crossroads. There is no real alternative, in the long run, to what the EU can offer Ukraine with an association agreement, and both sides should make this agreement possible this year. The key words are ‘active dialogue’ and ‘result-oriented engagement’. The Ukrainian people deserve this.

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

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD), blue-card question. – Mr Kirilov, you used the phrase ‘selective justice’ in Ukraine in your remarks, which I assume is an indirect way of referring to the imprisonment of Mrs Tymoshenko on what looked like trumped-up charges. In view of what you describe yourself as ‘selective justice’ should Ukraine send a judge to the European Court of Human Rights?

  Evgeni Kirilov (S&D), blue-card answer. – In my opinion, as a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, this is Ukraine’s right. Just as it is the right of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe to deal with this issue.

  Michael Gahler (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Herr Kommissar, ich gratuliere Ihnen zu Ihrer Leidensfähigkeit. Denn mein Eindruck ist, dass Janukowytsch und Konsorten Sie schlicht demütigen. Ihnen werden Lösungen der akuten Probleme in Aussicht gestellt, dann finden Sie zuversichtliche Worte beim EU-Ukraine-Gipfel. Aber kaum sind Sie zuhause, setzt sich die tatsächliche nationale Tagesordnung in Gang wie ein altes sowjetisches Uhrwerk: die neue Mordanklage in Charkiw, der Anwalt kann nicht verteidigen, weil er zufällig gerade seines Mandates enthoben wird – und dieses Verfahren selbst wird unter Missachtung der eigenen Verfahren der Werchowna Rada durchgeführt. Derjenige, der dieses Uhrwerk orchestriert, ist Janukowytsch. Es gibt dort keine unabhängige Justiz, nicht einmal das Parlament kann sich der Einflussnahme entziehen.

Ich glaube, das ist das, was wir klarmachen müssen. Es gibt eine Ukraine in Richtung Europa, wenn diese Regierung aufhört, auf diese Art und Weise ihr eigenes Volk zu regieren, aber auch aufhört, in dieser Art und Weise mit Europa zu kommunizieren. Diese Botschaft muss immer und immer wieder gesagt werden. Und wenn Herr Janukowytsch das nicht versteht, dann müssen wir den Menschen in der Ukraine sagen, dass wir sie wollen, aber wir sollten es nicht akzeptieren, dass diese Regierung ihre Menschen als Geiseln nimmt und sagt, schaut mal her, da sind 45 Millionen, ihr wollt die doch nicht etwa mit uns alleine in Richtung Sowjetunion gehen lassen. Das ist eine perfide Art zu insinuieren, wir müssten sie so akzeptieren, wie sie sind. Das müssen wir nämlich nicht!

  Eduard Kukan (PPE). - Som rád, že posledný samit EÚ – Ukrajina oficiálne potvrdil vôľu oboch strán prehlbovať vzájomné vzťahy. Občas sa však nemôžem ubrániť pocitu, že predstavitelia Ukrajiny niekedy pracujú viac na testovaní trpezlivosti Únie ako na prehlbovaní vzájomných vzťahov. Toto nie je správna cesta. Ukrajina je pre Úniu v regióne kľúčová. Jej politický význam je dôležitým ukazovateľom pre nastavenie vzájomných vzťahov. Ich skutočné prehlbovanie môže priniesť hmatateľné výhody pre obidve strany.

Posledný samit potvrdil, že chceme s Ukrajinou kráčať po rovnakej ceste. Je to európska cesta smerom k asociačnej dohode a DCFTA. Máme jasné pravidlá. Ich naplnenie je však plne v rukách ukrajinských politikov. Hádam by to pre nich nemalo byť až také ťažké, veď majú podporu vlastných občanov, ktorí by koniec koncom najviac pocítili výhody z členstva v EÚ. Dôvera v spravodlivosť a fungovanie demokratických inštitúcií na Ukrajine musí byť pre Úniu jasným limitom vo vzťahu k tejto krajine. Myslím si totiž, že pokiaľ budú pretrvávať na Ukrajine problémy so selektívnou spravodlivosťou a pochybnosti pri fungovaní právneho systému, je otázne, či podpísanie asociačnej zmluvy a DCFTA prinesie očakávaný pozitívny vplyv pre obidvoch partnerov.

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren

  Elżbieta Katarzyna Łukacijewska (PPE). - Dziękuję bardzo, Panie Przewodniczący! Mamy świadomość, że same deklaracje i zapewnienia ze strony Kijowa to za mało. Potrzebne są konkretne działania i pomimo pozytywnych przykładów, jak np. rozwiązanie sporu dotyczącego głosowania w ukraińskim parlamencie za kolegę, nadal słyszymy o działaniach, które z demokracją mają niewiele wspólnego, jak chociażby pozbawienie mandatu deputowanego Własenki. Dochodzą do nas także słuchy o możliwości zawarcia porozumień dotyczących ukraińskiego systemu przesyłu gazu czy unii celnej. Te wydarzenia pokazują również, że my jako Unia Europejska powinniśmy uderzyć się w piersi. Nie jesteśmy bowiem aktywni gospodarczo, dopuszczamy, że Ukraina patrzy w kierunku wschodnim, tym samym ryzykujemy kolejne kryzysy energetyczne. To, co moim zdaniem może pomóc integracji Ukrainy z Unią Europejską, to nie tylko europejskie standardy demokratyczne, ale również bliższa współpraca gospodarcza z Unią Europejską, pomoc w budowie społeczeństwa obywatelskiego czy ułatwienia wizowe. Dziękuję bardzo.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). - Tisztelt Füle Biztos Úr! Alapvető értékeink érvényesítése mellett nekünk Ukrajnát az Európai Unióhoz közelítenünk kell, nem pedig távolítanunk. Az Európai Uniónak határozottan, következetesen, de óvatosan kell viszonyulnia Ukrajnához, nehogy az ukrán kormány ellenkezése miatt az EU elveszítse Ukrajnát. Teljesen egyetértek Biztos úr véleményével. Az Európai Unió Ukrajna számára többször egyértelművé tette, hogy addig, amíg az ukrán kormány nem garantálja a demokrácia szabályainak érvényesülését, nem várhatja el az Európai Uniótól a szabadkereskedelmi megállapodás aláírását. Ugyanakkor felhívnám a figyelmet arra, hogy nem várhatjuk el a szabadkereskedelmi tárgyalások keretein belül Ukrajnától, hogy a korábbi szovjet-típusú gazdaságát egy csapásra olyan feltételekhez igazítsa, amelyeket az EU a tagjelölt országoktól vár el.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). - Som presvedčený o tom, že má zmysel pokračovať v trpezlivom a konštruktívnom dialógu so všetkými relevantnými politickými silami na Ukrajine. Politická kultúra v tejto krajine je síce ešte poznačená silnou polarizáciou medzi blokmi Tymošenkovej a Janukoviča a obidve zoskupenia naďalej prekračujú hranice čestnej politickej súťaže, naším cieľom by však malo byť pritiahnutie občanov Ukrajiny k európskej kultúre a civilizácii. Aj naďalej preto musíme politickým lídrom Ukrajiny vysvetľovať, že politická súťaž sa nesmie zvrhnúť na ruvačku o moc bez akýchkoľvek pravidiel, ktorá generuje nepriateľstvo a nenávisť aj medzi obyvateľmi.

Zodpovednosť politikov je kľúčová v tomto nervóznom prostredí, a preto k nim musí smerovať naša požiadavka na slušnejšiu, konštruktívnejšiu a zodpovednejšiu prácu. Únia by mala tiež zohrať úlohu mediátora medzi znepriatelenými tábormi s cieľom vyviesť krajinu z pretrvávajúcej politickej vojny.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL). - Vážený pane předsedající, nová Verchovná rada přijala výraznou většinou rezoluci na podporu splnění kroků dohodnutých k přiblížení se Evropské unii. Samozřejmě se vyskytují snahy o zhoršení dobrých vztahů.

Nejvyšší administrativní soud Ukrajiny na základě platných zákonů zbavil mandátu jednoho vládního a jednoho opozičního poslance, to moji kolegové poněkud nepochopili. Je možné, že bude podobně postupovat i v dalších případech, ale některé poslance Evropského parlamentu zajímá pouze zbavení mandátu, které se týká opozičních poslanců. Zákon, podle kterého bylo postupováno, i celá procedura se mi nemusí líbit, ale rozhodně nelze zdůrazňovat, že jde o jednostrannou akci proti opozici. Pánové Vlasenko a Verevskij by zřejmě v jiných zemích, tedy podle jiné legislativy, zbaveni mandátu nebyli.

Příklady ze Spolkové republiky Německo a z České republiky jsou dostatečně známé. Pro dobrou spolupráci mezi Evropským parlamentem a Verchovnou radou je třeba místo stížností urychleně ustavit společný meziparlamentní výbor a začít konstruktivně pracovat. A k tomu nám všem přeji hodně zdaru.

(Řečník souhlasil s tím, že odpoví na otázku položenou zvednutím modré karty (čl. 149 odst. 8 jednacího řádu).)

  Michael Gahler (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Kollege Kohlíček! Es wurden ja nicht nur Abgeordneten Mandate entzogen, sondern zum Beispiel auch einem Obersten Richter. Ist Ihnen das Urteil bekannt, das der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte in Straßburg im Januar im Fall Wolkow gefällt hat, der auch seines Amtes enthoben wurde? Das Gericht hat verlangt, dass er wieder in seine Rechte eingesetzt wird. Werden Sie das auch gegenüber der Regierung verlangen, dass er wieder in sein Amt als Oberster Richter eingesetzt wird?

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), odpověď na otázku položenou zvednutím modré karty. – Ten rozsudek je mi známý, ale nevím, podle jakého zákona byl předtím ten soudce zbaven svého mandátu soudce. Protože já musím vycházet z toho, že se mají na Ukrajině dodržovat ukrajinské zákony. Jestli jsou špatné, můžeme to konstatovat a můžeme se snažit spolu s Ukrajinci, aby se změnily. Ale říkat, že je to selektivní, to je podle mě poněkud silné.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - La sfârşitul anului trecut, Hillary Clinton se temea de resovietizarea Europei de Est. Acţiunile de intimidare a opoziţiei din Ucraina şi tratamentul la care este supusă Iulia Timoşenko confirmă acest lucru. De asemenea, vara trecută, Alianţa Socialistă din România a călcat în picioare statul de drept, fără să ţină cont de faptul că suntem o ţară membră a UE, şi nu o republică ex-sovietică.

Ca o stranie coincidenţă, de partea cealaltă a Prutului, socialiştii şi comuniştii au reuşit să dărâme guvernul proeuropean de la Chişinău. Au pus, astfel, în pericol încheierea acordurilor de liber schimb şi de asociere cu Uniunea. Guvernul Filat a fost un guvern de succes, singurul care a reuşit să ducă la bun sfârşit lungul şir al reformelor necesare pentru a scoate ţara din izolare şi a o îndrepta spre UE. Costurile stopării procesului de integrare le vor plăti basarabenii.

Stimaţi politicieni, în ceasul al 12-lea, continuaţi drumul proeuropean.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). - Dziękuję bardzo, Panie Przewodniczący! Z satysfakcją odnotowuję te wszystkie wypowiedzi – i solidaryzuję się z nimi – które wskazują, po pierwsze, na nasze duże możliwości, jeżeli będziemy współpracować z Ukrainą, po drugie, na wykazanie wyrozumiałości dla trudności, w jakich Ukraina się znajduje, ale w których te podstawowe reformy jednak mają miejsce; zwłaszcza jako ekonomista mam na myśli sprawy gospodarcze. I wreszcie wydaje się, że ważne jest podkreślenie także tego, iż my jako Unia Europejska rozumiemy uwarunkowania sąsiedzkie Ukrainy: że nie jesteśmy tylko jedynym dużym globalnym graczem, ale że Ukraina jako sąsiada ma drugiego globalnego gracza. W dużej mierze od nas zależy, w jakim stopniu, z jednej strony, będziemy wymagający co do reform, ale z drugiej strony, w jakim stopniu okażemy tę życzliwość we współpracy. Dziękuję za uwagę.

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, as everybody expected, this was a fascinating debate.

Let me make three short remarks, and then two remarks which I hope Members would agree with me are substantive remarks,

First, I do not want anyone here feeling that our talking so much about selective justice means that this is the only thing which defines our relationship with Ukraine. Let me make it absolutely clear that this is a very comprehensive relationship, and the recent summit at the end of February made the point that there is no area of cooperation in which we would not pursue very intensive cooperation with Ukraine.

Second, no one is delaying anything, and definitely not the Association Agreement or the DCFTA.

In December, the Foreign Ministers made a clear kind of roadmap to lead us to the Vilnius Summit, including certain conditions to be fulfilled in order to create the right framework for signing this extremely important and innovative agreement and, in parallel, the Commission is working on the text and I expect that in early spring we will be able to send it to the Council with the respective request and recommendation.

Thirdly, let me also make this very clear: this is not an FTA and we are not just in a geostrategic kind of treaty. By the way, with the new neighbourhood policy that this House so much supported, I thought that this purely geostrategic point of view, or realpolitik, of trying to keep aside values and the interests, was over. I do hope those times are past.

In the case of Ukraine, what we are concluding is a treaty about not only the protocol association but also economic integration; a treaty which brings the Ukraine much closer to the European Union gradually accepting Ukraine into the EU single market. That is what the DCFTA is offering. I do not know of any exception or addition to enlargement, or any other policy which would as effectively strengthen the European Union in our partner countries as this Association Agreement/DCFTA. It is an agreement on shared responsibility based on shared values.

Let me make those two more substantive remarks. First, those of you who have witnessed the transformation of Central Europe would recall that it took a couple of years and quite an effort. They might have started at the same time, but there are two differences. There was a light at the end of the tunnel for Central Europe. NATO membership and European Union membership were there, clearly defined, and for the citizens of those countries, for the politicians, it was easier to explain that some of the reform steps were worth undertaking because of that goal ahead. That is number one.

Number two: do not underestimate the difference between being part of the Socialist camp and being part of the Soviet Union. You have a different starting point.

What I am trying to say is, it is no wonder if what took a couple of years for the countries in Central Europe, where we defined that goal quite clearly at the very beginning, is going to take longer for the countries and regions of Eastern Europe. We have to be aware of that. It should not take anything away from our willingness to engage and to help, it should not take anything away from our expectations as to values and principles. Absolutely not. But please be aware of those things.

Now let me also make the following point: we have been talking a lot about the need for the transformation of Eastern Europe to complete this project of a united, prosperous and stable Europe.

This year, at the Vilnius Summit, we have the opportunity not only to talk about it but to deliver on it. The signing of the Association Agreement by Ukraine and, hopefully, the announcement of the finalisation of the negotiation of the Association Agreement and DCFTA with three other partners from Eastern Europe are going to be the first, very concrete steps in transforming this post-Soviet region – and this is a big thing.

Second remark: there should be no doubts about our interest in signing the Association Agreement. This Agreement has been negotiated within a couple of years and it provides added value for the citizens of both Ukraine and the European Union.

But there has been one thing which we have been repeating for years, now. I can say that: for years. Three years ago, we said clearly to the Ukrainians that, in pursuing that goal of political association and economic integration and also ensuring the mobility of their people through visa-free access to the Schengen countries: we will engage with you, we will be active, we will be forthcoming, we will be supportive, we will be creative, we will be flexible, we will be helpful. But we made one thing clear. There is one area where there is going to be no flexibility. This one area where we will not be making compromises is the shared values and the shared principles. They are the very basis of this agreement and what else would you expect from countries with such an open and clear European aspiration, which I hope this House also respects?

That does not take away anything from what I said in my statement at the beginning, where I so extensively talked about the issue of selective justice.

  Der Präsident. − Damit ist dieser Tagesordnungspunkt geschlossen.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 149 GO)

  Tunne Kelam (PPE), in writing. – Ukraine is, and will continue to be, a crucial actor for the future of European integration. Without this country becoming part of the European community of rule of law, one cannot be sure about the final end of the historic enterprise, started in 1950. Therefore, the EU has to make sure there is a genuine political wish to engage Ukraine on the path towards comprehensive European integration. The Orange Revolution left the Ukrainians hesitant about the real attitude of the European Union, which continued to keep a distance, avoiding any indications of such a genuine political wish. At the moment, Ukraine has been left fluctuating between the EU and Russia. Negotiations with Russia – which is advancing with new vigour and determination the formation of a Eurasian Union – continue on the special treatment of Ukraine. As the EU should be clear in its political commitments, the Ukrainians need to make their historic political choice without further delay. Surely, this has to be conditional on real, tangible progress. To demonstrate their political commitment, the Tymoshenko case should be reviewed at once. The latter gesture could become a key for signing the PAA without further delay. This would also send the people of Ukraine a genuine sign that Ukraine is welcome.

  Jaromír Kohlíček (GUE/NGL), písemně. – V minulém roce byla dokončena obsáhlá smlouva o spolupráci EU-Ukrajina. Na žádost ukrajinské delegace byla její ratifikace odložena na dobu po volbách do Verchovné rady. Jedním z kroků, které od té doby obě strany podnikly, je nesporně pozitivní výsledek setkání v únoru 2013. Jiným takovým krokem je návrh dalšího zjednodušení vízového režimu. Nová Verchovná rada přijala výraznou většinou rezoluci na podporu splnění kroků dohodnutých k přiblížení se EU. Samozřejmě se vyskytují snahy o zhoršení dobrých vztahů. Nejvyšší administrativní soud Ukrajiny na základě platných zákonů zbavil mandátu jednoho vládního a jednoho opozičního poslance. Je možné, že bude podobně postupovat i v dalších případech, ale některé poslance EP zajímá pouze zbavení mandátu, které se týká opozičních poslanců. Zákon, podle kterého bylo postupováno, i celá procedura se mi nemusí líbit, ale rozhodně nelze zdůrazňovat, že jde o jednostrannou akci proti opozici. Pánové Vlasenko i Verevskij by zřejmě v jiných zemích, tedy podle jiné legislativy, zbaveni mandátu nebyli. Příklady ze SRN i ČR, kde za kriminální činy odsouzení poslanci dále mají mandát, jsou dostatečně známé. Pro dobrou spolupráci mezi EP a Verchovnou radou musíme místo stížností urychleně ustavit společný meziparlamentní výbor a začít konstruktivně pracovat. K tomu nám všem přeji hodně zdaru!

  Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. – On 13 March a preparatory meeting of the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee was held in Strasbourg. To my regret, the only MP present from Ukraine was Grigory Nemyria. Strange, and I wonder why Members of the Ukrainian Verkhovna Rada did not arrive in Strasbourg. Perhaps integration into the EU is not a priority for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry and for the Parliament of Ukraine. Given that the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement should be signed in November 2013 in Vilnius, I understand this ‘active’ position of the Government and Parliament of Ukraine. Over the past three years there has been a lot of work on the recognition of Ukraine in the EU. Today, all the results of this joint work are sent to the trash. Members of the European Parliament who have been actively involved in the EU-Ukraine Forum understand that Ukraine itself does not need it. I call on Ukrainian MPs to compose urgently before 20 March 2013 a list of delegates to the EU-Ukraine Parliamentary Cooperation Committee. Otherwise, the committee meeting of the working group on 2-4 April in Kiev will have no sense.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), na piśmie. – Sytuacja, w której się obecnie znajduje Ukraina, pozwala jej jeszcze ważyć korzyści, czy ostatecznie skłonić się w stronę Unii, czy Rosji. Jest to jedynie pozornie wygodny stan, który nie będzie trwał wiecznie. Dlatego Ukraina stanęła przed niezwykle ważnym wyborem, wyborem historycznym. Pomimo deklaracji prezydenta Janukowycza o europejskim wyborze stanowcze kroki nie zostały podjęte. Nieprawidłowości przy wyborach czy powolne wdrażanie reform to tylko niektóre ze spowalniaczy umowy stowarzyszeniowej. Sprawy pani Tymoszenko czy pana Łuczenki są nader oczywiste. Czy powinniśmy jednak odbierać Ukraińcom szansę, przed jaką stanęli? To społeczeństwo chce się rozwijać. Czy ludzie muszą płacić za błędy rządu? Należy z całą pewnością wspierać dążenia Ukrainy do współpracy z UE. Jednak w pierwszej kolejności pomóżmy im spełnić warunki. I na tym powinniśmy się skoncentrować. Umocnienie demokracji, a zwłaszcza przeciwdziałanie wybiórczemu stosowaniu prawa powinno być priorytetem. Nie odkładajmy jednak tego w czasie. Powinniśmy wzmocnić działania pod tym kątem, aby umowę zawrzeć jeszcze w tym roku. Jest to realne, gdyż Ukraińcy mają świadomość, że wybranie kierunku rosyjskiego przyniesie w najbliższym okresie wymierne korzyści, ale będzie wiązało się z dużą zależnością ekonomiczną w przyszłości, czego woleliby uniknąć. Postawienie na UE to wybór drogi rozwoju o większych wymaganiach, ale też bardziej perspektywicznej.

18. Отношенията между ЕС и Китай (разискване)

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Bastiaan Belder im Namen des Ausschusses für auswärtige Angelegenheiten über die Beziehungen zwischen der EU und China (2012/2137(INI)).

Nachdem wir alleine zu diesem Tagesordnungspunkt 33 Wortmeldungen geplant haben, bitte ich Sie, sich an die Redezeit zu halten.

  Bastiaan Belder, Rapporteur. − Voorzitter, geachte commissaris, geachte collega's, de nieuwe Chinese partijleider Xi Jinping zegt te dromen van een sterk China, 'een harmonisch, socialistisch, modern land, op weg naar de grote wedergeboorte van de Chinese natie.' Ik weet niet in hoeverre de Europese instellingen deel uitmaken van zijn dromen, maar – mocht dit het geval zijn – dan wil ik graag eerst iets rechtzetten. Het betreft overweging V. in het verslag. Bij de bewerking van de tekst van mijn verslag is door de diensten van het Parlement ten onrechte de suggestie gewekt dat het Europees Parlement het 'één China'-beleid van Peking omarmt. Dit punt zal, na aanvaarding van mijn verslag, worden gecorrigeerd.

Ik kom nog even terug op de dromen van Xi Jinping. Als nuchtere Nederlander heb ik niet zoveel met politieke dromen. Die hebben in China en op ons continent voor al te veel ellende gezorgd. Maar het neemt niet weg dat ik met mijn verslag een bijdrage heb willen leveren aan het succesvol partnerschap tussen de EU en China.

Eén van de sleutelelementen van zo'n succesvol partnerschap is de verplichting tot wederzijdse verantwoordelijkheid. Peking mag van ons – en dan denk ik zeker aan de Europese Raad – een duidelijk, consistent en eenstemmig beleid verwachten. Wij vragen vervolgens om een verantwoord beleid van China richting de buurlanden. Noch China, noch Europa is gebaat bij escalatie in de Zuid- en Oost-Chinese Zee.

Maar dit is niet het enige dat ik in mijn verslag heb willen doen. Het is mijn taak als rapporteur om de dromen van Chinese burgers een stem te geven. In mijn ogen is het immers volstrekt onvoldoende als EU-belangen uitsluitend gericht zijn op stabiliteit en handel. Ik moet denken aan de droom van Chinese burgers over het vrije woord. In China worden klokkenluiders nog uitermate hard aangepakt. Zo was er onlangs een twitteraar die lokale autoriteiten ertoe opriep een sterk vervuilde rivier over te zwemmen, zodat ze zelf konden ervaren hoe erg de situatie door een nabijgelegen fabriek was.

Ik denk aan de droom van de Chinese bestsellerauteur Yu Hua. Hij droomt van een China waarin de voedselinspecteurs net zo streng optreden als de filmcensoren en waarin de filmcensoren zich zo laks van hun taak kwijten als de voedselinspecteurs. 'Want', zei hij, 'zo je hebt in één klap meningsvrijheid en voedselzekerheid'.

Ik denk ook aan de droom van een Chinese moeder over een kindje dat ze verwachtte. Wij mogen niet zwijgen als de meedogenloze gesel van de 'één kind'-politiek de droom van deze vrouw, het kind in haar baarmoeder, vernietigt.

Ik denk – om een laatste voorbeeld te noemen – aan de droom van bezoekers van de vele huiskerken in China om zonder inmenging van de Chinese autoriteiten vrij en ongehinderd samen te komen. Ik roep alle Europese instellingen dan ook met klem op om in lijn met het verslag waarover wij vanavond spreken, de Chinese autoriteiten er op te wijzen dat de droom van Xi Jinping alleen maar gerealiseerd kan worden als er een brug geslagen wordt naar de dromen, de vele dromen van Chinese burgers.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, honourable Members, on behalf of High Representative Ashton I welcome this balanced report by Mr Belder, setting out the European Parliament’s views on the developing EU-China relationship. It comes at the right time, as the new leaders are about to take office in Beijing and determine the future of China over the next five years. China is a key strategic partner for the European Union and increasingly a significant player on the world stage.

High Representative Ashton is committed to enhancing the European Union’s relationship with China in world affairs. We have ongoing close collaboration on Iran, where China is playing a constructive role in the 3+3 talks, and on fighting piracy off the coast of Somalia. China has actively contributed to the adoption of sanctions against North Korea, alongside the rest of the United Nations Security Council and the international community.

Mr Belder’s report highlights the fact that China’s political and economic involvement in Africa has contributed to economic development. There is also increasing political engagement in Africa. Like the European Union, China supports the African Union and other African regional organisations. The first ever Chinese naval mission outside China’s neighbouring seas was to fight piracy off the coast of Somalia, in close collaboration with the Atalanta mission. China joined the European Union in escorting World Food Programme shipments to Somalia in a spirit of burden sharing.

We place particular importance on the security aspects of the European Union-China relationship. We will cooperate in this field on matters ranging from crisis management to counter-piracy and from non-proliferation to counter-terrorism.

In the last three decades China has achieved significant social progress, with hundreds of millions of people moving out of poverty. These improvements still need to be translated into better promotion and defence of human rights. We remain concerned by the reports on the human rights situation in China. The rules on detention of suspects could certainly be improved if China aligned itself with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that it has signed but not yet ratified.

During 2012, the European Union paid particular attention to the human rights situation in Tibet, as the High Representative pointed out in this House last June and in a statement on Tibetan self-immolations last December. Our line is well known and has not changed: we reiterate our call to the parties concerned to resume a meaningful dialogue. The European Union intends to continue closely monitoring the overall human rights situation in China, and we will not hesitate to speak our mind publicly.

Mr President, honourable Members, the EU-China relationship is one of the most intense on the economic front, one of the largest in terms of people-to-people exchanges, and our formal EU-China dialogues cover almost all conceivable areas. We need to secure improved market access and a level playing field for European Union business, negotiating a substantial EU-China Investment Agreement to contribute to the creation of growth and jobs on both sides. We must identify common ground between Europe 2020 and China’s 12th Five Year Plan, for example on renewable energy, clean vehicles and information technology.

With our know-how, we want to contribute to greener cities in China and share our experience on issues like emissions reduction, water security and rural development. And, of course, we will continue to encourage China to abide by international human rights standards and promote the rule of law, for the benefit of its economy, social stability and its respectability abroad. I look forward to listening to the views of the European Parliament in the debate to follow.

  Ria Oomen-Ruijten, namens de PPE-Fractie. – Commissaris, Voorzitter, beste collega's, mag ik vanaf deze plek mijn collega Ioannis Kasoulides niet alleen van harte feliciteren met de verkiezingsoverwinning die men in Cyprus heeft behaald, maar ook met zijn benoeming, voor de tweede keer, als minister van Buitenlandse Zaken .

Ik wil collega Kasoulides overigens ook bedanken voor al het werk dat hij geleverd heeft aan dit verslag. En dat heeft hij samen gedaan met collega Bas Belder. Ik heb hem gisteren gesproken en hij vroeg me ook heel expliciet, niet alleen om het verslag over te nemen, maar ook om u, meneer Belder, te bedanken voor uw inzet.

Voorzitter, ik permitteer me een drietal opmerkingen. Allereerst, in de betrekkingen van de EU met China streven we wederzijdse belangen na. Daarom is het verstandig om de strategische samenwerking tussen de EU en China te baseren op raakvlakken die we beiden kunnen vinden. Wat ons betreft is dat voor China het twaalfde Chinese vijfjarenplan, en voor ons de Europese 2020-strategie. Als we dat doen, kunnen we de samenwerking met China, die op dit moment nog heel breed is, in elk geval ook gaan verdiepen.

Een tweede opmerking. We blijven, in de context van de politieke dialoog en op voet van gelijkheid, China aanmoedigen om de overgang te maken naar een open samenleving. Een open samenleving, gebaseerd op een goed functionerende, onafhankelijke rechtsstaat en eerbiediging van de mensenrechten. En ik wil daarom met name wijzen op de noodzaak de Tibetaanse en de Oeigoerse bevolking op een politiek verantwoorde, maar ook zinvolle wijze te betrekken bij bestuurskwesties, om zo duurzame stabiliteit in dat grote land te creëren, die niet door middel van gedwongen assimilatie, culturele vernietiging of onderdrukking kan plaatsvinden. De toename van het aantal zelfverbrandingen in Tibet vinden wij zorgwekkend.

Mijn derde punt is dat de Chinese overheid wordt opgeroepen al haar beleid te stoppen dat de fundamentele rechten van de burger beperkt. Nog altijd is er een groot aantal zaken mis met de vrijheid van godsdienst en geloofsovertuiging, het recht op vrije meningsuiting, de vrijheid van vereniging en vergadering en de persvrijheid. Wij zijn, Voorzitter, bezorgd over de toename van het toezicht en ook de censuur op het internet. En China behoort, wat dat betreft, tot een van de meest gesloten landen ter wereld.

Ten vierde, wij ondersteunen het 'één China'-beleid van de EU en verwelkomen de contacten en verbeterde betrekkingen tussen China en Taiwan. Voorzitter, ik roep China op om, als tweede economie van de wereld, en steeds belangrijker wordende politieke macht, die mondiale positie ook verantwoord te gebruiken.

  Emilio Menéndez del Valle, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señor Presidente, en nuestra relación con China caben simultáneamente respeto, consideración y reconocimiento por el enorme progreso económico realizado, al tiempo que crítica razonable. Debemos, no solo en nuestra relación con ella, sino también con los demás BRICS y otros países no europeos, abandonar todo tipo de prejuicio o residuo eurocentrista.

No vivimos los tiempos en que al gran filósofo alemán Hegel se le ocurrió afirmar que la historia de China no ha dado muestra de desarrollo alguno, de manera que no debemos preocuparnos por ella, y que China y la India yacen fuera del curso de la historia mundial. Mucho más recientemente, el general de Gaulle tuvo una ocurrencia visionaria respecto a otro miembro de los BRICS, al afirmar que Brasil es un país de futuro, que seguirá siéndolo.

Lejos de la perspectiva hegeliana, China ha demostrado ya ser un país de presente y de futuro y la relación euro-china es beneficiosa para ambas partes y puede ser un vector importante en la configuración del nuevo orden mundial, que tendrá en Asia-Pacífico uno de sus componentes clave. Nuestra relación, evidentemente, no está exenta de dificultades: las hay políticas, comerciales y de otra índole, pero, por el interés de una y otra parte y de sus casi dos mil millones de habitantes, hemos de aprender a convivir, cooperar y avanzar.

Las autoridades chinas han repetido, en numerosas ocasiones, que desean una Europa unida, fuerte y próspera. Nosotros, también. Y, además, deseamos y auspiciamos una China próspera y unida. Fuerte, ya lo es.

Tenemos obstáculos en lo político porque las concepciones respectivas no siempre son iguales y, a veces, son contrapuestas. Un ejemplo: mientras China defiende hasta el extremo el principio de la soberanía estatal y la no injerencia en los asuntos internos, la Unión promueve el principio de la responsabilidad de proteger, que contempla la intervención humanitaria. Siria, como piedra en el camino.

En lo comercial, cabe destacar la falta de equilibrio. Al tiempo que las inversiones chinas se benefician de una fácil penetración en el mercado europeo, gracias a nuestra apertura y a reglas claras, las empresas europeas encuentran frecuentemente dificultades en su acceso al mercado chino.

Mientras haya Estados europeos que vayan por libre en su relación con China, no podremos defender de manera eficaz nuestros intereses estratégicos. Actuando por separado, el más poderoso de los Estados europeos es un enano al lado del gigante asiático. China ha sacado de la pobreza en unas décadas a más de trescientos millones de personas.

Europa y China serán capaces de ser ejemplo de actuación internacional y contribuir plenamente —estoy seguro— a la causa de convertir el siglo XXI en un siglo de paz, cooperación, prosperidad y desarrollo.

  Kristiina Ojuland, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, relations with non-democratic regimes are always tough. However, there is a wide range of topics where we have a constructive dialogue with China.

China has undergone an immense change in the past decades, which is financially illustrated by the overwhelming increase in the quality of life for many Chinese. At the same time, many issues still remain unsolved, and some have tragically escalated. The repressive policies against Tibetans’ basic freedoms have caused a wave of grievous self-immolations.

This House has shown solidarity with the Tibetan community, and has repeatedly asked the Commission to address the issue, especially during the EU-China summits, at which it has done so.

Involving the Tibetan minority communities in governance as well as respecting and supporting multiculturalism needs to be the way forward in China.

Another obstacle has been the escalating conflict in the East China Sea, where the only solution is for the affected parties to agree on the joint exploitation of the region’s natural resources. This has been envisaged in the peace initiative drafted by the President of Taiwan.

Finally, I would like to stress the need to strengthen our current dialogue with China, especially in the field of human rights.

  Reinhard Bütikofer, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kollegen! Herr Menéndez del Valle hat Recht und Hegel hatte Unrecht: China ist eines der großen Länder dieses Jahrhunderts. Wir reden gerne von einer strategischen Partnerschaft zwischen der EU und China. Wenn wir das nüchtern betrachten, müssen wir feststellen, da bleibt sehr viel zu verbessern. Auf unserer Seite sind wir viel zu oft ein vielstimmiger, wenn nicht sogar dissonanter Chor. Und auf chinesischer Seite habe ich manchmal den Eindruck, dass zu oft das Spiel mit einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten der Kooperation mit der EU insgesamt vorgezogen wird.

Wir sollten eine strategische Partnerschaft entwickeln, schon alleine deswegen, weil wir gemeinsame Herausforderungen haben, zum Beispiel vom Klima und einer ökologischen Transformation bis hin zu einer nachhaltigen Wirtschaftsweise. Diese strategische Partnerschaft muss auf Augenhöhe entwickelt werden, und es gibt weder Platz für europäische Arroganz noch für unpassende Verbeugungen vor chinesischen Anmaßungen.

Es gibt Spannungen zwischen Europa und China, auch das muss man deutlich sagen, im wirtschaftlichen Bereich etwa. Manche dieser Spannungen sollten wir sehr sorgfältig behandeln, um nicht unnötige Eskalationen hervorzurufen, zum Beispiel in der Auseinandersetzung um die Photovoltaik.

Aber wir sollten die europäischen Interessen auch sehr deutlich vertreten. Es gibt wichtige Kooperationen mit China. Davon hat Herr Kommissar Füle gesprochen. Die sollen wir weiter entwickeln.

Es gibt Sorgen auf unserer Seite, etwa wegen der Selbstverbrennungen in Tibet und Gansu, oder auch wegen der Entwicklung im maritimen Raum Ostasiens, wo China sowohl den Ton als auch die Haltung zu ändern scheint. Aber es gibt auch Hoffnungen, z. B. dass der Nationale Volkskongress die Umweltpolitik ändern könnte, oder dass das System der Zwangsarbeit ohne Gerichtsanordnung, das Laojiao-System, vielleicht tatsächlich abgeschafft wird. Und die Hoffnung, dass Europa und China verlässliche Partner einer friedlichen, multilateralen Weltordnung sein werden, in der wir beide von guter Zusammenarbeit viel zu profitieren haben.

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

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Dziękuję bardzo, Panie Przewodniczący! Szanowny Panie Pośle! Odmieniamy tutaj przez różne przypadki słowa „strategiczne partnerstwo”. Chciałbym zapytać: czy pan poseł uważa, że możemy mówić o strategicznym partnerstwie przy tak fundamentalnych różnicach między wartościami wyznawanymi przez państwa Unii Europejskiej i Chinami w dziedzinie demokracji i praw człowieka?

  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Kollege, ich bin überzeugt, Partnerschaft ist nicht eine Frage der Wahl. Wir sind gezwungen, diese Partnerschaft zu entwickeln. Ich rede aber ausdrücklich davon, dass wir eine Partnerschaft entwickeln. Ich rede nicht davon, dass wir uns selber etwas vorgaukeln sollten.

  Claudio Morganti, a nome del gruppo EFD. – Signor presidente, onorevoli colleghi, vorrei partire citando il punto 24 di questa relazione, "reputa che gli squilibri commerciali tra l'UE e la Cina riflettano le loro differenze in termini di modelli sociali, economici e democratici": credo che in questo risieda il nocciolo di tutta la questione.

L'Unione europea, tuttavia, sembra limitarsi a prenderne atto, senza intraprendere misure concrete. Pochi mesi fa il Commissario al Commercio De Gucht ha dichiarato di non essere interessato a guerre commerciali con la Cina. Ma forse non ha capito che in realtà siamo già in guerra e quella che dovremmo combattere noi è una guerra di resistenza, per sopravvivere e non morire.

La Cina ci sta colpendo su più fronti: come produzione interna ed esportazioni non ha eguali; in Europa ha aumentato significativamente gli investimenti diretti, comprandosi interi pezzi di economia. Inoltre sta facendo incetta di titoli pubblici, che le garantiscano anche una sorta di controllo politico. Se poi a muoversi sono gli stessi cittadini cinesi, succede come a Prato, la mia città, che è la terza in Europa per presenza cinese, dopo Londra e Parigi, metropoli infinitamente più grandi.

L'economia pratese è stata quasi completamente distrutta e gli unici che riescono a prosperare sono proprio loro, i nuovi arrivati cinesi, perché vivono nell'illegalità e a loro tutto è concesso. Io non posso accettare che qui non si voglia fare niente: chiedo quindi all'Europa di pensare a una soluzione semplice e immediata, ovvero introdurre quote e dazi commerciali, indispensabili per proteggere la nostra economia, le nostre imprese e soprattutto i nostri lavoratori.

  Helmut Scholz, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, lieber Kollege Belder! Trotz aller bisherigen Ausführungen und Debatten: Der Bericht greift zu kurz. Ich hätte mir gewünscht, er hätte bereits Perspektiven für eine gemeinsame Strategie der Kooperation unter dem Eindruck wachsender wechselseitiger Verflechtungen, Abhängigkeiten und gemeinsamer Herausforderungen des 21. Jahrhunderts aufgezeigt. Auch mit Blick auf die 60 laufenden Dialoge.

In vier Tagen beendet der Volkskongress die geordnete personelle Erneuerung der chinesischen Führung. Der Kongress wird die von der KP Chinas auf ihrem 18. Parteitag aufgezeigten Grundlinien für die künftige Politik Chinas bestätigen. Er wird auch klarmachen: Kontinuität bleibt im Hinblick auf die Beziehung mit der EU ein Schlüsselwort. Die Diskussionen und Entscheidungen in Bejing lassen aber eine deutliche Neugewichtung des Modernisierungs- und Reformkurses erkennen.

Unter dem Stichwort einer neuen Entwicklungsphilosophie sollen die sozialen Probleme, die ökologischen Belastungen und die regionalen Ungleichgewichte angegangen werden, die auch als Ergebnis des bisher ungebremsten Wachstums eingeschätzt werden. Das ist neu. Die wirtschaftlichen wie sozialen Entwicklungen sollen auf eine Stufe gestellt werden, und die Binnennachfrage – und hier besonders der individuelle Konsum – soll als Motor für Wirtschaftswachstum eingesetzt werden.

Darüber hinaus werden Umweltbelange und Bürgerinteressen zum Imperativ für das kritische Überdenken bisheriger Wirtschaftswachstumslogik gemacht, ebenso wie die künftige Art und Weise des Ausbaus der noch immer im Aufbau befindlichen sozialen Sicherungssysteme.

Politische und wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit sind, wenn es um ihren Erfolg geht, im Kern immer Interessensausgleich, und gemessen daran vermisse ich den Geist des Anstehenden, des Möglichen und des zu Entwickelnden.

  Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ringrazio l'onorevole Belder per la sua relazione. Presiedo la delegazione Europa-Cina e posso confermare la volontà, in particolare dopo il XVIII congresso del Partito comunista, della nuova leadership cinese a migliorare i rapporti diplomatici e a garantire maggiore equità, democrazia e libertà. È chiaro che, nel rispetto dei valori fondamentali dell'Europa, il nostro impegno deve essere quello di sostenere, ma anche di controllare, rispettando le reciproche autonomie, che effettivamente ciò accada.

Difendere la libertà è e deve essere per l'Europa una questione prioritaria. I rapporti Europa-Cina sono estremamente importanti, sia a livello diplomatico che a livello economico perché, mentre le prospettive di crescita economica dell'Europa restano limitate, nel 2013 l'espansione della Cina sarà di oltre il 7%, quanto le economie di Danimarca, Svezia e Finlandia messe insieme.

Gli scambi commerciali Europa-Cina ammontano a circa 1 miliardo di euro al giorno e sono per noi fondamentali. Per questo sono del parere che si potrà accettare la richiesta della Cina dello status di economia di mercato se ci sarà una maggiore apertura e una maggiore difesa delle proprietà intellettuali da parte loro. Per essere più chiaro, auspico il riconoscimento dello status di economia di mercato alla Cina ma non a costo zero, come quando si permise l'entrata del paese asiatico nell'Organizzazione mondiale del commercio senza alcun vincolo.

La crisi sociale ed economica che attanaglia l'Occidente – ma anche la globalizzazione – ci rende tutti interconnessi e deve spingerci a lavorare insieme. La crisi economica dell'Europa ha inciso anche sull'economia cinese ed eventuali bolle finanziarie cinesi non potranno che nuocere anche all'Europa.

Infine auspico che non ci sia più solo un rapporto preferenziale Stati Uniti-Cina, ma anche un forte protagonismo dell'Europa, che per la sua storia, la sua cultura, la sua ferma volontà di rispettare i suoi valori costituenti, come la libertà, la democrazia e il rispetto dei diritti umani, potrà contribuire al benessere del mondo.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). - Senhor Presidente, a China é uma potência mundial próspera com especiais responsabilidades como membro permanente do Conselho de Segurança. A parceria estratégica entre a União Europeia e a China é por isso uma relação fundamental para encontrarmos respostas para preocupações globais – da legalidade internacional à segurança dos conflitos regionais, à não-proliferação de armas nucleares. Já hoje falámos aqui da China a propósito da Coreia do Norte e da Síria.

Também a regulação financeira e a governação económica global, o desenvolvimento sustentável e as mudanças climáticas são matérias que requerem cooperação sinergética entre a União Europeia e a China.

A União Europeia tem que ser estratégica, promover o diálogo político, económico e comercial com a China, mas defender, firmemente, os seus interesses e os seus valores, não se limitando a questões em que tenhamos posições comuns. É que muitas vezes não temos – não temos interesses comuns. É preciso assumi-lo. Ou temos com o povo chinês e não com o sistema antidemocrático e opaco que reina na China. O tal que faz os habitantes de Xangai por estes dias ironizar que os milhares de porcos que estão a boiar no rio se suicidaram por não querer respirar o ar poluído que sufoca os cidadãos.

À União Europeia cabe procurar convencer o regime chinês que é do seu interesse abrir politicamente, que é insustentável uma situação de violação dos direitos económicos, sociais, culturais, políticos e civis dos cidadãos chineses. Temos que dar visibilidade àqueles cidadãos chineses que, com grande coragem e custo pessoal, lutam pelos seus direitos humanos e por escrutinar a governação. Hu Jia, Liu Xiaobo, Ai Weiwei… são apenas alguns dos tantos nomes, incluindo tibetanos e uigures, que recorrem ao extremo da autoimolação e que deveriam recorrentemente constar em todas as plataformas de diálogo ao mais alto nível entre a União Europeia e a China.

Além disso, é do nosso interesse e das empresas europeias persuadir os parceiros chineses a mudar a forma como têm interagido com os países em desenvolvimento, em termos comerciais e económicos, que não é consistente com a promoção dos direitos humanos, do Estado de direito, transparência, proteção ambiental, etc., e desenvolvimento sustentável. Não conseguiremos promover esses valores de forma eficaz e não conseguiremos que as nossas empresas sejam competitivas de forma responsável se houver uma alternativa chinesa desprovida de supervisão democrática e de preocupações políticas, éticas e ambientais.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE). - Dle Belder, vă felicit pentru raportul echilibrat. Sigur, înţeleg şi susţin aspiraţiile noastre, înţeleg şi promovez valorile noastre, dar mă tem, stimaţi colegi, că ele se vor zdrobi, încă o dată, de Marele Zid Chinezesc.

N-aş vrea să vorbesc despre ceea ce ne desparte, suntem două lumi şi două culturi diferite: nici Confucius nu este Aristotel, nici Deng Xiaoping nu este Václav Havel, dar aş vrea să vă vorbesc despre ceea ce ne leagă. Ne leagă drumul mătăsii, ne leagă interesul comercial din istorie, ne leagă o viziune despre modernitate şi mondializare care porneşte de la Deng Xiaoping. El a lansat primul Agenda 2020, am preluat-o şi noi în Uniunea Europeană.

Important este ca acest parteneriat economic şi strategic să fie viabil, pentru că, atâta vreme cât noi vom vorbi şi vom reglementa la Bruxelles grosimea sticlei din care se produc paharele în ţările noastre, ale Uniunii Europene, cetăţenii noştri vor bea şi apa şi vinul din paharele produse în China. Despre lucrurile acestea cred că ar trebui să vorbim şi în funcție de lucrurile acestea ar trebui să gândim un parteneriat strategic şi să îl reglementăm. Pentru că, de fapt, aici stă marea provocare: cât de viabili suntem unii şi alţii în faţa globalizării.

Cred că, dacă vom lucra împreună într-un parteneriat de bună-credinţă, vom avea o şansă împreună, dincolo de dimensiunea geografică şi dincolo de valori şi aspiraţii.

Aş vrea însă să vorbesc despre un al doilea lucru care ne leagă: situaţia securitară în care China s-a implicat şi a sprijinit un proiect global de securitate.

(Preşedintele întrerupe oratorul)

  Mark Demesmaeker (Verts/ALE). - Voorzitter, collega's, rapporteur Belder had het in zijn toelichting onder andere over de droom van Chinese burgers en hij gaf verschillende voorbeelden.

Ik wil er graag nog één voorbeeld aan toevoegen, collega, en dat is de droom – verschillende andere collega's hebben het er ook over gehad – de droom van de burgers van Tibet, een droom over respect voor hun taal, hun cultuur, hun godsdienst, een droom over het recht op zelfbeschikking.

Want China is natuurlijk niet alleen een economische reus geworden, die recentelijk nog de Verenigde Staten heeft ingehaald in absolute handelscijfers. Het is ook een complex land met verschillende bevolkingsgroepen. En die realiteit zit dwars met de Chinese ambitie om altijd als eenheid naar buiten te treden. De tientallen zelfverbrandingen sinds 2009 tonen aan dat China nu echt de politieke hervorming moet doorvoeren die een einde moet maken aan politieke repressie, aan opgelegde culturele assimilatiepolitiek en ga zo maar verder.

Wederzijds respect zal alleen worden bereikt door een politiek correcte manier van optreden, onder de nieuwe Chinese leider Xi Jinping, mét respect voor de mensenrechten. De Europese Unie mag niet ophouden niet alleen China hierin aan te moedigen, maar ook druk op China uit te oefenen.

  Charles Tannock (ECR). - Mr President, the ECR has always acknowledged the PRC as a constructive and essential global partner, and I do hope that one day we will be able to welcome it into the family of nations as a peace-loving and democratic China, with full respect for human rights – a bit like Taiwan. For the time being however, it remains a one-party Communist dictatorship with an alarmingly dismissive attitude to the welfare of its own people.

Yet it cannot be ignored. The current crises in North Korea and Syria demonstrate the need for us to cooperate in the UN in the interests of global peace. In particular, China should no longer be able to act as a lone friend to pariah states from Sudan to the DPRK and train missiles at friendly nations, while simultaneously demanding full international respectability.

For this reason I welcome the report’s balanced stance. It appropriately considers the needs of Taiwan, whose friendship group I chair in this Parliament, particularly with regard to President Ma’s plan for the de-escalation of tensions in the East China Sea, where one false move could easily plunge China and Japan into a potentially catastrophic war. There are also important amendments on Tibet, whose people continue to be oppressed by a Chinese Government intent on destroying the Tibetan people’s language and way of life.

China, with over two trillion dollars in reserve, also needs to observe high standards of corporate governance in Africa (I am the rapporteur for the Horn of Africa). We must ultimately hope that the ever more powerful Chinese state, which is now the European Union’s biggest trading partner, can prove to be a force for good in the world.

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFD). - Mr President, let me first convey my deep and profound personal regret that Baroness Ashton is not present. The High Representative is much missed, as well, of course, as being very often missed. Now to China.

The EU seeks to impose its dogma on China far too often, for example on aero-engine emissions, an attempt which was unsuccessful. By contrast, if we look at the three EFTA countries, EFTA and China signed a trade agreement in 2011. More than that, trade between EFTA and China had increased at a rate of 12 % a year in the five years before that. This is how an independent UK, a UK outside the European Union, would conduct its relationship with China. Not as an adversary in the style of the EU, but similarly to the constructive friendship offered by those countries whose leadership is sensible enough and wise enough not to be part of the EU wannabe super-state.

  Der Präsident. − Es ist mir ein Anliegen, Sie darauf hinzuweisen, dass Lady Ashton am Beginn der Debatte heute Nachmittag hier war und heute Nachmittag direkt von der Debatte hier im Plenum in den Kosovo reisen musste. Sie wird bis zur Beendigung der Debatten hier von Kommissar Füle vertreten.

(Zwischenrufe von Herrn Dartmouth ohne Mikrofon.)

  Daniel Caspary (PPE). - Sehr geehrter Herr Präsident, geschätzte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Über die neue, gewachsene und ständig wachsende außenpolitische Verantwortung Chinas in dieser Welt ist ja heute Abend schon sehr viel gesprochen worden. Aber ich möchte noch einmal auf die handelspolitische Verantwortung Chinas eingehen, die aus meiner Sicht auch angesichts der immer besseren wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung in China zunimmt und auf die wir China immer wieder hinweisen sollten.

Wir erleben, dass China eine gnadenlose Industrialisierungsstrategie verfolgt. China nimmt dabei leider in weiten Teilen keine Rücksicht auf Mensch, Umwelt und andere wichtige Dinge. Und wir sehen, dass diese industrielle Strategie auch uns in Europa das Leben schwer macht. Aber wir sehen auch, dass es in China angesichts des kapitalistischen Wirtschaftssystems mit zentraler Steuerung zu Blasen kommt. Wir sehen, dass dies dazu führt, dass die Chinesen ganz gezielt versuchen, einzelnen Wirtschaftssektoren bei uns in Europa das Leben schwer zu machen.

Darüber machen wir uns Sorgen, das ist immer wieder Thema in unseren internationalen Verhandlungen mit China. Auf der anderen Seite müssen wir schon fast froh sein, dass die Chinesen dieses ineffiziente Wirtschaftssystem haben. Denn wenn die Chinesen beispielsweise das ganze Geld, das sie in den weit überbordenden Aufbau des Solarsektors gesteckt haben, sinnvoll eingesetzt hätten, wenn sie es auch in andere Sektoren investiert und eben nicht staatlich gelenkt fehlgeleitet hätten, dann würde uns die chinesische Wirtschaft nicht nur im Bereich der Solarzellen, sondern auch in anderen Sektoren das Leben schwer machen. Und deswegen bin ich schon fast dankbar, dass die Chinesen immer noch auf dieses ineffiziente System setzen.

Aber wir sollten die Chinesen mehr und mehr an ihre Verpflichtungen erinnern. Sie sind Mitglied in der WTO – d. h. sie sind verpflichtet, endlich ihr öffentliches Beschaffungswesen zu öffnen. Der Investitionsbereich muss sich verbessern. Wir müssen wegkommen von den Zwangs-Joint-Ventures und anderen Dingen. Und wir sollten die Chinesen wirklich daran erinnern, dass WTO-Mitgliedschaft nicht nur Rechte, sondern auch Pflichten mit sich bringt. Ich wäre dankbar, wenn die Kommission darauf hinwirken könnte, und ich wäre angesichts der Entwicklungen in Korea dankbar, wenn die Kommission die Chinesen auch bitten könnte, bei der Nordkoreafrage noch besser und im gemeinsamen Interesse tätig zu werden.

  Libor Rouček (S&D). - Mr President, tonight we are talking about strategic partnerships and a strategic dialogue with China. Indeed, we are strategic partners, because if we look at the combined number of our populations, together we form almost one third of the global population, and the same applies when we look at our GDP, trade and other forms of influence.

China is a member of the Security Council, and so we can say that there is no problem of global, sometimes regional, importance which can be solved without China, without our cooperation. That is why we are trying to form a strategic dialogue, a strategic partnership, and that is why we have this dialogue on almost 60 diverse or different levels.

In some areas the dialogue is successful, and is bringing very positive results both for us and for the Chinese. In other areas we have not reached that stage. Why is that? Because sometimes we do not have only common interests, but sometimes we also have a different sets of values. As has been mentioned, we have multi-party democracy, while the Chinese system is based on the role of one political party.

In spite of these differences, we should pay attention to big problems, the great problems of this world. Tonight, Korea has been mentioned. If we look at what was going on in Myanmar, we can say that China played a very positive and significant role in opening up that country, so let us take this example and let us try to do the same in Korea because, as in the case of Burma, it too can be a win-win situation – a win-win situation for the Koreans, for the Chinese, for the Japanese and the entire neighbourhood and, of course, also for us Europeans and for global peace and global security.

Without this strategic dialogue, without this strategic operation, there is no way we can solve security problems, financial problems, economic problems; and within this strategic dialogue let us talk also about human rights, how we see the situation, let us talk about environmental protection and about the many other aspects that we are supposed to talk about and deal with.

  Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). - Dziękuję bardzo. Chiny są niezwykle ważnym partnerem, nie tylko dla Unii Europejskiej, ale w skali globalnej. Biorąc pod uwagę pragmatykę aktywności gospodarczej i wymiany handlowej, nie można pomijać prac podstawowych ani przesłaniać ich gospodarczym interesem państw członkowskich. Z zadowoleniem odnotowujemy, że w projekcie rezolucji w sprawie stosunków Unii Europejskiej z Chinami w punkcie 32 Parlament Europejski wzywa władze chińskie do oficjalnego uznania podziemnych Kościołów katolickich, a także świątyń innych wyznań. Podkreślamy także, że międzynarodowe prawo w dziedzinie praw człowieka uznaje wolność religii lub przekonań. W innym miejscu Parlament Europejski przyłącza się do apelu chińskich prawników, aby w konstytucji nadać wolności religijnej charakter zasady nadrzędnej. Musimy to powtarzać: nawet jeśli postulaty te trafiały i trafiają na opór strony chińskiej, to ich konsekwentne formułowanie, przynajmniej w perspektywie średnioterminowej, musi dać pozytywny efekt. Dziękuję bardzo.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). - Señor Presidente, el ascenso de China es uno de los hechos más relevantes de las dos últimas décadas: unos 400 millones de chinos han salido de la pobreza. Asistimos, además, a una transferencia de poder político-económico desde Occidente hacia la región Asia-Pacífico, y el motor de este proceso, el motor esencial, es el crecimiento de China.

Las relaciones económico-comerciales de la Unión Europea con China no hacen más que crecer y debemos seguir favoreciendo —en beneficio mutuo, claro está— este crecimiento, al tiempo que buscamos un terreno de juego más equilibrado y más respetuoso de las normas del Derecho internacional.

Pero la Unión Europea y China no son solo actores económicos; la Unión, queremos que sea un actor político, conforme al Tratado de Lisboa, y también China debe ser ese actor político global responsable, y no limitarse —por así decirlo— a ser la gran fábrica del mundo.

Comprendo que China debe atender a sus grandes desafíos internos: tiene que otorgar prioridad a su estabilidad y a su crecimiento económico. Pero el mundo interdependiente de hoy requiere que los grandes actores —y China lo tiene que ser— asuman responsabilidades y afronten también los retos globales.

La Unión Europea y China, en el seno por ejemplo del G20, y lo más coordinadamente posible, deben ser activas y superar así los retos de la economía global. También debemos responder a desafíos globales como el cambio climático, la seguridad energética, la ayuda al desarrollo, la lucha contra las pandemias, la delincuencia organizada o la piratería —ya está China ayudando en este punto—.

Y China, miembro permanente del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas, tiene que contribuir de forma más activa a la solución de graves problemas —estoy pensando en la guerra de Siria, la amenaza nuclear iraní, el Afganistán post 2014—. Necesitamos, en suma, una China que se implique más en la gobernanza global y en la solución de los problemas.

Nosotros, la Unión Europea, mantenemos con China un amplio conjunto de diálogos estructurados e institucionalizados. Esta relación estrecha debe ahora incrementarse con las nuevas autoridades de Pekín, en beneficio mutuo y para favorecer también la paz y la estabilidad en el mundo.

  Victor Boştinaru (S&D). - Mr President, Commissioner Füle, this report comes at a very important time for relations between the EU and China. Today these relations are probably at their most significant level ever, and it is absolutely necessary to continue this trend, but also to engage the new European leadership, which will probably be elected next year, with the newly elected Chinese leadership. I believe the EU must have at the heart of its relations with China a position which is driven by pragmatism, and by this I mean that we need to keep in mind that we are two different powers, with different cultures and systems, but with a lot of common challenges for which cooperation can offer greater benefits than any differences might offer.

We also need to have a coherent approach. I think it was a slip that, according to the last paragraph, the resolution should be sent to the Taiwanese Government and to the Taiwanese Legislative Yuan, because, as rightly stated in the resolution, the EU adheres to the One China policy. I therefore ask the rapporteur to correct this and make sure that the resolution is coherent from that point of view.

  Nirj Deva (ECR). - Mr President, congratulations to Mr Belder on a balanced report.

Sometimes we fall into the trap of treating a unified nation some 2 500 years old as though it was a small child that needs to be admonished. Or we see China’s meteoric rise as a threat to so-called Western supremacy. Such apprehensions are immature and divorced from current reality.

China is not a threat but an opportunity for us. During our financial crisis it pumped more money into our economy and kept us stable. It could have done nothing. Instead it increased investment into the eurozone. It is doing so now. Our jobs, our economy, our exports, our currency require China to be successful. China’s stability is our stability. Our luxury brands are penetrating new Chinese markets. We need more. We need more Chinese investment into the EU to drive growth, growth that is now imperative.

China has become one of the strongest proponents of a rule-based trading system. Of course there remains, especially in the field of political liberties…

(The President cut off the speaker)

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

  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der blauen Karte. – Herr Kollege! Ich wollte Sie fragen, wie viel Geld China genau nach Europa gepumpt hat und aus welcher Quelle Ihre Informationen stammen.

  Nirj Deva (ECR), blue-card answer. – I am led to believe that China has invested in the Greek economy, that China has put money into Greece and Italy, and also into Spain. I do not have the exact figures, but I will find exact figures and give them to you.

  Daniel Caspary (PPE). - Sehr geehrter Herr Kollege! Nachdem Ihre Redezeit abgelaufen ist, frage ich Sie, ob es Ihnen etwas ausmachen würde, die 30 Sekunden, die Sie durch meine Nachfrage bekommen, dafür zu nutzen, doch einen Teil Ihrer Rede noch zu Ende zu bringen.

(Der Präsident entzieht dem Redner das Wort.)

  Der Präsident. − Danke, das ist nicht möglich.

  Krzysztof Lisek (PPE). - Dziękuję bardzo, Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Komisarzu! Kiedy ostatnim razem kilka miesięcy temu rozmawiałem z jednym z wysokich urzędników Komunistycznej Partii Chin zajmujących się polityką zagraniczną, to on zapytał: „Dlaczego nie chcecie jako partia, jako PPE współpracować z naszą partią?” Odpowiedział sam sobie: „Ja wiem, was razi słowo „komunistyczna” w naszej nazwie”, ale powiedział też: „Niech Pan, Panie Przewodniczący, spojrzy przez okno. No i co Pan tam widzi? Mercedes, IBM, Coca Cola, gdzie Pan tu ma komunizm? Nasz ustrój, to jest dzisiaj racjonalizm.” Tak powiedział ten urzędnik. I rzeczywiście, jeżeli mówimy o takich sprawach, jak sytuacja w Korei Północnej, to Chiny wykazują się swego rodzaju racjonalizmem i bardzo to pochwalamy. Ale jednocześnie nie możemy przejść obojętnie obok tego, że Chiny się militaryzują i próbują przejąć totalnie mocarstwową pozycję w Azji w stosunku do wszystkich partnerów. Nie możemy zapominać o tym jako Unia Europejska, że są konflikty na Morzu Południowo-Chińskim z Wietnamem, Malezją, Indonezją, Brunei, Filipinami i Tajwanem, z Japonią i innymi krajami. Tutaj jako Unia Europejska musimy o tym pamiętać i musimy zwracać na to uwagę w stosunkach z chińskimi partnerami.

  Boris Zala (S&D). - Strategické partnerstvo s Čínou vnímam ako test akcieschopnosti našej zahraničnej politiky. Vzhľadom na potenciál čínskeho trhu viaceré členské štáty EÚ preferujú bilaterálne vzťahy. To musíme prekonať. Bez spoločného postupu bude každý členský štát vo vzťahu s Čínou tým slabším partnerom.

Po druhé, nemôžeme redukovať partnerstvo s Čínou na ekonomiku, je to chybná logika. Čína je dôležitý geopolitický partner. Bez strategického dialógu s Čínou nedokáže Európska únia svoje globálne ciele.

Po tretie, nesmieme vnímať partnerstvo s Čínou iba cez prizmu americko-čínskych vzťahov. To nám ponúka len dve alternatívy: užšie transatlantické spojenectvo proti Číne alebo rolu mediátora medzi Čínou a Amerikou – rolu nezaťaženú priamymi bezpečnostnými záujmami v pacifickom regióne. Je to falošná dichotómia.

EÚ musí rozvíjať vzťahy s Čínou ako autonómny samostatný aktér. Sledovať naše záujmy a hodnoty a aj priority našich spojencov.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). - Vreau să-l felicit, înainte de toate, pe raportor. Vreau, de asemenea, să-i mulțumesc lui Ioannis Kasoulides, care a fost raportorul din umbră al grupului. Am colaborat și cu raportorul, și cu raportorul din umbră foarte bine, reușind să amendez câteva puncte ale raportului.

Cred că este important să subliniem că recenta evoluție economică a Chinei este pozitivă, în măsura în care a permis unei importante părți a populației să aibă un standard de viață mai ridicat. În același timp, să nu uităm, China este în continuare o societate controlată de partidul-stat, în care libertatea, inclusiv economică, nu este niciodată pe deplin garantată.

Mă bucur că rezoluția precizează că drepturile omului sunt universale, inalienabile, indivizibile și interdependente. Așa cum se știe, de la Beijing aflăm, uneori, că există, în funcție de cultură, moduri diferite de a privi drepturile omului,

În cadrul actualului mandat, am participat la redactarea a cinci rezoluții de urgență privind respectarea drepturilor omului în China şi îmi pare rău că probleme precum pedeapsa cu moartea rămân extrem de delicate pentru Beijing.

În fine, salut sprijinul exprimat de China pentru Inițiativa privind transparența în industriile extractive (EITI). E o chestiune de care m-am ocupat. Pentru ca această inițiativă să aibă succes, trebuie sprijinită de toate statele.

  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). - Dziękuję bardzo, Panie Przewodniczący! W tej debacie na temat relacji Unia-Chiny powinniśmy patrzeć na Chiny jako na globalnego gracza, naszego globalnego partnera. I z tego punktu widzenia, ponieważ jest to debata, a nie wygłaszanie oświadczeń, chciałbym szczególnie podkreślić moją zgodność z poglądem posła Bütikofera, który spytał: „Czy Unia Europejska jako całość jest rzeczywiście partnerem dla Chin? Czy Chiny nie wybierają selektywnie poszczególnych państw? To bądźmy partnerem!” W naszej debacie mamy dwa wątki: pierwszy – to jest polityka, w tym prawa człowieka i gospodarka. Polityce, prawom człowieka poświęcamy więcej uwagi. Dlaczego? Przepraszam, ale ponieważ jest to łatwiejsze – mniej potrzeba być douczonym. Natomiast sprawy gospodarcze będą rozstrzygać o przyszłości, i naszej – Europy, i naszych relacji z Chinami. Dlatego też bardzo podkreślałbym sprawy uczciwego handlu, dumpingu, inwestycyjnej obecności. Ale nie wszystkie doświadczenia z inwestycjami chińskimi są pozytywne. Dziękuję.

  Bernd Posselt (PPE). - Herr Präsident! Als unser früherer Kollege Otto von Habsburg in den 50er Jahren geschrieben hat, China werde sich eigenständig entwickeln und ein Gegenpol zum Sowjetblock sein, da haben ihm alle Zeitungen gekündigt, deren Kolumnist er damals war – außer den Vorarlberger Nachrichten. In den 60er Jahren haben große Strategen wie Alain Peyrefitte, Franz-Josef Strauß und andere diese Entwicklung ebenfalls vorhergesehen. Und China hat sich völlig eigenständig entwickelt. Es ist nicht nur eine riesige Nation, es ist eigentlich ein Kontinent.

Auf der anderen Seite: Das Massaker am Platz des Himmlischen Friedens war zufällig an meinem 33. Geburtstag und ich habe in Prag – damals noch kommunistisch – von diesem Massaker erfahren. Ich habe am Wenzelsplatz den „Morning Star“ gelesen und gesehen, wie von den Ostblockkommunisten gerechtfertigt wurde, was ihre Genossen in China, mit denen sie angeblich verfeindet waren, verbrochen haben.

Warum erwähne ich das? Man kann China weder nur geostrategisch und wirtschaftlich noch rein ideologisch sehen. Wir müssen China in einem ganzheitlichen strategischen Ansatz sehen. Der frühere Papst Benedikt wollte immer Religionsfreiheit und Menschenrechte in China zu einem Schwerpunkt seines Pontifikats machen. Wir müssen hoffen, dass der heute gewählte Papst Franziskus der sein wird, in dessen Ära das Wirklichkeit wird.

Aber wir müssen uns darüber im Klaren sein, dass China immer seine eigenständige Entwicklung nehmen wird. Und nur wenn wir als Europäer in unseren Beziehungen mit China einen ganzheitlichen Ansatz wählen und Europa als Block in diese Verhandlungen einbringen, nur dann werden wir gegenüber China etwas erreichen. China ist mehr an uns interessiert, als wir glauben. Es blockiert auf der einen Seite die Anerkennung des Kosovo im Weltsicherheitsrat. Es unterhält aber in Prishtina ein eigenes Informationsbüro. Das zeigt das Interesse an den Entwicklungen in Europa, und so müssen wir uns China auch stellen – im Detail und mit einer großen Strategie.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D). - Mr President, Commissioner, there are some issues that divide us from China – first and foremost its political system – but Europe shares many things with China and now I want to stress just one element, the rejection of war as an instrument of foreign policy and the peaceful approach to international relations.

For more than 25 centuries, war aversion has been a characteristic feature of the Chinese mentality and philosophy. Europe started to be a peaceful continent after the Second World War. Europe and China today are powerful peace advocates lowering or containing their military budgets and preferring non-military solutions during international crises. We share with China a non-aggressive approach to global security, respect for multilateral bodies and a non-paranoiac view of world issues. These are big building blocks for a future partnership capable of contributing to security and prosperity on a global scale.

  Alf Svensson (PPE). - Herr talman! Tack Bastiaan Belder för utomordentliga skrivningar. Här behöver vi inte övertyga varandra om att Kina lyckas väl materiellt. Vi behöver inte heller ivra för att Kina ska få starkare ekonomisk tillväxt – där kan vi väl snarare känna avundsjuka och undra över hur detta skulle kunna uppnås för vårt kära Europa.

Vad vi måste stryka under med kraft – och jag menar att vi bör göra det om och om igen – det är vad åtskilliga här lyft upp, nämligen att respekten för människovärdet inte accepteras i detta gigantiska land.

Vi har nämnt dödsstraffet och vi skulle kunna nämna hur dissidenter behandlas, vi skulle kunna nämna tvångsaborter, vi skulle kunna nämna fångar som får finna sig i att man opererar ut organ som man sedan transplanterar och vi ska naturligtvis – som också har nämnts här tidigare – erinra om de minoriteter som får leva som något slags B-lag i det stora gigantiska Kina.

Det är absolut vår uppgift från Europaparlamentets håll att lyfta fram att respekten för demokratiska värden åligger även den största av nationer och inte enbart de små nationerna som det alltid är lättare att peka på och agera mot.

Sedan tycker jag också att det är viktigt i sammanhanget att lyfta fram och belysa hur Kina agerar i den tredje världen. Där har vi en hel del att önska från Kinas sida.

  Anna Záborská (PPE). - Chcela by som poďakovať kolegovi Belderovi za návrh vyváženej správy o Číne. Vážim si, že okrem vyzdvihnutia významu európsko-čínskej spolupráce v oblasti hospodárstva, vedy a výskumu upozornil aj na pretrvávajúce nedostatky – nedostatky v oblasti dodržiavania ľudských práv, predovšetkým v oblasti slobody myslenia a prejavu, slobody náboženstva či práva na spravodlivý súd.

Pred necelým rokom som iniciovala uznesenie tohto Parlamentu, ktoré kritizovalo čínsku vládnu politiku jedného dieťaťa. Preto mi je trochu ľúto, že v správe nájdeme len číslo a dátum prijatia tohto uznesenia. Ak chceme, aby čínski komunisti zmenili svoju odsúdeniahodnú populačnú politiku, musíme dôslednejšie pripomínať jej neľudský charakter. Nielen tibetskí mnísi a tibetský ľud si zaslúžia našu neustálu politickú a ľudskú podporu. Zaslúži si ju aj každá čínska matka, której štát násilím vezme a usmrtí ešte nenarodené dieťa a ťažko pritom poškodí jej fyzické a psychické zdravie. Škoda len, že zároveň Európska komisia podporuje zo spoločného rozpočtu Únie mimovládne organizácie, ktoré podporujú v Číne potratové kliniky a nútené sterilizácie.

  Marco Scurria (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la nuova leadership cinese eletta nel recente congresso del Partito comunista ci dice che è pronta al rinnovamento, a riformare lo Stato e a incamminarsi verso la democrazia. Ce lo auguriamo e come Unione spingiamo affinché ciò accada, perché riteniamo che la Cina sia un importante partner per noi.

Rimangono però zone d'ombra su cui non possiamo tacere e ringrazio il relatore per averle evidenziate. Noi non possiamo non rimanere sbigottiti, signor Commissario, quando veniamo a sapere che in Cina i giudici dovrebbero sottostare a tre autorità, partito, popolo e legge, nell'ordine indicato, e che il Ministero della Giustizia cinese ha stabilito che tutti gli avvocati devono prestare giuramento di fedeltà al Partito comunista cinese per ottenere o rinnovare l'autorizzazione all'esercizio della professione.

Non possiamo rimanere indifferenti, signor Presidente, di fronte alla questione tibetana. Non possiamo non accorgerci, cari colleghi, che nel mondo la Cina è il paese che emette la maggior quantità di diossido di carbonio e che i livelli delle emissioni continuano ad aumentare rapidamente. Non possiamo non sapere che la libertà di stampa e su Internet rimane una chimera. Non possiamo non vedere le difficoltà delle aziende europee per entrare in Cina e per subire invece una concorrenza di fatto sleale da parte di imprese cinesi nel nostro mercato interno. Dobbiamo ancora lavorare molto per migliorare le nostre relazioni, ma noi siamo qui anche per questo.

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren

  Roberta Angelilli (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, potrei parlare anch'io di quanto la Cina può essere un partner strategico da un punto di vista commerciale per l'Europa; potrei parlare invece anche della concorrenza sleale oppure della mancata reciprocità o, forse, come hanno fatto altri colleghi, potrei parlare della politica del figlio unico, delle donne costrette ad abortire, della pena di morte.

In verità, questa sera voglio soltanto ricordare che domenica 10 marzo è stato celebrato il Cinquantaquattresimo anniversario dell'insurrezione di Lhasa contro l'occupazione del Tibet da parte del regime comunista cinese. La Cina continua a commettere gravi violazioni dei diritti umani e dei diritti delle minoranze. Il mio intervento in verità è inteso soltanto a non dimenticare che dal 2009 sono ben 107 i giovani monaci che si sono autoimmolati per protestare contro la repressione cinese.

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D). - China este, în prezent, a treia economie mondială, după Uniunea Europeană şi Statele Unite. Uniunea Europeană este primul partener comercial al Chinei, iar aceasta este al doilea partener al Uniunii în acest domeniu. Pe de altă parte, Europa este unul dintre cei cinci principali investitori străini direcţi în China: 17,8 miliarde de euro în 2011. În sens invers, fluxul de investiţii chinezeşti în Europa a crescut semnificativ, în ciuda crizei, atingând nivelul de 3,1 miliarde de euro în 2011.

Este normal ca, la nivelul Uniunii, să acordăm o atenţie deosebită relaţiilor cu această ţară, relaţii care trebuie să fie în concordanţă cu principiul de parteneriat, fondat pe reciprocitate. Având în vedere potenţialul uriaş la Chinei la capitolul agricultură, este benefic pentru cele două părţi faptul că există un acord UE-China în acest domeniu, semnat de comisarul Cioloş în 2012 şi care este destinat întăririi cooperării în domeniul agriculturii şi dezvoltării rurale.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). - Kína növekvő világgazdasági és világpolitikai szerepéről esik szó a legtöbbet, de úgy néz ki, hogy továbbra is fel kell emelnünk szavunkat az emberi- és kisebbségi jogokhoz kötődő ügyekben is annak érdekében, hogy a jelentős változásokat átélő kínai társadalom érzékeny legyen a jogsértésekre és a kínai vezetők meghallják saját népük szavát. Szeretném hangsúlyozni a jelentésnek azon megállapításait, amelyek a tibeti autonómiára vonatkoznak. A kínai kormány erőszakos asszimilációval, kulturális rombolással vagy elnyomó rendőri és biztonsági módszerekkel nem fog tartós stabilitást elérni.

És nem fog jó viszonyt kialakítani a kínai, a tibeti és az ujgur nép között, hanem csak úgy, ha komolyan foglalkozik az őslakosok minden panaszával annak érdekében, hogy valóban létrejöjjön a megosztott felelősség a két autonóm tartomány jólétéért. Azt hiszem ennek a gondolatnak nem csak Kína Tibettel és az Ujgur Autonóm Területtel kapcsolatos politikájára érvényesek, hanem egynéhány európai országra is.

  Csaba Sándor Tabajdi (S&D). - Bármennyire fontos stratégiai partner is az Európai Unió számára Kína, mégsem hagyhatjuk figyelmen kívül mindazt a jogsértést, ami Kínában megfigyelhető. Különösen aggasztó a tibeti és az ujgur kisebbség jogainak a korlátozása, megsértése, a politikai ellenzék jogainak a megsértése. És a kereskedelem terén is lépéseket kellene tenni, hiszen diszkriminálják az európai uniós cégeket. Az unió részéről azonban azt is végig kellene gondolnunk, hogy mi legyen a viszonyunk azokhoz a kínai cégekhez, amelyek Európában szeretnének befektetni. Én azt hiszem, hogy az Európai Uniónak is nyitottabbnak kellene lenni ezen cégek irányában, hiszen szükség van a befektetésre, új munkahelyek teremtésére Európában – különösen az élen járó technológiák, a telekommunikáció és az informatika terén.

  Jaroslav Paška (EFD). - Čína vďaka svojmu rýchlemu ekonomickému rastu stále viac posilňuje pozíciu hospodárskej, ale aj vojenskej či technologickej mocnosti v Ázii. Jej význam ako globálneho hráča neustále narastá, a preto je potrebné venovať našim vzťahom s touto krajinou náležitú pozornosť. Aj preto, myslím si, treba oceniť vecný a objektívny character precízne spracovanej správy pána poslanca Beldera o Číne, jej vnútornej i zahraničnej politike, hospodárstve a ekonomických či mocenských prejavoch.

Napriek tomu, že čínska politická scéna stale stojí na komunistických základoch, akceptovanie trhových hospodárskych pravidiel a možno aj špecifického podnikateľského prostredia jej umožňujú dynamický hospodársky rast podporený aj prudko rastúcou domácou spotrebou. Direktívne riadená spoločnosť však v sebe ukrýva mnohé potenciálne problémy, s ktorými sa režim nebude môcť dôstojne vysporiadať bez priznania základných práv občanom svojej krajiny.

  Iosif Matula (PPE). - Parteneriatul strategic UE-China întăreşte buna cooperare bazată pe interese comune şi înţelegere reciprocă. Avem nevoie de stabilirea unei cooperări pe termen lung, astfel încât să reuşim să coordonăm strategia UE 2020 cu planurile Chinei pe cinci ani. Întâlnirile la nivel înalt UE-China au contribuit semnificativ la readaptarea la noile condiţii a Acordului chino-european privind schimburile comerciale şi cooperarea economică, semnat în 1985.

Mai sunt însă paşi de parcurs. Investitorii chinezi deplâng obstacolele cu care se confruntă datorită diversităţii pieţelor europene. Pe de altă parte, cu toate că piaţa chineză prezintă un puternic potenţial, investiţiile europene în China sunt foarte puţin prezente. UE rămâne, în continuare, un partener important şi indispensabil al Chinei în relaţiile economice. Totodată, China reprezintă o provocare, dar şi o oportunitate pentru UE. În concluzie, consider că unitatea în diversitate europeană şi noua civilizaţie ecologică promovată de China au numeroase punţi comune, ce pot consolida relaţiile noastre.

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, allow me indeed to offer my congratulations to Mr Belder on his work, which has led to such an inspiring debate. In closing, I want to reiterate my gratitude to the European Parliament for its support for High Representative Ashton’s work and the focus that Members have given to the European Union-China strategic dialogue in the report and discussion today.

The European Union will use the opportunity of engagement with the new Chinese leadership this year, not least at the 16th European Union-China Summit, to map out the further course of the relationship over the coming years. This report gives us the European Parliament’s perspective on what is important for it.

High Representative Ashton expects shortly to travel to China for her first encounter with the new Chinese leadership. There we will lay the foundation for the next European Union-China strategic dialogue, which is due to take place in Brussels this year.

The European External Action Service will continue to keep the European Parliament – in particular its Delegation for Relations with the People’s Republic of China and its Subcommittee on Human Rights – regularly informed about all developments in European Union-China relations.

  Bastiaan Belder, Rapporteur. − Voorzitter, eerst wil ik één ding rechtzetten. In het debat hier vanavond is door erg veel collega's – en dat kan ik best begrijpen – de handelscomponent, de commerciële betrekkingen tussen de Europese Unie en China naar voren gebracht. Ik ben ook heel erg overtuigd van het belang hiervan en heb hierover ook ontzettend veel literatuur tot me genomen, maar op uitdrukkelijk verzoek van de Commissie internationale handel mocht dit element geen plaats krijgen in dit verslag. Anders dan in het verslag 2005-2006, dat ik ook namens de Commissie buitenlandse zaken voor mijn rekening mocht nemen. Dus collega's, ik ben ervan overtuigd dat het erg belangrijk is, maar het ligt aan de Commissie internationale handel. Dat was een afspraak op hoog parlementair niveau, waar ik ben buiten gebleven ben. Ik heb me er vervolgens aan gehouden.

Dank aan de goede samenwerking met de schaduwrapporteurs van alle politieke fracties. Ook hartelijk dank aan de delegatie van de Europese Unie in Peking. Ik moet zowel de Raad als de Commissie bedanken voor de buitengewoon stimulerende samenwerking die we hadden tijdens gesprekken hier in Brussel, maar ook vooral tijdens gesprekken in Peking een tweetal keren vorig jaar.

Collega's, wat heeft dit verslag me geleerd? Wel, dat het aandachtig luisteren naar de vele stemmen en opinies die op dit moment te beluisteren zijn in dat onmetelijke 'rijk van het midden', de Chinese volksrepubliek, buitengewoon stimulerend is, vitaliserend is. Er zijn tal van uitstekende correspondenten – wat ze ook van de Europese Unie kunnen zeggen – uit Duitsland, uit mijn eigen land, uit alle Europese landen bijna, in China gevestigd. Ik raad dan ook aan: volg hun reportages, kom vooral op voor hun rechten – dat heb ik ook duidelijk in mijn verslag gezegd – verrijk uw kennis en scherp zo onze blik!

En dan kom ik bij het laatste. Ik doe niet mee aan het oproepen van schrikbeelden over China. Juist die enorme ontwikkeling van China daagt ons uit tot innovatie en tot uitgaan van onze eigen intellectuele, economische kracht, die we nog steeds bezitten in de Europese Unie in haar geheel. Laten we, waar dat noodzakelijk is, vooral gezamenlijk optreden tegenover Peking. Dat is wat anders dan defensief optreden. Welnee, dat is opkomen voor je belangen vanuit je eigen kracht!

  Der Präsident. − Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Die Abstimmung findet am Donnerstag, 14. März 2013, statt.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 149 GO)

  Cristiana Muscardini (ECR), per iscritto. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, siamo consapevoli della grande importanza che riveste oggi un partenariato strategico tra l'Unione europea e la Cina, partenariato che può diventare strumento di risposta ai problemi economici dovuti all'insorgere dell'attuale crisi finanziaria che ha colpito i nostri produttori e consumatori. Non dobbiamo però dimenticare che questo partenariato deve garantire gli interessi comuni, i quali sono raggiungibili solo attraverso il rispetto di regole condivise ed applicate. Vale nel commercio dove, senza la reciprocità verrebbe meno la competitività del nostro settore produttivo e di conseguenza la libertà dei nostri consumatori, come vale nelle scelte di politica sociale.

Non possiamo aprire i nostri mercati e favorire un'integrazione con la Cina se prima non ci darà segni di progresso sociale: in Cina continuano ad esserci campi di concentramento, "Laogai", che sfruttano forza lavoro per le produzioni industriali; si costringono le donne a pratiche disumane come l'aborto o la sterilizzazione coatta; sono imposte quote sulla nascita attraverso tassazioni di mantenimento sociale elevate e si prosegue verso una forma di "colonizzazione" nei confronti del continente africano, dove la presenza di aziende e di investimenti cinesi ha provocato gravi tensioni sociali. La relazione apre una nuova strada e speriamo che possa essere base di riflessione per il futuro.

  Νικόλαος Σαλαβράκος (EFD), γραπτώς. – Συγχαίρω τον κ. Μπέλντερ για την ολοκληρωμένη και πολύ καλή έκθεση που μας παρουσίασε. Η Κίνα έχει γίνει ένα πολύ καλό παράδειγμα χώρας που μετατράπηκε από μόνη της μία από τις φτωχότερες χώρες στον κόσμο στην δεύτερη μεγαλύτερη οικονομία σε μόλις τριάντα χρόνια Κανείς δεν αμφισβητεί ότι η στρατηγική εταιρική σχέση ΕΕ-Κίνας είναι εξαιρετικά σημαντική, ειδικότερα στις περιόδους που διανύουμε όπου οι προκλήσεις είναι πολλές. Η δημιουργία ενός πλαισίου για την αντιμετώπιση θεμάτων που απασχολούν τα δύο μέρη, θεωρώ ότι θα βοηθήσει και στην προώθηση ζητημάτων όπως τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα, τα εργασιακά ζητήματα, την ενέργεια, τα πυρηνικά τα περιβαλλοντικά κ.α. Κρίνεται ιδιαίτερα σημαντική η πρόταση για αναζήτηση συνεργιών μεταξύ του 12ου πενταετούς προγράμματος της Κίνας και της Στρατηγικής "Ευρώπη 2020" με στόχο την εμβάθυνση της συνεργασίας και τον συντονισμό σε ποικίλους τομείς. Η Κίνα, •όπως φαίνεται δεν είναι πια η «χελώνα των εθνών», όπως την είχε χαρακτηρίσει κάποτε κατά την άφιξή του στην ασιατική χώρα ο Νίκος Καζαντζάκης

19. Механизъм за сътрудничество и проверка: методология, настоящо прилагане и бъдеще (разискване)

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zum Kooperations- und Kontrollverfahren: Methodik, derzeitige Anwendung und Zukunft des Verfahrens (2013/2568(RSP)).

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, honourable Members, I would like to thank you on behalf of President Barroso, under whose remit the cooperation and verification mechanism falls, for this opportunity to set out the Commission’s approach to this measure.

When Romania and Bulgaria joined the European Union in 2007, the Council recognised that certain weaknesses remained in the areas of judicial reform and corruption and – in the case of Bulgaria – organised crime. The concern was that these weaknesses could prevent an effective application of European Union laws, policies and programmes, and that they would prevent Romanians and Bulgarians from enjoying their full rights as European Union citizens.

The Council therefore decided to set up the CVM: four benchmarks for Romania and six benchmarks for Bulgaria were set out to help the Commission to chart progress. The Commission has regularly reported on progress, making recommendations setting out where further measures are needed in the two Member States. Last summer, in the fifth year of the CVM, the Commission decided to produce a longer-term assessment. These reports concluded that some of the key building blocks were in place, particularly in terms of laws and institutions, so the focus has shifted to filling the gaps: implementation and the ownership needed to maintain the momentum of reform.

Around the time of the July report, important questions were raised about the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in Romania. The Commission made a number of specific recommendations to Romania and undertook to look again at these issues at the end of the year. The report adopted in January made clear that Romania had implemented several – but not all – of these recommendations. It made other recommendations on points where further progress is needed.

The Commission believes that the CVM has proved to be an effective driver of reform. It has had a tangible impact in supporting reform and many of its recommendations have inspired the positive steps taken in the two Member States over the past five years. However, it has to be recognised that this is a process which often needs deep societal change. It is not realistic to expect quick results.

Of course, there have been some misgivings expressed in Bulgaria and Romania about the CVM process. This has not been helped by the tendency of some Member States to make a political link between Schengen and the CVM. I would like to underline here, once again, that the Commission does not support this link. The Schengen process has its own tools to assess readiness. The CVM is not designed to duplicate or replace these.

I am pleased to know that the Council has once again this week welcomed the Commission’s methodology, its analysis and its recommendations. The Commission’s conclusions on the CVM are firmly in the mainstream of European opinion; for example, many of the issues raised in the Commission’s report have been echoed in the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.

Most importantly, this work is recognised by Bulgarians and Romanians themselves. Last summer the Eurobarometer poll showed that clear majorities in both Member States thought that the European Union had an important role in addressing these issues and had a positive effect. Over seven out of the ten in both also believed that the European Union action should continue until they reached a standard comparable to that of other Member States.

The Commission remains in close contact with the Bulgarian and Romanian authorities. We will produce our next reports towards the end of this year. We will also continue our close monitoring and ongoing dialogue to reinforce the process and the reforms, and to help the two Member States to meet the objectives of the mechanism.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu, în numele grupului PPE. – Introducerea MCV-ului a permis aderarea României la Uniunea Europeană în 2007, şi nu în 2008. Monitorizarea şi rapoartele elaborate de Comisie au determinat efecte pozitive asupra sistemului de justiţie şi în ceea ce priveşte lupta împotriva corupţiei. Rapoartele au fost obiective şi au avut un trend pozitiv. În 2012, la începutul anului, se atinsese un punct la care se putea discuta despre încetarea aplicării mecanismului. Evenimentele din vara anului 2012 au anulat această posibilitate şi au adus în discuţie, pe lângă atacul asupra statului de drept, ideea că reformele în România sunt reversibile.

Raportul din 2013 a prezentat, alături de progrese, elemente negative: miniştri cercetaţi penal, numirea Avocatului Poporului, nepunerea în aplicare a hotărârilor judecătoreşti. Consiliul Afaceri Generale vorbeşte, în concluziile din 11 martie, despre responsabilitatea miniştrilor şi parlamentarilor de a fi un exemplu în ceea ce priveşte respectul pentru integritate.

Recent, patru state membre au cerut introducerea unui mecanism care să asigure respectarea valorilor fundamentale în statele membre. Cererea menţionează, ca ultim resort, suspendarea fondurilor europene, ceea ce, dacă s-ar întâmpla, ar fi o catastrofă economică pentru România. Pentru a evita astfel de reacţii, singura soluţie este ca actualul guvern să înceteze declaraţiile împotriva instituţiilor europene şi să abordeze cu responsabilitate eliminarea deficienţelor menţionate în ultimele rapoarte.

În viitor, sper ca efectele MCV-ului să se răsfrângă doar asupra domeniilor monitorizate.

The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule149(8)

  Victor Boştinaru (S&D), Întrebare adresată conform procedurii „cartonaşului albastru”. – Dle deputat, acum câteva momente doar, comisarul Füle a spus: Comisa nu sprijină, nu acceptă, respinge legarea mecanismului de aderare la Schengen de MCV. Dumneavoastră tocmai aţi venit şi aţi confirmat că susţineţi această poziţie. Să înţeleg că PDL-ul, pe care îl reprezentaţi, are o atitudine potrivnică Comisiei Europene?

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), Răspuns la o întrebare adresată conform procedurii „cartonaşului albastru”. – Dle Boştinaru, eu am vorbit în limba română - sper că înţelegeţi această limbă - şi am spus, în final, „în viitor, sper ca efectele MCV-ului să se răsfrângă doar asupra domeniilor monitorizate”.

  Ioan Enciu, în numele grupului S&D. – Mecanismul de cooperare şi verificare pentru România a fost, în ultima vreme, politizat şi deturnat de la adevăratele sale obiective, prin dezinformări şi în spaţiul public european, făcute de către membri ai Partidului Liberal Democrat şi chiar de către Preşedintele României. Vreau să asigur, încă o dată, atât acest Parlament, cât şi Comisia Europeană, că actualul guvern român are ca obiectiv creşterea independenţei justiţiei şi respectarea tuturor condiţionalităţilor MCV. Nu există niciun dubiu faţă de angajamentele autorităţilor române privind respectarea şi întărirea statului de drept, lucru dovedit prin măsurile promovate de guvernul USL.

Dacă Uniunea Europeană este o comunitate de drept, Comisia, care apără această ordine de drept, ar trebui să promoveze o abordare obiectivă a MCV-urilor, bazată pe un set de reguli şi condiţionalităţi clare, astfel încât acest instrument să nu mai poată fi deturnat, în funcţie de contexte politice.

  Norica Nicolai, în numele grupului ALDE. – Mă bucur că această declaraţie a prezentat-o dl Comisar Füle, care declara, într-o dezbatere anterioară, că nu este un partizan al justiţiei selective. Nici noi nu suntem partizani ai justiţiei selective, dle Comisar, şi asta nu o spun pentru dumneavoastră, ci pentru cei care sunt partizani ai acestui tip de justiţie, dna Reding şi dl Barroso.

Nu avem de-a face cu un real mecanism de cooperare şi verificare, pentru că, în cazul României, acest mecanism se numeşte „mecanism de verificare”. Nu avem de a face cu un mecanism juridic, care este unul sui generis, pentru că el nu are un termen între părţile contractante, nu are o metodologie, despre care, acum, vorbiţi că se pune la punct, nu are decât o viziune discreţionară, partizană politic, generată de interesele unui grup politic aflat la putere în România.

În aceste condiţii, credem că ar trebui să vorbim despre un deficit de democraţie în Uniunea Europeană, nu cu privire la situaţia Bulgariei şi a României. Suntem parteneri egali în Uniunea Europeană, democraţia înseamnă reguli şi standarde comune pentru toate statele membre, şi nu parteneriate privilegiate, în care unii dictează altora. Pentru că acest lucru se întâmplă în acest mecanism de cooperare.

Cum vă explicaţi, dle Comisar, că ni se cere să incriminăm faptul că presa îndrăzneşte să prezinte public situaţii care pun în dificultate judecători? Este împotriva practicii CEDO, împotriva oricărei reguli europene, împotriva oricărei reguli democrate. Acest lucru ni se cere, însă, de către Uniunea Europeană. Şi cred că trebuie să discutăm despre deficitul nostru de democraţie, şi nu al celor două state pe care le monitorizăm.

Cum vă explicaţi, dle Comisar, şi aş vrea să-i transmiteţi dlui Preşedinte Barroso, că întotdeauna suntem judecaţi după criterii care nu au niciun fel de sursă şi viabilitate în tratate? Întotdeauna suntem judecaţi după practici care nu sunt comune standardelor europene în materie de justiţie şi administrare a justiţiei. Nu avem un acquis comun, suntem diferiţi cultural, avem o tradiţie legală şi juridică total diferită şi acest domeniu este unul de reală subsidiaritate.

Nu ni se poate impune o formulă de dictat, decât dacă noi o acceptăm. Dar nu o vom mai accepta foarte mult, dle Comisar şi acest lucru trebuie să îl transmiteţi dlui Preşedinte Barroso. E destul!

The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule149(8)

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE), Întrebare adresată conform procedurii „cartonaşului albastru”. – Aş vrea să o întreb pe dna Norica Nicolai dacă partidul pe care în reprezintă nu are niciun înlocuitor pentru ministrul cercetat penal, dl Fenechiu, care se află în acest moment în Guvernul României şi care a fost incriminat de raportul MCV.

  Norica Nicolai (ALDE), Răspuns la o întrebare adresată conform procedurii „cartonaşului albastru”. – Aş vrea să îi reamintesc dlui Preda ceea ce spunea Jean Monet: „construcţia europeană nu se adresează guvernelor şi miniştrilor, se adresează cetăţenilor europeni”. Acest mecanism nu se adresează Guvernului României, ci cetăţenilor români. Şi, din acest punct de vedere, consider întrebarea absolut deplasată, aşa cum este şi afirmaţia din raport, şi refuz să răspund.

  Cornelia Ernst, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Es ist ja viel davon gesprochen worden, dass der Schengen-Besitzstand und das Kooperations- und Kontrollverfahren CVM zwei verschiedene Paar Schuhe sind. Aber das ist nur theoretisches Gerede. Praktisch ist es nicht so. Praktisch bedeutet das, dass wir zwei Klassen von Mitgliedstaaten haben und etablieren. Und so ist es momentan. Damit können wir nicht zufrieden sein! Und deshalb sagen wir auch: gleiche Behandlung für alle Mitgliedstaaten – die alten wie die neuen.

Der zweite Punkt: Die Kommission hat im CVM bei Justizreform, Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Korruptionsbekämpfung in Rumänien ausdrücklich Fortschritte gewürdigt, auch wenn es natürlich noch Mängel gibt. Rumänien zeigt bei der Korruptionsbekämpfung ernsthafte Bemühungen – das kann man wirklich nachlesen und nachfühlen – und hat beispielsweise im Unterschied zu Deutschland, das so sehr auf Korruptionsbekämpfung pocht, wenigstens auch die UN-Konvention gegen Korruption ratifiziert und gehört damit zur Mehrheit und nicht zur Minderheit.

Der dritte Punkt: Ich möchte gerne von der Kommission ein paar Fragen beantwortet haben: Worauf beruft sie sich rechtlich bei der Breite und Pauschalisierung in diesem Bericht, den sie vorlegt? Und welches sind denn die wirklich objektivierbaren Kriterien, nach denen Rumänien jetzt konkret weiterarbeiten soll? Ab wann gelten zu erfüllende Forderungen denn als erfüllt und gesteckte Ziele als tatsächlich erreicht? Was sind denn nun die Zeitfenster für diese Länder? Ich sage Ihnen offen, wir lehnen eine Open-End-Strategie für Bulgarien und Rumänien komplett ab.

Und der letzte Punkt: Zur Ehrlichkeit gehört auch, einzuräumen, dass es nicht nur um die Korruptionsproblematik geht, sondern auch um Zuwanderung – und die wird benutzt, um einen Staat in die zweite Klasse zu treiben.

  Adrian Severin (NI). - Mr President, at the birth date of the CVM, Romania and Bulgaria had reasonably improvable judiciary systems. Six years later, the rule of law in Romania is in jeopardy, if not in ruins.

The CVM is illegal since it has no base in the Treaties or in the acquis communautaire. The CVM is discriminatory since it is only being applied to two Member States. It will not even apply to the future Member State of Croatia.

The CVM is structurally abusive, since it does not have a fixed time frame, a firm list of objectives, clear criteria for measuring progress, a fair and effective system of sanctions or any means of correcting incorrect assessments. Moreover, the Commission has used it to press for the replacement of ministers, and to impose specific chief prosecutors and even the national ombudsman.

The CVM lacks transparency: the Commission has constantly refused to disclose the sources of the misrepresentations circulated in its reports.

The CVM was misused by the Commission to discredit the parliament, to strip parliamentarians of their seats, to limit the freedom of speech, the freedom of the media, the right to a fair trial and even the independence of the judiciary. The CVM was used to push certain judiciary decisions in particular cases. The CVM inflicted heavy structural damage. The judges went on strike to protest against the politicised Supreme Council of Magistrates and the parliament is in open conflict with the judicial authorities.

All candidates under judicial accusation won this year’s parliamentary elections overwhelmingly. This is not because Romanians are casual about corruption, but because they do not trust the judiciary shaped by the CVM. Therefore the CVM is dead; Romanians’ and Bulgarians’ rights in the European Union should no longer be limited, but this is not only about Romanians and Bulgarians, it is about the credibility of the European Union project. One has to acknowledge that and move forward.

This is my last sentence, Mr President: when a patient does not respond to treatment, one does not change the patient, one changes …

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Marco Scurria (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, innanzitutto tenevo a dire che intervengo anche a nome del mio collega che non è potuto essere presente alla discussione. Volevo altresì ringraziare i Commissari Reding e Füle per il loro lavoro sul meccanismo di cooperazione e verifica, che ritengo un passo importante per la definizione di un sistema giudiziario comune europeo. Accolgo con favore l'ultima relazione della Commissione che mette in luce importanti aspetti positivi ma anche, purtroppo, alcune debolezze, soprattutto sulla trasparenza del sistema giudiziario.

Credo che le criticità descritte dalla Commissione debbano rappresentare una sfida e un'opportunità per il governo rumeno e mi preme sottolineare inoltre che non vi è alcuna relazione tra questo utile strumento di controllo e l'accesso della Romania all'area Schengen, per il quale ha già soddisfatto i requisiti tecnici. Le raccomandazioni della Commissione hanno il solo obiettivo di indirizzare l'operato del governo in modo da costruire un sistema giudiziario quanto più moderno ed efficiente possibile.

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D). - Mr President, I read the last CVM report on progress on Romania and I was appalled by the paragraph on the independence of the judiciary. The report blames the Government of Romania for the pressure placed on judicial institutions by the Romanian press and invites the Romanian Government to take action against the press.

I am appalled, because it is simply unacceptable that the government of a democratic country would even think of putting limitations on the freedom of press. Your report basically accused the Romanian media of doing their job. They dare to criticise the judiciary – it is a normal fact in every democracy.

The Commission claims to have received complaints from Romanian individuals who, instead of using their legal instruments to safeguard their rights, go to the EU and ask it to press the Romanian Government to reduce one of the fundamental civil liberties.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - Probabil colegul meu dorea să îl întrebe pe dl Arlacchi dacă este adevărat că este consilierul dlui Ponta.

Doresc să salut şi eu faptul că avem această dezbatere în plenul Parlamentului European, deşi la o oră mult prea târzie, şi doream, de asemenea, să salut faptul că, împreună, toţi europarlamentarii români am făcut front comun pentru a impune acest subiect pe ordinea de zi.

MCV-ul reprezintă un sprijin acordat acelor ţări care trebuie să facă progrese pentru a se alinia la standarde europene. Pentru România, o ţară care a trăit 50 de ani în comunism şi o perioadă lungă de timp în tranziţie, mecanismul de cooperare şi verificare a fost ca un medicament administrat unui pacient bolnav care dorea să se însănătoşească. O ţară nu se poate dezvolta fără o justiţie independentă și sănătoasă! O ţară nu poate prospera fără încrederea cetăţenilor săi şi a partenerilor externi! Iar această încredere vine în momentul în care instituţiile statului nu sunt afectate de corupţie şi lucrează pentru cetăţenii săi.

Aşa cum scrie în ultimul raport MCV, România a înregistrat progrese. Din păcate, aceste progrese s-au înregistrat numai în zona instituţională: DNA, ANI, CSM, ICCJ. Zona politică atârnă ca o piatră de moară, având în continuare probleme majore. Acest lucru reiese şi din concluziile Consiliului Afaceri Generale, concluzii care au fost adoptate, în consens, de către toate statele membre şi cu participarea reprezentantului statului român. Şi doresc să citez: „intră în responsabilitatea miniştrilor şi parlamentarilor de a fi exemplu în probleme de integritate”. Însă, în România, unii dintre ei sfidează opinia publică şi bunul simţ.

Sunt foarte bine cunoscute (...)

(Preşedintele întrerupe oratorul)

  Илияна Малинова Йотова (S&D). - Уважаеми г-н Комисар, механизмът вече не работи и както сам виждате, се използва повече за вътрешнополитически цели, отколкото за конкретните резултати.

А този механизъм и инструмент не работи, защото критериите за оценка не са ясно дефинирани от страна на Комисията; защото всеки път Комисията поставя нови критерии, а оценките си противоречат с предишните; защото оценките в докладите остаряват, преди да бъдат публикувани; защото има двойни стандарти − оценявате България и Румъния в момент, в който Франция се тресе от скандала „Бетанкур“, в който президентът на Германия си подава оставка заради корупция, а за днешната ситуация в Испания да не говорим; защото превърнахте с този механизъм двете държави в прицел на евроскептиците и днешното изявление на колега от другата страна на залата е ясно доказателство; защото механизмът е удобна патерица за всички евроскептици, които не искат Шенген, нито Европа; защото е само повторение на анамнеза, която повече разболява, а не лекува.

Смятам, че този механизъм е изчерпан. Надявам се, че скоро ще имаме ново европейско антикорупционно законодателство, за което ще работим всички.

  Моника Ханс Панайотова (PPE). - Г-н Председател, уважаеми колеги, Механизмът за сътрудничество и проверка между Европейската комисия и България през последните години еволюира от мотиватор за реформи в механизъм по-скоро за сътрудничество, отколкото за проверка. С решението в продължение на 18 месеца страната ни да не е поставена под мониторинг чрез междинни доклади и респективно – с дадената възможност да бъдат постигнати конкретни резултати на база вече изградената институционална и нормативна рамка, Европейската комисия отчете политическата воля за реформи в България и гласуваното доверие към българските институции.

Правителството на Борисов винаги е подхождало държавнически към всеки доклад на Комисията и в последните години бяха изпълнени голяма част от направените препоръки − нелеко решение за мнозинството, което често оставаше самò в гласуването на закони, като отнемане в полза на държавата на незаконно придобито имущество, създаването на специализиран съд и прокуратура, въвеждането на прозрачни процедури за избор на членове на Висшия съдебен съвет и главен прокурор.

В съдебната система също се наблюдава наличието на хора, които искат да я променят и създават среда на нетърпимост към отрицателните проявления в нея. Въпросът обаче днес е „Какво правим с механизма оттук нататък?”, защото се очертават три основни момента.

Първо, възможността за налагане на предпазна клауза вече не съществува поради изтичане на 3-годишния период, в който можеше да бъде наложена. Поради тази причина механизмът губи до голяма степен своето първоначално предназначение и се превръща в не особено ефективен инструмент, както за самата Европейска комисия, така и за страните.

Второ, все по-често механизмът бива използван за вътрешнополитически дебати, което е налице и днес, или за налагане на допълнителни условности от определени държави членки по въпроси както за Шенген, така и за свободното движение на работници в Европейския съюз.

Трето, от 2013 година Европейската комисия стартира нова инициатива за европейски антикорупционни доклади. Считам, г-н Комисар, че това би бил един от възможните пътища за продължаване на взаимодействието вече не само с България и Румъния, а и с всички останали страни.

В заключение, г-н Председател, с оглед на гореизложеното и необратимостта на реформите, провеждани в България, считам, че следва да се обсъди възможността за изготвяне на Стратегия за отпадане действието на механизма.

  Corina Creţu (S&D). - Este clar că Mecanismul de cooperare şi verificare este o excepţie de la regulile de funcţionare ale Uniunii, pentru că nu priveşte decât două state, România şi Bulgaria, iar criteriile după care ele sunt judecate sunt tot mai relative. Obiectivele mecanismului s-au extins de-a lungul timpului şi, de la cooperare, s-a ajuns la un mecanism cu puternice conotaţii politice. Această discriminare cred că trebuie să înceteze, iar toate statele membre trebuie să fie tratate în mod egal.

Pentru progrese reale, este nevoie de un parteneriat autentic între Comisia Europeană şi România, care face eforturi sincere de a-şi îndeplini angajamentele. Solicit Comisiei să dovedească mai multă transparenţă, să consulte partea română şi să revină la obiectivul strict tehnic pentru care a fost conceput MCV. Este momentul unei clarificări bilaterale a obiectivului mecanismului şi a criteriilor de evaluare, precum şi pentru stabilirea unui calendar care să ducă la încetarea monitorizării.

Aş vrea să vă mulţumesc, dle Comisar, pentru că aţi subliniat faptul că MCV nu poate fi legat de Schengen, aşa cum încearcă unele ţări din motive politice interne.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE). - Orice cetăţean român şi-a pus, măcar o dată, întrebarea: de ce a fost creat MCV? Răspunsul e ştiut aici, în Parlament: pentru ca statul de drept să devină o realitate efectivă în România. A fost o speranţă, dar şi un angajament, în ianuarie 2007, când România intra în Uniune. Din păcate, nici azi, şase ani după, nu putem vorbi despre o asemenea realitate efectivă.

Statul de drept are, dimpotrivă, mulţi adversari la Bucureşti, iar cel mai aprig este chiar primul ministru al guvernului. Socialistul Victor Ponta nu vrea să-și asume exigenţele domniei legii. El a descris solicitările din ultimul raport MCV ca atacuri partizane, inutile, inexacte. Aceste solicitări sunt, de fapt, toate în favoarea cetăţenilor români. E un bine, nu un rău să ai guvern fără corupţi; e un bine, nu un rău, ca deputaţii să fie egali în faţa legii cu ceilalţi cetăţeni; e un bine, nu un rău, ca dezbaterea constituţională să caute consensul cât mai larg; e un bine, nu un rău, ca procurorii să anchetez acte de corupţie. Am citat doar câteva din cerinţele raportului MCV, confirmate şi de Consiliul Afaceri Generale de luni. Victor Ponta preferă să le trateze, însă, ca pe un atac pus la cale de străini, ajutaţi de trădători ai patriei. Fantoma naţionalismului bântuie, iată, România.

De fapt, ca să înţelegem situaţia, trebuie ştiut că premierul român are un război personal cu principiul statului de drept, potrivit căruia legile guvernează, nu oamenii. Într-adevăr, atunci când Victor Ponta a fost acuzat de plagiat, ministrul educaţiei din guvernul pe care îl conducea atunci a desfiinţat comisia care îl acuza pe şeful guvernului. Apoi, după ce Universitatea din Bucureşti a decis că teza lui Ponta e plagiată, un alt ministru al educaţiei a refuzat să retragă titlul de doctor al premierului. Zilele trecute, actualul ministru al educaţiei propunea ca rectorii să nu mai poată decide nimic în privinţa plagiatului. Când regulile se schimbă pentru a acoperi frauda unui politician, avem junglă, nu lege.

De la instalarea lui Victor Ponta ca premier, din păcate, la Bucureşti statul de drept este sub asediu guvernamental. Aceasta justifică menţinerea MCV.

The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule149(8)

  Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), Întrebare adresată conform procedurii „cartonaşului albastru”. – Dle comisar, aţi afirmat că, în MCV, sunt patru obiective pentru România. Vreau să îl întreb pe colegul meu, Cristian Preda, dacă vrea să introducă un nou obiectiv pentru România, care să se numească Victor Ponta şi dacă crede că, prin afirmaţiile făcute, aduce un plus de valoare pentru ţara sa şi este, efectiv, vocea cetăţenilor şi nu a partidului pe care îl reprezintă.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE), Răspuns la o întrebare adresată în conformitate cu procedura „cartonaşului albastru”. – Eu cred că avem, într-adevăr, în România o mare problemă, şi anume problema pe care dna Dăncilă a rezumat-o citând numele prim-ministrului. Pentru că, din păcate, avem o majoritate oarbă la Bucureşti, sigură de sine, pentru că e foarte amplă şi care crede că îşi poate permite orice, inclusiv să dea note de loialitate cetăţenilor şi membrilor celorlalte partide. Aceasta ţine de o cultură totalitară, care pe mine, personal, mă face să cred că avem nevoie de o alternativă la Bucureşti.

  Мария Габриел (PPE). - Г-н Председател, вземам думата, за да изразя убеждението си, че дебати като този тук трябва да служат за равносметка на постигнатото, но и за ясна перспектива за бъдещето. Равносметката е ясна: Механизмът за сътрудничество и контрол донесе някои позитиви, но най-вече той се изчерпа. Той бе полезен инструмент за подкрепа усилията на българските и румънските власти да проведат необходимите реформи в съдебните си системи.

Препоръките в България винаги са били вземани с внимание. Те бяха добра стартова точка за законодателни текстове, за прилагане и развитие на съответни политики, за по-голяма прозрачност.

Днес обаче ситуацията е съвсем различна. Сега е важно да имаме ясна позиция от страна на Европейската комисия за това, какво следва след декември 2013 година. Имаме нужда от ясна стратегия за излизане от механизма. Имаме нужда от стратегия, която да не подхранва усещането за втора категория страни. Всички знаем, че това усещане е опасно.

Съществуват два други механизма на европейско ниво, които имат за цел борбата с корупцията и реформите в съдебните системи. Хърватия влиза в Европейския съюз без механизъм.

Г-н Комисар, не мислите ли, че е в противоречие с европейските принципи за равнопоставеност между страните членки едни страни да се окажат под наблюдение по няколко механизма, а други − пред нито един. Нашият общ път е общ механизъм. (Председателят прекъсна оратора)

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren

  Petru Constantin Luhan (PPE). - Regret că cei de la socialişti şi de la liberali consideră instituţiile europene ca fiindu-le duşmani. Se naşte totuşi întrebarea: de ce? Pentru că Comisia Europeană vrea să reprezinte garantul democraţiei şi garantul respectării principiilor statului de drept şi pentru că aceştia nu reuşesc să respecte principiile statului de drept ca ţară membră a Uniunii Europene? Regret că dna Reding a devenit duşmanul numărul unu al guvernului Ponta. Regret că au fost asumate 11 măsuri la întâlnirea cu dl Barroso, preşedintele Comisiei Europene, şi nu s-au respectat decât patru.

O astfel de competenţă nu poate fi garantul introducerii democraţiei într-un stat de drept care a fost acceptat pe ultima sută de metri, nerespectând toate criteriile legate de justiţie, în Uniunea Europeană. În ceea ce priveşte MCV-ul, aş vrea să spun că acesta nu poate fi legat de intrarea României în spaţiul Schengen.

  Victor Boştinaru (S&D). - După conţinutul ultimului raport, trebuie să constatăm, dle comisar Füle, câteva lucruri. În primul rând, trebuie să convenim că rolul şi scopul MCV-ului au fost substanţial schimbate, de la lansarea sa până la ultimul raport. Pentru a împiedica acest lucru pe viitor, v-aş propune să reflectaţi asupra:

1. rămânerea în cadrul iniţial, respectiv cel tehnic, al unui mecanism de măsurare a progreselor de funcţionare a justiţiei în România şi Bulgaria;

2. definirea unor criterii de evaluare non politice, repet: non politice, clare, stabile, cu înţeles egal pentru Comisie, ca şi pentru România şi Bulgaria;

3. stabilirea unui cadru şi calendar de eliminare a MCV-ului pentru cele două state.

Orice amânare, orice prelungire a acestui mecanism îl transformă într-un mecanism discreţionar, care aduce atingere intereselor lor, ca state membre ale Uniunii Europene, şi credibilităţii Uniunii în ţara mea.

  Cristian Silviu Buşoi (ALDE). - O dezbatere importantă, o dezbatere care trebuia purtată mai demult – dar mai bine mai târziu decât niciodată! Vorbim despre un mecanism care nu are un termen limită, care nu are o metodologie de lucru, vorbim despre un mecanism care a modificat în cei şase ani cele patru condiţionalităţi, adăugând domenii noi, şi care a introdus noi condiţionalităţi. Pentru că nu avem standarde europene în materie de sistem juridic, poate fi prelungit la nesfârşit, ceea ce, în opinia mea, este profund inacceptabil.

Solicit, pe această cale, Comisiei Europene să ofere o metodologie de lucru şi, mai ales, să ofere un calendar clar de închidere a acestui mecanism, care a devenit, aşa cum bine s-a spus şi o repet pentru a întări acest lucru, mai degrabă un mecanism de verificare şi mult mai puţin un mecanism de cooperare, un mecanism intens politizat, o sursă de atacuri politice, aşa cum s-a dovedit și în seara aceasta, prin atacurile inacceptabile şi ruşinoase ale domnului Preda la adresa prim-ministrului din România.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). - Îmi exprim, şi eu, îngrijorarea vizavi de tendinţa de permanentizare a unui mecanism de cooperare şi verificare care se vrea tehnic şi apolitic, care, aşa cum au spus şi colegii mei, nu conţine însă o metodologie de lucru precisă nici în ceea ce priveşte partea de cooperare, nici în ceea ce priveşte partea de monitorizare. Practic, cooperarea cu autorităţile naţionale se dovedeşte dificilă, în condiţiile în care nu există un numitor comun pentru monitorizarea progreselor democratice. În acelaşi timp, pe parcursul a şase ani de monitorizare, condiţionalităţile Comisiei Europene au cunoscut modificări importante, extinzându-se la noi domenii. Astfel, MCV a devenit un instrument de presiune politică internă şi pretext pentru a justifica decizia populistă şi antieuropeană de a bloca aderarea României la spaţiul Schengen.

Găsesc regretabil faptul că România şi Bulgaria sunt găsite principalele vinovate pentru problemele cauzate în Uniunea Europeană de efectele crizei şi de incompetenţa unor guverne de a gestiona. De aceea solicit Comisiei Europene încetarea monitorizării României, pentru ca ţara mea să adere, şi de facto, la Uniunea Europeană.

  Elena Oana Antonescu (PPE). - Menţinerea caracterului democratic şi deschis al societăţilor europene nu este o sarcină de etapă. Derapajele de la democraţie din România din vara anului trecut arată că supravegherea respectării normelor şi principiilor statului de drept este un efort continuu, la care trebuie să luăm cu toţii parte în mod direct. Nu este vorba doar de membrii recenţi ai Uniunii; practica ne arată că abandonarea normelor democratice şi derapajele de la ordinea de drept sunt posibile în orice moment.

La fel de importantă este menţinerea unei formule eficiente de combatere a corupţiei, unul dintre factorii cei mai importanţi care duc la degradarea sistemelor democratice. Raportul pe justiţie prezentat de Comisie la sfârşitul lunii ianuarie este unul obiectiv. Dacă suntem determinaţi şi angajaţi în drumul nostru către normalitate şi către îndeplinirea criteriilor prevăzute în cadrul Mecanismului de cooperare şi verificare, vă întreb: cât ne ajută, din punctul de vedere al credibilităţii, menţinerea în funcţii publice de conducere de către actualul Guvern a unor persoane a căror integritate este pusă sub semnul întrebării?

  Ioan Mircea Paşcu (S&D). - Mr President, I have some observations.

Firstly, if there were doubts related to justice and the fight against corruption in Romania, it would have been natural for them to be addressed during the accession negotiations before the Treaty was signed, and not in a subsequent document.

Secondly, the verification mechanism was conceived in such a way, with no date for its validity, that it soon became an instrument used for political purposes both internally and externally, thus condemning the country to perpetually incomplete EU membership.

Moreover, the Commission’s request to Romania and Bulgaria for complete transparency is reciprocated by complete secrecy on its sources of information. The fact that the latest report on Romania repeats almost to the letter all the accusations brought by the President against the Government following his lawful suspension in the summer of 2012, which was recognised by the Constitutional Court, only serves to undermine the EU’s credibility in the eyes of millions of Romanians. This questions both its political neutrality and its rejection of power politics.

  Андрей Ковачев (PPE). - Г-н Председател, г-н Комисар, да, наистина механизмът и доброто сътрудничество между българските власти и Европейската комисия допринесе за намаляването на дефицита в наблюдаваните от 2007 година области.

Но, извинявайте много, корупция, организирана престъпност и проблеми със съдебната система не е запазена марка само на България и Румъния. Затова в България все по-често и по-силно се чуват гласовете, които казват „Оставането на този механизъм е дискриминация за нашата страна”. Още повече, че някои страни обвързват абсолютно необосновано, както и между другото г-н Комисарят го каза, приемането на България и Румъния в Шенгенското пространство с оценките по доклада от механизма.

Такъв механизъм и такава процедура би трябвало да има за всички страни членки. Това, което чуваме от Комисар Малстрьом, е добре в тази насока. Но един специфичен механизъм само за две от 27 страни членки, в скоро време 28, е абсолютно неприемлив за нас. Затова искаме да чуем от Комисията какво очаква още, какви още показатели и критерии трябва да покрием, за да се случи отпадането на този механизъм.

(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)

  Pino Arlacchi (S&D). - Mr President, Ms Băsescu said that I have a special link with Mr Ponta, the Prime Minister of Romania, so I would like to clarify that point with her by pointing out to her that, as the daughter of the President of Romania, she is the last person to ask a question like that.

  Elena Băsescu (PPE). - Dle Arlacchi, sunt fata Preşedintelui român, dar am fost aleasă independent în Parlamentul European, cu scorul unui partid politic. Deci numărul de voturi pe care l-am obţinut pentru a ajunge parlamentar european îmi dă dreptul să vă pun astfel de întrebări. Şi, dle Preşedinte, cred că faceţi discriminări: când colegii mei de la PPE au ridicat cartonaşe albastre interlocutorilor, nu le-aţi dat timp de vorbire, dar dlui Arlacchi, la procedura „catch the eye” îi daţi timp de vorbire.

  Der Präsident. − Das Catch-the-eye-Verfahren ist beendet. Es wurde eine persönliche Frage beantwortet: Da hat sich jemand angesprochen gefühlt, und Frau Bašescu hat geantwortet.

Ich habe keine blaue Karte übersehen, sondern ich bin nach der Geschäftsordnung verpflichtet, den Fluss der Debatte aufrechtzuerhalten. Ich bin auch nicht parteiisch vorgegangen, sondern ich habe versucht, das Catch-the-eye-Verfahren und die Debatte davor so abzuwickeln, dass Sie nicht in einer persönlichen Auseinandersetzung, sondern dem Thema entsprechend geführt wurde. Wenn sich jemand persönlich betroffen fühlte, konnte er antworten – und Frau Bašescu hat daraufhin geantwortet. Ich meine, dass damit diese Debatte in einer fairen Art und Weise abgeschlossen wurde.

  Štefan Füle, Member of the Commission. − Mr President, this has indeed been an interesting debate. I have heard many Members referring to the timetable for removing the CVM. Interestingly, no one has referred to the timetable for delivering the recommendations put forward by the CVM.

It is important that the question of respect for the rule of law in the Member States is discussed on a regular basis, and the CVM is a very relevant instrument in this respect. The Commission will continue to monitor its progress towards the CVM’s objective as thoroughly as it has done in the past. May I quote something: ‘The cooperation and verification mechanism has been instrumental for progress and ... remains an appropriate tool to assist in reform efforts in order to achieve a record of concrete and lasting results to reach the objectives of the mechanism’. Do you think that I quoted the earlier report of the Commission? No, I quoted the conclusions of the General Affairs Council adopted by consensus two days ago, and when I say a consensus of Member States, I mean all Member States.

Let me nevertheless look at this in the wider context. The CVM has been a successful instrument for reform in the two Member States, but these issues are of course at the heart of our values across the Union. As stated by President Barroso in his State of the Union address in September last year, a reflection should start on providing the Commission an instrument to ensure respect for democratic principles within the Union as a whole in order to ensure that all Member States permanently comply with the founding values of the European Union. A wider range of instruments in our toolbox would help us to respond to different circumstances. The Commission looks forward to developing such an approach and to further opportunities to exchange views on this with the European Parliament.

  Der Präsident. − Damit ist dieser Tagesordnungspunkt geschlossen.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 149 GO)

  Minodora Cliveti (S&D), în scis. – Dezbaterea din plenul de la Strasbourg al PE, prilejuită de declaraţia Comisiei despre mecanismul de cooperare şi verificare (MCV), prezintă o importanţă deosebită pentru România şi cetăţenii ei. Pentru aceia care şi-ar putea imagina că raportul MCV a fost criticat nejustificat de către europararlamentarii PSD şi PNL, fiind considerat de aceştia discriminatoriu, nedrept, chiar abuziv, fac următoarele precizări:

- raportul salută progresele făcute şi reproşează României, în principal, faptul că mass-media a făcut remarci critice la adresa unor hotărâri judecătoreşti sau că, pentru poziţiile de conducere din Parchetul General şi DNA, s-au prezentat prea putini candidaţi, aspecte care nu pot, în nicio ţară democratică, să fie cenzurate şi decise de un guvern;

- raportul a fost considerat incorect şi de europarlamentari din alte ţări (Cornelia Ernst - Germania sau Pino Arlacchi - Italia).

Se pot trage două concluzii clare în urma acestei dezbateri: pe de o parte, că între intrarea României în spaţiul Schengen şi constatările MCV nu există nicio legătură şi că europarlamentarii PDL nu reprezintă România în PE, ceea ce nu trebuie să fie uitat de cetăţenii români care sunt chemaţi în mai 2014 la urne, pentru a-şi alege reprezentanţii în Parlamentul European.

20. Дневен ред на следващото заседание: вж. протоколи

21. Закриване на заседанието

(Die Sitzung wird um 23.35 Uhr geschlossen.)