Acta literal de los debates

Martes 16 de abril de 2013 - Estrasburgo

7. Debate sobre el futuro de la Unión Europea - Declaración de Jyrki Katainen, Primer Ministro de Finlandia (debate)

  Der Präsident. − Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Debatte über die Zukunft der Europäischen Union, hier die Erklärung von Herrn Jyrki Katainen, dem Ministerpräsidenten Finnlands (2013/2556(RSP)).

Herr Katainen, ich heiße Sie herzlich willkommen im Europäischen Parlament!

(Beifall)

Ich begrüße zugleich in Ihrer Begleitung unseren langjährigen Kollegen und Ihren jetzigen Europaminister Alexander Stubb.

(Beifall)

Für den ist das hier ein Heimspiel. Ich habe ihn als erstes gefragt, ob er heute Morgen im Gym war, als er hierher kam, weil er da normalerweise immer seinen Tag begonnen hat. Er hat das verneint, er war im Gym des Hotels.

Ich weise darauf hin, dass es zu dieser Aussprache kein Catch-the-eye-Verfahren gibt.

Ich freue mich auch, dass uns der Präsident der Kommission die Ehre gibt, Herr Jose Manuel Durão Barroso.

  Jyrki Katainen, Prime Minister of Finland. − Mr President, as you have already mentioned, we received shocking news last night of what seems to be a bomb attack against civilians in Boston. A number of people are dead and over a hundred injured. Our thoughts are with the victims and with their families.

We do not yet have a full picture of what happened and should wait to hear what the American authorities find out, but I will say this: no matter what proves to be the cause of these explosions, we Europeans will stand by our American friends.

I would like to thank you, Mr President, for your invitation to address the European Parliament today. This is a very special honour for me personally, because I have been active in European affairs all my adult life. Thanks to European integration, I belong to a generation which has had more opportunities than the generations before.

For example, I had the opportunity to complete part of my studies at the University of Leicester in the UK. As an Erasmus student I spent a year there studying European affairs. This experience opened my eyes to the importance of European integration. I had my Erasmus year in a period of great optimism. Finland had joined the European Union. The implementation of the Economic and Monetary Union was being accelerated. Preparations for the next enlargement – which united Europe – were gathering pace.

Mr President, today we live in more difficult and challenging times. We are in the middle of an important debate about Europe’s future. I am therefore grateful for this opportunity to exchange views with Parliament. I came here not only to speak, but also to listen.

The debate on European integration is being overshadowed by the economic crisis. People worry about their jobs, their pensions, their children’s future. With far too many young people unemployed, it is easy to see why they are worried and even angry. The public mood in many parts of Europe is pessimistic. Let us be frank about it – personally, I fully understand this mood, but at the same time it worries me very deeply.

We have all been forced to make very difficult choices during the financial crisis. Consequently, nationalism and populism are on the move. These painful decisions have undermined people’s trust in the European project. My fear is that we will turn inward when we should open up, and that we will doubt each other’s motives when we should come together; that we will allow radical voices to lead the European debate when we should present a credible, pragmatic way forward.

We should not let pressing economic and social challenges poison the whole idea of European integration, and we should not let the European debate be dominated by the far ends of the spectrum. Some will blame the EU for all our troubles. Others will say – often from outside Europe – that we must create a fully-fledged United States of Europe here and now, without raising the issue of democratic legitimacy. I also do not understand those who stir up divisions between the south and the north. Divided we are weaker, because we lose our common-value base and our ability to build Europe together. We simply cannot afford that. We have difficult decisions at hand but we must stay united.

Mr President, honourable Members, it is our duty as political leaders to take the stage and present credible present solutions to Europe’s political and economic challenges. We must explain to people why deeper pragmatic integration is the right way forward for Europe. To regain people’s trust in the European project, we must make sure Europeans find integration to be just and fair. This is no easy task.

But we can go a long way if we work on European integration that benefits everyone. In other words, we need fair integration. I understand that people in different Member States and in different personal situations may not find their life particularly fair right now. But can Europe be more fair in the future? I think it can.

To me, fair integration means that the European Union continues to be founded on common values and rules that are truly respected by all and at all times. Fair integration means that, while Member States engage in ever-closer integration, they keep their own house in order. We should be able to rely on each other. But we cannot outsource all responsibility to the others. And most importantly, fair integration means that the European Union functions in ways people can support and feel their own. It is a question of democratic legitimacy and accountability and ownership.

You can see, ladies and gentlemen, that I am not talking about anything earth-shattering. All I am asking is that we take decisions on the basis of our common rules and then live by them, and that we seek common solutions where such are needed and do our homework so that each Member State can trust the others. Let me be clear: we need more Europe and we need more national responsibility. We cannot have one without the other.

Mr. President, let me now explain how I see fair integration in practice. I will raise three issues and look at them from the point of view of fair integration.

First, we must respect our common European values and the rules we have adopted together. The European Union is so much more than a free trade area – it is a community of shared values. We must defend European values also when they are challenged from within. Failing to do so will undermine the Union’s credibility – not only in the eyes of the world, but also in the eyes of our own people and citizens. If we overlook corruption and breaches of the rule of law, or if we fail to curb tax evasion and tax havens, we undermine our own efforts to build a better Europe.

As a Union of values, we have decided that integration is based on democracy. We have decided to replace the use of force by the use of law. We all know democracy starts to crumble if we break our common rules. In the European context we must respect the Community Method. The paradox of today’s debate is that strong rules and strong European institutions are sometimes seen as a threat to Member States. In fact the opposite is true: the rule of law and common institutions protect Member States, especially the smaller ones.

Second, we need to strike the right balance between solidarity and responsibility. The European Union is a community based on solidarity. Solidarity is part of its very essence. Finland wants to play its own part. Our share of the EU budget will increase, and we accept that as an element of European solidarity. Finland is also shouldering its responsibility to assist countries in need of financial assistance. We do this through the crisis management instruments and direct loans. But solidarity must go hand in hand with the Member State’s own responsibility. We all have to do our own homework. We all have to take difficult political decisions when they are due. Europe should help when help is needed. But each Member State has to bear the ultimate responsibility for keeping its own finances in order. Those who decide about expenditure must collect the revenues. National governments and parliaments are ultimately responsible for national reforms.

The third point is that to make Europe stronger, we need deeper integration. My government will support deeper integration as long as it is fair to all Member States and benefits the Union and the whole of Europe as an entity. Our most pressing challenge is to create new jobs. Too many Europeans – especially young people – are without work today. Unemployment is a problem for the whole of society, but first and foremost it hits those individuals who are struggling to make ends meet.

Last week I visited Lisbon, where I had the opportunity to talk with university students. I was impressed by their enormous talent and energy. But the discussion revealed how worried they were about the future. I know how they feel. I remember Finland’s own financial crisis all too well. In the early 1990s, almost 20% of Finns were jobless. Finland was on the brink of insolvency. Over 10% of our GDP was shaved off in just a few years. At the time, I was a university student myself. I remember thinking we would never get a job or own a home. We did not want to graduate, because it was safer to stay in the university. When I now think back to those bleak years, even the images in my mind are black and white. Finland managed to get through the crisis, but in many ways, we are still paying the social price for it.

So, ladies and gentlemen let us make jobs our top European priority. We all know there is no shortcut to creating new jobs in a sustainable manner. If there was, surely we would have taken it already. I fully support the proposal to allocate EUR six billion from the EU budget to fighting youth unemployment, and I am pleased the European Council endorsed the Youth Guarantee concept. It is essential we keep all our young people on board.

What matters the most is our ability to meet global competition. Europe must become more competitive so that businesses continue to make new investments and create new jobs here. Europe has to regain the upper hand in new technologies and industries. The key to Europe’s economic future lies with reform and openness. We have to work with the markets, not against them.

Mr President, we have taken impressive steps to overhaul the EU’s economic governance. I would like to thank this House for the important role it has played in passing critical legislation, such as the Six Pack and the Two Pack. The implementation of the rules will require sometimes difficult and painful reforms nationally. Structural reforms will not bear fruit overnight, but reforms are the most effective and most sustainable economic stimulus in the long run.

If we all play by the new rules, our economies will get stronger. This is not just economic theory, it is plain common sense.

Arvoisa puhemies, sisämarkkinat ja sisäisen vapaakaupan edistäminen ovat Euroopan integraation ruisleipä. Tässä olemme päässeet pitkälle, mutta emme riittävän pitkälle. Tavarat liikkuvat Euroopassa hyvin, mutta palvelut eivät. Siksi palveludirektiivin toimeenpanoa on välttämätöntä tehostaa.

Digitaaliset sisämarkkinat tarjoavat valtavan mahdollisuuden luoda uutta työtä ja kasvua. Komissio arvioi, että EU:n talous kasvaisi tällä toimenpiteellä 500 miljardilla eurolla vuoteen 2020 mennessä. Olisi siis sulaa hulluutta jättää potentiaali käyttämättä.

Sähköinen kauppa ja digitaaliset sisällöt tarvitsevat kiireesti toimivat sisämarkkinat. Niiden rakentaminen on jo alkanut – osin Euroopan parlamentin ansiosta – mutta työ etenee liian hitaasti. Tarvitsemme uutta, älykästä sääntelyä, joka raivaa kaupan esteitä ja tukee digitaalisen talouden dynaamisuutta.

Monsieur le Président, nous avons le devoir de libérer le potentiel énorme de notre commerce extérieur pour créer des emplois. La Commission européenne a estimé que la réalisation d'un plan ambitieux de libre-échange créera deux millions d'emplois en Europe. Nous avons ouvert le marché et donné aux entreprises européennes les opportunités dont elles ont besoin.

Européerna har både den skicklighet och den kreativitet som krävs för att nå framgång på den globala marknaden. Vi måste tro på oss själva.

Om vi tyr oss till protektionism och bygger hinder, isolerar vi oss bara från pulsen och händelserna inom världsekonomin.

Inledandet av frihandels- och investeringsförhandlingar med Förenta staterna och Japan är de bästa nyheterna på länge. Låt oss hålla farten uppe och inte fastna i detaljer.

It is essential that we strengthen economic and monetary union. Our immediate priority is to finalise banking union. To me, banking union is a good example of fair integration. It is about curbing reckless risk-taking and protecting taxpayers from having to rescue oversized and under-capitalised banks.

I have three final points on how to make Europe fit for the future.

First, we need a truly integrated European energy market. Energy is the lifeblood of the economy. Global competition for energy is getting fiercer. Europe needs to get its act together and take the internal energy market seriously. We also need to move away from subsidies that distort the market. We need more investment in energy infrastructure. To drive investment in low-emission alternatives, we need to restore the effect of the emissions trading system, which you were deliberating yesterday evening.

Second, we need concrete steps in European security and defence policy. Europe has to take more responsibility for its security, which means we must learn to work more closely together. We need closer cooperation to meet security challenges, to overcome the financial limits and to provide our security and defence industry with a wider home market to grow. I am looking forward to our December discussions in the European Council.

Third, I would just say that we must keep enlargement on our agenda. The European Union must remain open to deserving candidates.

The next European elections will be held in a year’s time. This election is of exceptional importance. It will be a test of the democratic legitimacy of the European Union. Its outcome will show the future direction of our common European project.

European integration has never been challenged as it is today. We have a lot to defend and we should do this with pride. European integration has proved that it can deliver peace, stability and well-being to European citizens on a scale never seen before in this continent. It will continue to do so. The European Union will emerge from the crisis stronger. It will take some time and the road ahead will not be easy.

We must focus on energy and what unites us, not on what separates us. We must build mutual trust, because together we are stronger than any of us would be alone. We must focus on reinforcing the fairness of European integration. Fair integration is the best way to build a strong Europe and to regain people’s trust in the European project.

(Applause)

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, Mr Prime Minister, honourable Members. Before I begin, I should like to express, on behalf of the Commission, our deep sympathy with the victims and with the families of those killed and injured in the violent attacks in Boston yesterday. We condemn all forms of violence, and we stand in solidarity with our American friends on this sad day.

It is a pleasure for me to say some words here today, when the Prime Minister of Finland, Mr Katainen, is debating the future direction of the European Union with the European Parliament. I want to start by thanking the Finnish Prime Minister for his very important, personal contribution to the European project. Jyrki Katainen has shown a strong commitment to strengthening democracy, transparency and dialogue in the European Union. In short, the Finnish Prime Minister and the country he represents stand for a European Union which is, first and foremost, a community of values.

This brings me to the first point which I wanted to make this morning, which is that Finland embodies the most fundamental concept at the heart of our Union – the rule of law and the principle of equal rights. No matter what their size, economic weight, history or culture, our Union is a union of Member States joined together by common values and shared interests. It is a union that shows equal respect for rights and hears the voice of each and every Member State. In this environment, Finland has demonstrated that it is not size alone which moves the European debate forward but the strength of your ideas and the commitment and determination to see these ideas through. On issues ranging from enlargement to the single market or the digital agenda, from the Union’s international trade relations to justice and home affairs, Finland is a leading light in moving and shaping European policy.

Let me make a specific point on the rule of law and fairness. The Prime Minister rightly places great importance on these issues. So does the Commission, especially at a time when reform is placing a burden on our societies. This is why we are pushing forward with our proposals to combat tax evasion and tax avoidance, which cost Europe around EUR 1 trillion per year in lost tax revenues.

In other words, Europe is losing tax revenues every year which amount to one full multiannual financial framework. This is money that we can ill afford and which increases the burden on the average, honest taxpayer. It is time to turn good intentions into action. That is why I call on the Member States to reach a swift agreement on the Commission’s proposals on savings tax and for a strong mandate to negotiate agreements with Switzerland and other neighbours, as well as for a rapid reaction mechanism to tackle VAT fraud.

In the coming weeks I will be urging the Member States to jointly commit to common actions and an agreed timeline to implement the recommendations on tax havens and aggressive tax planning which the Commission made last December. I thank Finland for its support on this issue, including its welcome initiative to host a joint seminar with the Commission at the end of this month.

In a recent speech on competitiveness which I made in Dublin, I underlined the position of Finland as the leading Member State in the World Economic Forum Global Competitive Index, in which Finland ranked third in the world. Across Europe, as we seek to exit the current crisis and bolster Europe’s long-term competitiveness, it is important that we look at Finland and take on board the lessons from the Finnish experience. These are long, hard lessons. Following its domestic banking crisis in the 1990s, Finland undertook a series of deep, difficult structural reforms in order to reshape its economy, regain international competitiveness and retain the principal elements of its social market economy. This process is one which many other Member States are now following and which Finland has been supporting by showing solidarity with these countries.

Finland is also playing an active role in the shaping of the banking union. Events in Cyprus show just how important this work is and how it is even more urgent than ever. I am pleased that, following the intensive work in the trialogues, there is now a final agreement on the single supervisory mechanism. The Commission will bring forward proposals for a single resolution mechanism in June. The most important lesson in all of this is that it should not be seen as a one-off exercise: it is a day-to-day exercise. Remaining competitive requires constant work, as Finland has recognised and is currently demonstrating through its ongoing efforts.

Finland is engaged in a dialogue with its European partners, setting out its ideas and discussing its concerns as an active, engaged and thoughtful member of our Union. I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his role in shaping this approach and for his very close cooperation and friendship. I would like to thank Finland for its commitment to our Union.

(Applause)

  Joseph Daul, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président du Parlement, Monsieur le Président de la Commission, Monsieur le Premier ministre, je m'associe d'abord, aussi, aux déclarations qui ont été faites par mes prédécesseurs sur l'attentat à Boston et je crois qu'au niveau du groupe PPE, nous avons la volonté et la force de combattre ce terrorisme. Comme vous l'avez dit, nous ne savons pas encore d'où il vient mais il n'empêche, d'où qu'il vienne, il n'est pas normal que, dans une société où règne la liberté, des personnes qui n'ont rien fait de mal, qui font du sport, se fassent tuer en voulant simplement, en toute liberté, s'exprimer à travers le sport. C'est, selon moi, inadmissible et il faut combattre très fermement ce terrorisme.

Monsieur le Premier ministre, je vous ai écouté avec beaucoup d'attention et, cela ne vous surprendra pas, je vous rejoins aussi sur de nombreux points. Mais, à mon tour, j'aimerais partager avec vous quelques observations et vous poser quelques questions.

Tout d'abord sur le sens de l'Europe. L'Europe c'est bien plus qu'un projet – vous l'avez dit – d'intégration économique. L'Europe c'est, avant tout aussi, des valeurs partagées. Vous avez raison de le rappeler. Aujourd'hui, sans l'Europe, ce serait sûrement encore plus grave. Je le répète souvent. Il suffit de jeter un œil sur l'Islande qui a fait faillite. Je ne nie pas les difficultés endurées en Grèce, en Espagne, en Irlande. Mais où seraient ces pays sans l'Europe?

Cher Jyrki, comme vous, je pense qu'il faut combattre les extrémismes et que la meilleure façon d'y parvenir est de tenir un langage de vérité, d'être responsables mais, aussi, d'être solidaires.

Il faut aussi aller vers plus d'intégration européenne – il ne faut pas avoir peur de le dire dans un moment difficile de crise où tout le monde veut se replier sur soi – à commencer, aussi, par une harmonisation sociale et fiscale. Ce n'est pas un vilain mot. Mais pas vers une uniformisation qui serait plus un inconvénient qu'un avantage. Harmoniser c'est aussi mutualiser nos forces. Sur la durée hebdomadaire du temps de travail, les semaines de congé, l'âge de départ à la retraite, les dépenses sociales, il faut travailler sur les mêmes bases. Le marché unique a engendré de nombreux progrès mais, à cause de ces écarts nationaux qui persistent, il y a eu beaucoup d'effets indésirables. Je sais de quoi je parle, en tant que chef d'entreprise, avec tout simplement, de l'autre côté du Rhin, la distorsion de concurrence que l'on peut nommer ainsi ou autrement. Sur 60 millions de chiffre d'affaires, dans mon entreprise, il y aurait 1,2 million de différence de charges si mon abattoir se situait à Kehl. Je le répète tous les jours pour qu'on le sache.

Il faut donc une harmonisation fiscale et sociale sinon, ce n'est pas possible, et les entreprises seront obligées de partir de là où c'est plus cher ou elles fermeront. Certains de nos concitoyens ont perdu leur emploi, certaines entreprises ont disparu. Chers collègues, le problème est que, aujourd'hui, ce sont les États membres, chacun dans leur coin, qui sont seuls compétents pour répondre à ces problématiques.

Il faut donc plus d'Europe et – je suis d'accord avec vous, Monsieur le Premier ministre – une Europe qui soit juste. Il y a du chômage en Europe mais il y a aussi des emplois. Le problème est qu'ils ne sont pas forcément au même endroit. Pourquoi ne pas envisager des solutions européennes au chômage? Aujourd'hui, ce n'est pas une compétence européenne. Pourquoi n'utiliserait-on pas la vision d'ensemble qu'offre l'Europe? En matière d'éducation, de formation, de recherche, ou qu'il s'agisse de politique de cohésion, nous avons des leviers d'action pour faire progresser la mobilité des travailleurs. Si nous n'avons pas de recherche européenne, cher José Manuel, cela ne sert plus à rien de distribuer les aides pays par pays sur un programme de recherche qui n'est pas européen. Je crois qu'il faut avoir le courage d'aller aussi dans ce sens.

Pour améliorer l'adéquation entre travailleurs et marché du travail et lutter contre le chômage des jeunes, nous avons, sur ce point, soutenu la garantie jeunesse et nous sommes heureux que votre gouvernement y ait adhéré. Mais il faut encore aller plus loin.

Monsieur le Premier ministre, la majorité de ce Parlement est, comme vous, favorable à une Europe forte avec des États forts et une économie forte. Pour y parvenir, toutes nos règles doivent être appliquées. Il faut plus de transparence, les budgets doivent être à l'équilibre et les déficits doivent être réduits car nous ne pouvons plus vivre au-dessus de nos moyens. Il faut également dire la vérité à ce sujet. Ainsi, nous rétablirons la confiance nécessaire aux investissements mais cela sera-t-il suffisant? Dans certains pays – les plus durement touchés par la crise –, les taux d'intérêt sont tels qu'un chef d'entreprise, même s'il a le meilleur projet, ne peut pas le financer. J'étais en Grèce où un chef d'entreprise, qui avait un projet, m'a dit: "président, dois-je investir avec un taux d'intérêt entre 10 et 12 %?" Je lui ai répondu: "Non, vous ne pouvez pas investir actuellement dans un dossier économique avec un tel taux d'intérêt." Cela signifie que dans ce pays on ne peut pas créer d'emplois. Voilà le vrai problème que nous devons combattre. Je m'interroge car, pour vaincre le chômage et surtout le chômage des jeunes, nous devons trouver quelque chose, Monsieur le Premier ministre.

Je sais que je vais probablement choquer quelques-uns d'entre vous mais le moment ne serait-il pas venu de réfléchir à une mutualisation responsable d'une partie de la dette publique en Europe pour que les taux d'intérêt des investisseurs soient les mêmes à travers les pays? Je ne parle pas d'une uniformisation. Alors, je vous pose la question, Monsieur le Premier ministre, si vous avez un autre remède, nous sommes preneurs! Il serait ainsi possible d'alléger le coût de la dette, de faire baisser les taux d'intérêt pour les entrepreneurs qui créent des emplois et d'orienter une partie de nos ressources vers l'investissement.

Bien sûr, une telle mutualisation partielle doit s'accompagner d'une meilleure gouvernance, d'une conscience des contraintes liée à une garantie mutuelle pour éviter les subventions déguisées ou que des États se retrouvent à payer pour d'autres. Chaque État doit assurer sa solvabilité. Cela implique une véritable convergence européenne. Chers collègues, il nous faut aussi plus de cohérence et donc plus d'intégration.

Votre discours, Monsieur le Premier ministre, porte sur l'avenir de l'Europe – j'en termine... j'écourte un peu mais je suis passionné parce que je cherche des emplois, cher Président, et vous savez que je ne dépasse pas souvent mon temps de parole – mais nous avons aussi besoin d'une troisième voie: c'est le bon sens. Notre histoire nous l'a prouvé. Plus nous travaillons ensemble, plus nous sommes intégrés et mieux se porte notre continent et plus l'Europe nous protège!

  Der Präsident. − Herr Kollege Daul, Sie haben sogar Beifallsstürme auf den Tribünen ausgelöst. Das finde ich toll. Aber, meine Damen und Herren, ich muss Sie bedauerlicherweise darauf aufmerksam machen, dass unsere Geschäftsordnung nicht vorsieht, dass Sie Ihren politischen Meinungen auf den Tribünen Ausdruck verleihen. Das ist eigentlich den Abgeordneten vorbehalten. Ich konnte aber nachvollziehen, warum Sie geklatscht haben.

  Hannes Swoboda, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich möchte auch zu Beginn klar unterstreichen, was der Präsident dieses Hauses wegen Boston gesagt hat. Unsere volle Sympathie gilt natürlich den Opfern und den Angehörigen der Opfer.

Mr Prime Minister, you said that fair integration was the headline of your speech. I can agree – not with all the details, but we will come to that – because I think that is what we have to fight for in Europe.

The fact is that we are in a disastrous situation in Europe today, with unemployment and the current social and political situation. You also mentioned that many citizens in our Europe are not in agreement with European policies and that more and more of them are against Europe itself. That is a danger. It is not only about specific policies. We absolutely have to take up the citizens’ concerns and be serious about them without going into populism.

But then, Prime Minister, we also have to be fair to the citizens. You spoke about the situation in Finland some years ago. Finland was not yet in the euro zone. There was no euro zone. It does make a difference whether you are in the euro zone or not. The Latvian case, which has been mentioned again and again, was not a euro zone case. In the euro zone the situation is different, and we have to have a different kind of solidarity and more European solutions.

Secondly, we are in a depression – a recession. We are in a recession which is, unfortunately, even being promoted by the policy of the European Union. How can we convince citizens to reform the labour market, for example, when the main message from Europe is reducing the social fabric and reducing and cutting social expenditure, including expenditure – and I shall come back to the example of Portugal – on education? You spoke with the citizens of Portugal. I agree completely that it is a very good thing that you were there. But did you ask the citizens what they think about the troika and European Union policies in their own country – about the troika which agreed on the package which the Portuguese Constitutional Court said was unconstitutional? This is how European policy is seen by many citizens today.

Therefore, we have to change our policy. We will come to that immediately. You are right that fair integration also means cooperation between the North and the South. I have been to Finland several times, and I always try to meet institutions and start-ups in the technological field. Finland has a lot to offer, not just with reference to the macroeconomic but also to the microeconomic development. Why do we not use more of these cooperative models between the North and the South to create some ways of making reforms and changes?

But let me come back to the macroeconomic situation. The Commission President and Vice-President Rehn very often say that the next semester will be better. They have been saying for many years now that it will soon be better and that we shall soon reach the end of the tunnel. But we cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel because it is not there. Again we have these promises. This is what European citizens see today, and the troika is de facto malfunctioning. The members of the troika argue increasingly often about who is responsible for what. I think we should stop that. The Commission is responsible for the policies. We may not like many of the things that Mr Rehn does, but he is a responsible person. I want him to be responsible, not the troika of the IMF and the ECB, which increasingly we cannot not see what it is doing. It is not a democratically-based institution. The Commission is elected and is democratically-based. Let us stop playing this game. Let the Commission have responsibility. Of course the Council has to agree, but we have to change this tendency, because citizens are getting more and more annoyed by this kind of activity. We have to change. The same is true not only in Cyprus and Portugal but in other countries as well.

Finally, concerning growth: we need more growth in order to convince citizens to make the necessary reforms. We may agree on several of the reforms, but again, psychologically it is not possible to ask people to enact reforms if there is no hope that they will lead to development. People always say that there is no money for growth. There is no money? We produced a study from an independent institution, and fortunately the Commission also took it up. One trillion euros are lost by the tax authorities in Europe each year. If only part of that had gone to the tax authorities, we could pay back the debt or finance an economic growth project for Europe.

When the media started to take up the issue and published many of these things, even Mr Cameron said that it is time to wake up and smell the coffee. Not only is it time to smell the coffee, but to drink the coffee as well. Now is the time to drink the coffee and to do something about it. Sometimes Mr Cameron may also drink coffee and, as the saying goes, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We will see – Mr Cameron has been meeting Ms Merkel – what the governments do. I hope that your Prime Minister and other prime ministers will have more than just explanations and promises and will work on that.

Because this is also about fair integration. It is not fair that many of the rich can take their money out into tax havens while the poor have to pay the tax. It is not fair and we need to reconsider this. Why do we not have in Europe something like the Corporate Tax Fairness Act, as they do in the US? Why should we look on as the US fights with Switzerland and others in order to get their taxes back without doing anything? We need help.

Luxembourg has already moved, and Austria will have to move – the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance made some remarks on this. Then we have the common strategy, and we have to support the Commission and Commissioner Šemeta on a common strategy against tax evasion. I am very happy that your Finance Minister, Jutta Urpilainen, is working on this issue. I hope you give her your full support. I am very happy that some of the finance ministers are doing something on this very important issue.

But of course, we have to work on the tax differentials in the European Union. We do not need a uniform tax, but at least – at first – a uniform tax base. It is not good that many companies from Portugal go to the Netherlands, not in order to invest but just to save taxes. This has nothing to do with fairness, European cooperation and national responsibility going together with Europe. Of course, Prime Minister, I would be very happy if you could change your mind on the financial transaction tax, because that could also be a part of the fair Europe and the fair integration that we need. Why not join the other countries which are moving in that direction? Maybe you will be convinced very soon. I hope that you will be convinced.

In the end, the Prime Ministers of Europe have taken responsibility through the European Council. They have much more interest and engagement and, hopefully, much more responsibility. If we come to a point where fairness, transparency – which is vital for the tax issue – and social justice are high on the agenda, Prime Minister, I think we can really help to bring about fair integration. This is what we need in Europe. But please consider that in the euro zone, fair integration means much more integration than it did at the time when Finland was able to solve its problems alone. So consider the Finnish example, but in a fair, transparent way in the euro zone. That would give Europe a good boost forward.

Thank you for your attention.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I want first of all to associate myself, and also my group, with what has been said by the Prime Minister and by Mr Barroso on the attack in Boston.

Thank you also, Prime Minister, for your speech. I know that you are an expert in fighting euroscepticism, because you have to deal with the True Finns and you know how to tackle them. But let us be honest: this may be a good opportunity to recognise that this debate with you is no longer a Finnish problem alone, and not even a traditional British phenomenon, this euroscepticism that we see rising.

Two days ago, as we all know, a new political party was established in Germany – the Alternative für Deutschland, which is a eurosceptic party, a party who want Germany out of the euro. In my opinion, what they are calling for is not an alternative for Germany. I think there is a better name for it: they are in fact proposing suicide for Germany. In any case, I think it what they are proposing is stupidity, be it by splitting the euro in two circles – a north one or a south one – or by returning to the old national currencies. In any case, what they are proposing is a breakup of the euro.

Well, colleagues – and I think this is a good moment to underline this – if there is one country which should fear such a scenario and one country in Europe which would suffer from such a scenario, I think it is Germany. What the Alternative for Germany is in fact putting forward means, in my opinion, a tragedy not only for Europe but also for Germany: it is the breakdown of the German export machine, and it could be the end of the German miracle instead of something else.

I am not just saying that, Mr President. I am saying it because there is proof of this. I have here the study produced by ING – which is the second largest bank in Holland – by their branch in London, so it has been produced in London – in the City of London. Where can you do such an analysis better than there? And what the independent analysis, produced in the City of London, shows is that the breakup of the euro would create an economic meltdown in Europe, and that the first victim of that would be Germany, naturally.

What are the figures in that study? My suggestion is that you make 18 million copies of it within the European Parliament and send it to every German citizen. You can do it personally.

  President. − But Mr Verhofstadt, we must speak with the Committee on Budgets about that.

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Well, the consequences are very clear. In that study produced in the City of London they are saying that the currencies of the main European markets for German industry will on average be devalued by 20%, killing all German exports to these markets.

Their second point or conclusion is that a new German currency, a Deutschmark, would immediately slump to parity with the dollar, immediately losing 20% of its value and making imports – and certainly energy imports – over-expensive.

And then the last conclusion – produced in the City of London by ING – is that the breakup of the euro would result in German GDP shrinking by nearly 10% in just two years. I repeat: what we saw two days ago is not an alternative for Germany. It is suicide for Germany, a nightmare for Europe, and not only for Europe but also for the UK because, according to this study, one of the big victims would be the UK, as they would lose 5% of their GDP immediately if there were to be a breakup of the euro.

So, dear colleagues and Prime Minister, we do not need an alternative for Germany. What we need is an alternative for Europe. That is what we need. And that means political union, a real European government and a European treasury. I was very pleased with what Joseph Daul said when he spoke about the European bond market. We need banking union and we need a European resolution fund.

I shall conclude, Mr President.

We are at a crossroads – I think you can agree with that. Are we to become the UN of Europe – a loose confederation of nation states – or do we take the leap forward to a US of Europe? I know what my choice is and I hope it is also your choice in the future.

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, je vais reprendre là où Guy Verhofstadt vient de s'arrêter.

Monsieur le Premier ministre, vous avez dû employer 3 700 fois le mot "règles". J'ai compris que vous aimiez les règles. La base de la démocratie, ce sont les règles. Mais, dans une communauté, il y a une règle qui, parfois, est plus importante que la règle comptable, c'est ce qu'on appelle la règle de la solidarité.

D'ailleurs, votre pays – la Finlande – est un pays qui a une cohésion sociale, une cohésion de solidarité qui est très impressionnante. Seulement, quand vous, vous arrivez dans l'espace européen, vous avez une compréhension un peu froide, du Nord. Vous allez me dire que c'est normal puisque vous venez de Finlande.

C'est vrai, mais cela a pour conséquence que, parfois, vous ne comprenez pas vraiment ce qui se passe en Europe. J'ai l'impression que vous parlez comme le représentant de Nokia, ici, en expliquant les problèmes – oui, je sais que vous avez un Nokia mais que pouvez-vous avoir d'autre? vous êtes un bon Finlandais.

Le problème n'est pas là. Je veux dire que, aujourd'hui, vous n'aurez pas une Europe solidaire si vous n'avez pas un vrai budget européen. Vous avez parlé de responsabilité européenne, d'intégration et de responsabilité nationale, vous avez raison, mais, dans un moment de crise, si cette responsabilité collective n'est pas une responsabilité qui, justement, exprime la capacité politique de l'espace européen par un budget européen, vous n'y arriverez pas! Nous n'y arriverons pas si demain, nous ne réussissons pas à faire, justement, que ce budget européen ne soit plus simplement des contributions nationales mais soit un budget où, effectivement, par des ressources propres, nous avançons.

Je vais vous dire une chose très simple: "savez-vous quelle est la plus grande victoire de Margaret Thatcher? C'est qu'elle a fait vingt-sept enfants, vingt-sept gouvernements européens qui, tous, ont défendu la même chose:

‘I want my money back’.

Ça, c'est la défaite européenne, ce que vous avez négocié vous aussi avec la Finlande, avec les autres pays, comme pour le budget européen, c'est la défaite de l'idée européenne, c'est la défaite de la solidarité européenne et j'espère que nos collègues refuseront de s'associer à ce processus de défaite. Pourquoi? Parce que dans la crise actuelle, le budget que vous nous proposez, c'est une réduction des Fonds structurels de 20 % pour la Grèce – ah, c'est intelligent! –, de 25 % pour le Portugal – ah, c'est vachement malin!

Joseph Daul, qui fait partie des Verts européens, a bien dit tout à l'heure que si nous n'arrivons pas véritablement à proposer quelque chose pour réduire le poids de la dette, vous pouvez toujours dire c'est la faute du gouvernement grec, c'est la faute... oui, mais en ce moment, ce sont les peuples qui paient le poids de la crise. Et pour les aider, il faut qu'il y ait aujourd'hui un fonds commun de la dette pour abaisser la dette.

Si l'Italie avait payé 1 % de moins pour sa dette, elle aurait 20 milliards. Si elle payait 2 % de moins, elle aurait 40 milliards pour relancer l'économie. La solidarité européenne, c'est donc d'avoir à un certain niveau un fonds européen commun de la dette, un fonds de rédemption, appelez-le comme vous voulez, pour permettre la relance de ces pays.

Par conséquent, Monsieur le Premier ministre, si vous parlez de règles, il faut vous mettre dans la tête qu'il y a une règle très importante: laisser les peuples aller comme ça dans le mur, les laisser dans la fragilité de la crise, c'est créer des conditions politiques insupportables, ce n'est jamais la raison qui gagne, c'est toujours l'irrationnel des extrêmes qui va gagner. C'est cette responsabilité que vous avez aussi en tant que premier ministre finlandais.

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, let me first of all join with the sentiments that others have expressed and send my sympathies and condolences to our American friends on the terrible events in Boston yesterday.

As many in this House will understand, last week was also a very sad one for many Conservatives with the death of Margaret Thatcher, although I am sure she would have been delighted to be quoted by Daniel Kohn-Bendit today. Twenty-five years ago, she set out a new direction for Europe to take in her famous Bruges speech. Looking back on it now, it is striking how relevant it actually is to the events of today. To quote one passage, ‘what we need now is to take decisions on the next steps forward rather than let ourselves be distracted by utopian goals’. Utopia never comes, because we know that we would not like it if it did. And yet even today many focus on the abstract utopian concept of somehow completing the European project. For them, only more Europe is the answer.

Prime Minister, with the help of your government, the Council has set out – in my view – a much more realistic path with a reformed and reduced European budget. Certainly my group would congratulate you on that. I only hope you manage to convince some of your PPE colleagues of this wise course of action, some of whom it seems want to spend even more money than the Socialists sometimes. You are also to be congratulated on your opposition to the crazy policy of a financial transaction tax. Well done.

However, many of the EU’s economic problems stem from the fork in the road that we took back in the Jacques Delors days. We moved, in the EU, away from competition and the open markets that Margaret Thatcher championed, and towards harmonisation and over-regulation. Former Commissioner Verheugen, I think from the Socialist Group, estimated that EU regulation costs European business EUR 600 billion, which is four times the GDP of Finland. And yet we continue to churn out more and more laws, as if our economy could cope and somehow we did not have 26 million unemployed.

It was Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and somehow expecting it to turn out differently. Surely it is about time we tried a different course. Mr President, the euro epitomised that utopian thinking. We rushed into the project without thinking through the economic consequences. Yes, of course the debt crisis was the trigger, but the euro was a fortress built on sand. Jacques Delors himself said that the euro could not exist without the counterpart of a European Government, and the agenda was quite clear even then.

Now true federalists, like our colleague Mr Stubb, no doubt approve of this course of action, and I thought it would be interesting to have a look back to what he said when he was in this Chamber. In 2006, we had the ‘baby Thatcher’ speaking in this Parliament: the Belgian Prime Minister, Mr Verhofstadt. I wonder what happened to him. Mr Stubb at the time effused: ‘There are not too many Federalists out there. There are many closet Federalists, but not any real Federalists any more’. I bet he never repeats that in Finland now. If only some national leaders had perhaps been more honest 15 years ago, we would not be in this situation today.

The final cost of this utopian project will be enormous for many countries, and particularly for yours, Prime Minister, because we all know how unpopular the bailouts are.

Support for the euro, of course, is still strong in Finland. Given your geography, this is understandable. But do the Finnish people really want to see their taxpayers’ money flowing to other parts of the currency union? We know from the remarks of your socialist Finance Minister that she certainly does not.

We need to be honest with people about what membership of the euro is going to cost in the long term, and we need to take the very difficult decisions that are required. Until we do, our attention will never be focused on the real challenge of Europe, which is to maintain our competitiveness in a difficult and challenging world.

Former Commissioner Bolkestein, who I think is from your political family, Mr Verhofstadt, put it very well last week when he said that the euro turned out to be a sleeping pill which made Europe doze off instead of considering and thinking about its competitiveness. Occasionally the Liberals get it right as well, Mr Cohn-Bendit. At least we do not have to hear from the Greens, which is a good thing.

We should be cutting red tape, freeing up labour markets, restructuring our economies, opening up to trade and slimming down the state. That is the solution that we need for Europe. But if we learn anything from Margaret Thatcher’s life, it is that change is possible only if you are willing to fight for it.

Outside this building, there is in my view a real desire for change, for the EU to focus on building a stronger economy, on reforming its policies for the 21st century, and on decentralising power. Twenty-five years on, Margaret Thatcher’s speech still shows the way forward. Let us not keep repeating the same mistakes of the past, and instead let us take Europe in a new direction. Thank you Mr President.

  Sampo Terho, EFD-ryhmän puolesta. – Tervetuloa Euroopan parlamenttiin, pääministeri Katainen. Olette kertonut Suomen linjan olevan reilu integraatio, ja reiluuttahan ei tietenkään vastusta kukaan, mutta sen käytännöllisestä sisällöstä nousee varmasti hyvin erilaisia näkemyksiä, kuten olette jo tänään kuullutkin. Monen mielestä esimerkiksi tulonsiirrot ja solidaarisuus ylipäänsä ovat reiluutta.

Sanotte kannattavanne syvempää integraatiota, mutta vältätte jatkuvasti niin kotimaassa kuin nyt puheessanne eräitä sisäpoliittisesti vaikeita aiheita ja ennen kaikkea edes käyttämästä sanaa liittovaltio, ettekä siksi ole kertonut koskaan vastustatteko vai kannatatteko sitä. Täällä Euroopan parlamentissa nimittäin sanaa liittovaltio voi käyttää täysin vapautuneesti – olettehan tänäänkin kuullut hyvin pitkälle meneviä visioita. Ja mitä suoremmin kantanne ilmaisette tähän periaatteelliseen kysymykseen, sitä selvemmäksi linjanne tulee niin kollegoilleni kuin kansalaisille.

Jäsenvaltioiden keskeisistä johtajista esimerkiksi Angela Merkel on jo avoimesti kertonut toiveistaan jatkaa Euroopan yhdentymistä vähitellen tasolle, joka hänen mukaansa vastaa eurooppalaista liittovaltiota. Ison-Britannian David Cameron taas on antanut päinvastaisen vision tulevaisuudesta. Hyvä pääministeri, miksi siis kierrellä kansalaisia ja selvästikin myös kollegojani niin kiinnostavaa, periaatteellista ja tärkeää asiaa? Varmasti reilun integraation linjanne sisältää myös rehellisen kannanoton: kannatatteko te liittovaltiota vai ette? Jos liittovaltio on mielestänne ensin määriteltävä tarkemmin, niin määritelkää se, ja vastatkaa sitten. Itse tarkoitan sillä tulonsiirtojen, keskusvallan ja yhteisvastuun lisäämistä. Vähintään kertokaa meille, onko linjanne lähempänä Ison-Britannian vai Saksan linjaa?

  Mikael Gustafsson, för GUE/NGL-gruppen. – Herr talman! Jag vill precis som mina kolleger först rikta en tanke till de offer och anhöriga till dem som i går drabbades av det fruktansvärt hemska som hände i Boston.

Därefter vill jag hälsa statsminister Katainen mycket välkommen hit till Europaparlamentet. Sverige och Finland är inte bara grannländer och ligger nära varandra geografiskt, utan vi har också en väldigt nära relation till varandra, vilket jag uppskattar. Jag har dessutom personligen ett väldigt speciellt förhållande till Finland, eftersom jag faktiskt föddes där innan jag flyttade till Sverige.

Jag vill understryka att GUE/NGL-gruppens ståndpunkt är ganska enad när det gäller vår skarpa kritik mot den nyliberala åtstramningspolitik som nu sveper fram över Europeiska unionen. Det är en politik som innebär att bankernas intressen verkligen sätts främst till priset av hårda åtstramningar som drabbar vanliga människor med lönesänkningar, massarbetslöshet och nedrustning av den offentliga sektorn.

I EU är mer än 26 miljoner människor utan jobb. Nästan var fjärde person under 25 år är arbetslös. I Spanien och Grekland är nästan 50 procent av de unga arbetslösa. I dag kostar ungdomsarbetslösheten mer än hela EU:s budget.

Internationella Röda korset säger att stora delar av EU är en kriszon med fattigdom och matbrist. I södra Europa är situationen så allvarlig att man måste gå tillbaka till åren efter andra världskriget för att finna något liknande. Internationella Röda korset fastslår att de kommande åren kommer att bli mycket svåra.

Bland de största förlorarna hittar vi lågavlönade och arbetslösa kvinnor. Kvinnor drabbas dubbelt av åtstramningspolitiken. Deras arbetsmarknad minimeras, samtidigt som grunden för kvinnors ekonomiska oberoende raseras. Kvinnor är fortfarande i störst behov av social infrastruktur, såsom barnomsorg och äldreboende, och försvinner detta inom det offentliga så flyttas ansvaret tyvärr väldigt ofta över till familjen och kvinnan.

Jag är därför mot bakgrund av detta väldigt glad att notera att er regering som ett av sina viktigaste mål vill minska fattigdomen och inkomstklyftorna i Finland. Dessa frågor borde också vara centrala för EU. Därför ställer jag en fråga till dig: Jag undrar om och hur den finska regeringen arbetar för att fattigdomsbekämpning och minskade inkomstskillnader också ska bli centrala målsättningar för Europeiska unionen.

Jag vill också passa på att ställa en helt annan fråga. I ert regeringsprogram har ni slagit fast att er regering är för en skatt på finansiella transaktioner. Trots det, beslutade ni att inte ansluta er till de elva EU-länder som vill införa en sådan skatt. Vad gjorde att ni kom fram till det beslutet?

Sist vill jag tacka för ordet och säga att statsministern sade i sitt tal att vi behöver ”mer Europa”. Jag skulle snarare vilja säga att vi behöver ett annat Europa.

  Nicole Sinclaire (NI). - Mr President, first of all I would like to express my agreement with the comment made about the Boston bombing. I send my condolences to the victims and their families, and my best wishes to the injured. Terrorism must not, and will never, succeed.

The debate is about the future of the European Union, and I must say that I normally struggle to make my case in a minute, but such a debate is a very short one. What future does it have? Is it like the Soviet empire that had a blatant disregard for its people, which ignores it opinions and fails to give referendums – and when it does, it ignores the result and then calls for other referendums? Does it steal the savings of ordinary people, like it did in Cyprus? Does it disregard an occupying force in North Cyprus, even though it is part of the European Union – which unbelievably has the status of Nobel Prize Winner? Is this the future of the European Union? No. The future of the European Union is doomed. It is doomed to failure. It does not have a democratic mandate. You are frightened of the people. The European Union is failing, and that is why the UK needs to be out of it soon.

  Der Präsident. − Herr Präsident, jetzt werden Sie sich gleich fühlen wie in Finnland. Die nächsten vier Redner sind Frau Korhola, Frau Jaakonsaari, Frau Jäätteenmäki und Frau Hassi. Das ist wie im finnischen Parlament, und es sind vier Kolleginnen, die jetzt hintereinander reden.

  Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE). - Mr President, Prime Minister Katainen, you spoke rightly of fair, pragmatic and value-driven integration in these times of financial crisis. While populists in different countries repeat their EU one-liners, we in the European People’s Party have been focusing on steering Europe’s economy towards growth and coming up with serious solutions to serious problems. As was said by Chairman Daul at last week’s EPP Bureau Meeting in Croatia, our logic has been to focus on the economy in order to be able to create social policy; to focus on growth in order to be able to create jobs.

I shall continue in Finnish.

On aivan luonnollista, että jokainen jäsenvaltio haluaa rahansa takaisin. Tiedämme kuitenkin, ettei se ole loogisesti mahdollista: jos kaikki saavat saman verran takaisin, eihän rahoja kannattaisi lainkaan kierrättää Brysselin kautta. Mutta eräässä mielessä me kaikki haluamme rahamme takaisin, me haluamme sen vahvuutena, yhteistyön voimana, lisäarvona siten, että yhdessä olemme enemmän kuin yksin. Mutta se ei onnistu, ellemme kunnioita unionin perusarvoja, ja näin minä ymmärsin Jyrki Kataisen viestin.

Deepening the internal market is not a particularly sexy topic, but it is the area of integration that is the most likely to show inside the wallets of European citizens. The field with possibly the greatest potential for growth and job creation is our common digital market, of which Finland has been a great champion. I would like to pay my compliments to our government for this. Europe-wide much has been done, but the pace of digital market integration has not been as fast as desired. All the institutions – but especially the Member States – are responsible for this.

I am currently our group’s shadow rapporteur on the proposed directive on collective management of copyright, and after numerous discussions with stakeholders, I would like to raise a couple of concerns. The creative industries play a great role in the creation of growth and jobs, and therefore, we should promote the position and role of content providers, i.e. musicians, song-writers, composers, etc. It is particularly important for the advancement of the internal market that the conditions of the European content providers are taken care of. A clear risk is the loss of European competitiveness, linguistic and cultural diversity.

Having said this, I am very grateful for the work of Minister Alexander Stubb in the promotion of the Finnish music industry, and also to President Barroso’s cabinet.

  Der Präsident. − Herr Swoboda hat mich gefragt, warum Herr Ministerpräsident Katainen jetzt nicht antwortet zwischen der ersten und der zweiten Runde. Der Grund ist, dass uns von den Fraktionen signalisiert worden ist, dass es eine Gesamtdebatte geben sollte. So bin ich von den Diensten informiert worden.

  Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D). - Arvoisa puhemies, edustaja Terho yritti asettaa liittovaltio-kortin pääministeri Kataiselle. En saanut sinistä korttia, olisin kyllä kysynyt, että mikä on edustaja Terhon käsitys ja hänen puolueensa ja hänen edustamansa parlamenttiryhmän käsitys ylipäänsä Euroopan unionista ja eurosta. Siinä varsinainen kirppusirkus on.

Mutta arvoisa puhemies, minä haluaisin tuoda julki kunnioitukseni ja arvostukseni pääministeri Kataista kohtaan, koska hän on jaksanut virittää kansalaiskeskustelua niin Suomessa kuin täällä Strasbourgissa Euroopan parlamentissa Euroopan tulevaisuudesta. Tämä on erittäin tärkeä teema, ja usko argumenttien ylivoimaan on äärettömän tärkeää tänä aikana, jolloin euroskeptikot ovat vallanneet ilmatilan, ja jopa sellaiset Euroopan unionin perusrakenteita syvästi koskettavat asiat ovat joutuneet kyseenalaisiksi kuten esimerkiksi vapaa liikkuvuus, kysymys demokratiasta ja muista yhteisistä arvoista.

Onneksi on erittäin hyviä esimerkkejä keskustelun ja kansalaispaineen voimasta. Ja keskustelu todellakin siirtää vuoria: esimerkiksi keskustelu veronkierroista, erityisesti veroparatiiseista, on nyt käynnistänyt prosessin, joka vielä vuosi sitten tuntui ihan mahdottomalta. Luxemburg on avaamassa pankkisalaisuuttaan, samoin Itävalta, ja jopa David Cameron on nostanut politiikan esityslistalle monia tärkeitä verorehellisyyteen ja -reiluuteen liittyviä kysymyksiä. Valtiovarainministerien kokouksessa Dublinissa todellakin päästiin eteenpäin, ja se on hieno asia.

Minä haluaisin esittää ihan saman kysymyksen, minkä sosiaalidemokraattisen ryhmän puheenjohtaja Swoboda ja kollega Gustafsson: olisiko mahdollista, että nyt kun vaaditaan avoimuutta, kun halutaan raottaa pankkisalaisuutta, kun ajetaan reiluutta ja yhteiskuntamoraalia, niin Suomen hallitus ottaisi uudelleen käsittelyyn uudessa poliittisessa tilanteessa tämän transaktioveron? Euroopan unioni tarvitsee oikeudenmukaisuustekoja tällä hetkellä, ja minusta veroparatiisit ja FTT:n toteuttaminen olisivat tällaisia oikeudenmukaisuustekoja.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). - Arvoisa puhemies, on upeaa, että Suomen pääministeri Katainen on täällä. Jäsenvaltioiden pääministerit eivät ole kovin jokapäiväisiä vieraita. Puheenne teema oli reilu Eurooppa, ja siitä olemme kaikki yksimielisiä. Olisin kuitenkin odottanut enemmän konkretiaa ja visioita. Niitä visioitakin me tarvitsemme. Joku vuosi sitten oli vielä kaukainen visio se, että veroparatiiseihin voitaisiin puuttua. Tänä päivänä se on mahdollista, mutta siihen tarvitaan tahtoa.

EU-komissio on laskenut, että laiton verojen pakoileminen ja kyseenalainen verokilpailu on tuottanut tuhannen miljardin menetykset jäsenvaltioille. Olisin, arvoisa pääministeri, odottanut Teiltä konkreettisia ehdotuksia veropakoilun estämiseksi ja veroparatiisien poistamiseksi. Näitä visioita tarvitaan. EU ja jäsenvaltiot ovat rakentaneet pankkiunionia – Tekin otitte sen esille. Jäsenvaltioiden budjettivaltaa on kavennettu, mutta veropakoiluun, korruptioon ja veroparatiisien toimintaan ei ole rohjettu puuttua. Tässä komissiokin on ollut tarpeettoman saamaton.

Tällä hetkellä Euroopan unionin suuri tulevaisuuden kysymys on: korjataanko eurojärjestelmän heikkouksia lisäämällä yhteisvastuuta veroista ja rakentamalla liittovaltiota, vai lisätäänkö joustavuutta niin, että kansalaisten erilaiset olosuhteet otetaan huomioon? Tähänkin olisin kaivannut Teiltä enemmän konkretiaa, koska Teillä on varmasti kykyä näitä esityksiä tuoda ja visioita luoda.

  Satu Hassi (Verts/ALE). - Arvoisa pääministeri, hyvät kollegat, yritysten veronkierto maksaa 2 000 euroa vuodessa EU-kansalaista kohti. Integraatio kulkee kuin eripituisilla jaloilla, kun firmojen ylikansallinen operointi tulee koko ajan helpommaksi yhteismarkkinoiden takia, mutta toimet veronkierron suitsimiseksi ontuvat.

Jotta emme joutuisi hyvinvointivaltion kilpajuoksun pohjalle ja siihen, että menoleikkauksista kärsivät kansalaiset, ei vain tänä ja ensi vuonna vaan kaikkina tulevina vuosina, jotta integraatio tarjoaisi turvallisuutta tavallisille ihmisille ja jatkuvuutta eurooppalaiselle hyvinvointivaltiolle, meidän pitää puolustaa sen rahoituspohjaa, panna stoppi veroparatiiseille ja veronkierrolle ja luoda eurooppalaisia veroja kuten finanssitransaktiovero. Olen pahoillani siitä, että Suomenkin hallitus on juuri päättänyt lähteä yritysverojen alentamiskilpailuun.

  Lorenzo Fontana (EFD). - Signor Presidente, dal dibattito è emerso che qualcuno sia sorpreso del fatto che i movimenti cosiddetti populisti stiano aumentando in tutt'Europa.

È evidente che l'Europa qualche errore deve averlo fatto, altrimenti così non sarebbe. Si pensi, ad esempio che, anche grazie alle politiche dell'Europa, nel mio paese vi sono imprenditori che si suicidano; questo fa capire quale sia la lungimiranza delle politiche europee!

Dal nostro punto di vista, l'Europa deve cambiare a 360 gradi. Mi riferisco alla politica commerciale: dobbiamo tutelare le nostre produzioni, non possiamo più accettare la concorrenza sleale di paesi terzi. Mi riferisco al trattato di Schengen, che ha creato tanti problemi, anche di sicurezza, nelle nostre realtà e deve essere assolutamente rivisto. Mi riferisco all'euro che, così com'è, non funziona assolutamente, soprattutto per i paesi del Sud dell'Europa. Mi riferisco alla BCE, che dovrebbe occuparsi meno delle banche e maggiormente delle imprese aiutandole negli investimenti.

Concludo con una domanda: perché invece di dare un miliardo di euro alla Turchia per il suo ingresso nell'Unione europea, non lo utilizziamo invece a favore dei disoccupati e delle nostre imprese in difficoltà?

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, the Prime Minister’s statement was preceded by a speech on 26 March. He spoke of the uniqueness of Europe’s regional integration being based on supposed common values. The EU talks about democracy and freedom of expression, but then it and its Member States seek to jail people for exercising that right. The values for which the EU is most enthusiastic are those of social liberalism; consensus values only amongst social liberals. He then revealed that regional integration was on the agenda all over the world. He might have said it was on the same agenda drawn up by the same people.

What will this regional integration achieve? It will promote trade and remove barriers to trade not only within each region, but between regions. In that trade, Europe must be competitive, we are told. He implied strongly that labour costs would have to be curbed or even lowered.

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE). - Tisztelt Miniszterelnök Úr! Először is köszönöm a mai gondolatait, és azt is, hogy felhívta a figyelmet a tisztességes integráció szükségességére, és a hitelesség kérdésére is kellő figyelmet fordított. Azonban el szeretném mondani azt is, hogy egyetértek abban is, hogy javaslataink csak akkor hasznosulhatnak, ha egy teljesen közösen megalkotott európai gazdaságpolitikai rendszerbe illeszkednek, abba integrálhatók és kapcsolhatók, valamint részei egy fejlett válságkezelési mechanizmusnak is. Gazdaságunk erősítése érdekében továbbra is határozott lépéseket kell meghozni, de olyanokat, amelyek hatása már sokkal rövidebb távon is érzékelhető lesz.

Sajnos, úgy tűnik számomra, hogy a Bizottság újabb és újabb javaslatokat fogalmaz meg, újabb és újabb ötletei lesznek, azonban ezeknek a gyakorlati haszna már kevésbé érvényesül. Ugyanakkor ezek terheit a lakosságnak és a tagállamoknak súlyosan meg kell fizetniük. Örülök annak is, hogy szóba került a fiatalkori munkanélküliség kérdése. Örülök annak, hogy meghallottuk a fiatalok hangját, ugyanakkor azt látom, hogy válaszlépéseink nem elég gyorsak, nem is elég reformszerűek, és hatásukban pedig elmaradnak a vártaktól is. Véleményem szerint gyorsítani kell ezt a folyamatot. Azonban nem úgy, hogy újabb és újabb témákat nyitunk meg úgy, hogy a gyakorlatban nem látjuk ezek hasznosulását, hanem pontosan úgy, hogy alapos munkát végzünk.

Egy olyan európai krízistérképet állítunk össze, amelyben jól körülhatárolhatók lesznek azok a pontok, amelyeket kezelni kell. Egyetértek Önnel: tisztességes integráció mellett, közös szabályok mellett, amelyeket közösen alkottunk meg, amelyekkel közösen gondolkozunk Európa jövőjéről, felelősen, úgy, hogy a meghozott szabályokat, az alapértékeinket mindenki számára egyformán számon kérhetővé tesszük a jövőben is és a jelenben is.

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD). - Kas penktas jaunuolis Vakarų Europoje yra bedarbis. Ekonominė krizė lyg ir baigiasi, o bedarbių Vakarų Europoje trečdaliu daugiau nei prieš 3 metus. Ispanijoje darbo neturi 52 procentai jaunimo, Graikijoje – 55 procentai jaunų žmonių. Taip pat jauni žmonės gauna 45 procentus atlyginimo nuo suaugusiųjų uždarbio. Maištai Paryžiuje, Atėnuose, Londone, Madride.

Nedirbantis jaunimas jau turi savo vardą – prekarijai, t. y. atsidavę kito palankumui, nuolankūs, meldžiantys malonės. Tas sluoksnis jau tampa klase ir turi visus klasės požymius. Tik laiko klausimas, kada atsiras šūkis „Visi Europos prekarijai, vienykitės“.

XX amžiaus pradžioje valdantieji suprato, kad darbininkai privalo būti sotūs, apsirengę ir turėti būstą. Dabartiniai valdantieji turi suprasti, kad Europos Sąjungos ateitis priklauso nuo to, kaip bus išspręsta jaunimo nedarbo problema.

  Ewald Stadler (NI). - Herr Präsident, Herr Ministerpräsident! Ich bin über Ihre Rede schlichtweg erschüttert. Wir haben eine Krise in Europa: Finanzkrise, Arbeitslosenkrise, Strukturkrise. Und was ist Ihre Antwort darauf? Drei Punkte: Ein integrierter Energiemarkt – darüber kann man noch reden, ob das die Krise lösen wird. Ich glaube es nicht, aber notwendig ist er. Aber dann schlagen Sie eine konkrete Verteidigungspolitik vor! Wie wollen Sie mit einer Verteidigungspolitik diese Krise lösen? Dann schlagen Sie eine Erweiterung vor! Wir haben die letzten Erweiterungen noch nicht verdaut, und Sie schlagen schon die nächsten Erweiterungen vor! Wie wollen Sie damit die Krise lösen?

Sie haben keinen einzigen Vorschlag gemacht, mit dem Sie diese Krise lösen wollen. Sie haben nur Utopien referiert, die darin bestehen, dass Sie eine Verteidigungspolitik wollen, die ich als neutraler Österreicher ablehne, weil sie die Krise nicht löst. Und Sie sind nicht in der Lage, jungen Menschen in Spanien, in Portugal, in Griechenland und in Zypern Arbeitsplätze zu geben, indem Sie eine Verteidigungspolitik forcieren. Dieses Europa ist nicht eine Frage der Verteidigungspolitik, dies ist ein Europa, das Wettbewerb herstellen muss, wo wieder ökonomische Wahrheit hergestellt werden muss und nicht verrückte verteidigungspolitische Vorschläge in den Raum gestellt werden müssen!

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). - Mr President, if we want to know where we are going, we need to remember where we came from. One of the problems, I find, is that we do not tell people about the divided history of Europe and what it led to. I know, for example, a man in his early thirties from Lithuania who knows absolutely nothing about the Berlin Wall.

We have allowed the agenda to be taken over by the word ‘austerity’ instead of using the word ‘consolidation’ and telling people that we need stability. Above all, we have refused – and failed – to give hope. I do not mean false hope, but we keep telling people what we are doing and we do not tell people why we are doing it.

For a long time, people did not believe that the European Central Bank had the firepower to defend the currency. It has made it clear that it has. We have got to make it clear, for example, that the European Investment Bank will be used, if necessary, as our vehicle to give hope, to give stimulus. We do not just need stability, we need stimulus, and it is time to turn to stimulus. The stability situation seems to me to be well in control.

In relation to the situation we find ourselves in, we had a situation where, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, we were to have a Germanic Europe or European Germany, and a decision had to be made quickly about the currency. We now have had to put in the foundations we were not able to put in then. Banking supervision and the recapitalisation of banks should be the last steps in that.

Let us now turn to stimulus. We need stimulus. The European Investment Bank could be the vehicle for that.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). - Lämpimät kiitokset, pääministeri.

Mr President, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for his message of pragmatic optimism, based not on new inventions but solidly on following common rules and common values. I shall make three points, following the example of Alex Stubb, my former colleague here. The first is transparency. It was mentioned that one trillion euros will be lost every year in tax evasion, so we need sufficient and credible information, otherwise we do not know where we are. Remember the cover of The Economist last month? Just when we thought it was safe, the leadership of Cyprus started sinking.

Second is solidarity. It is a common word, but solidarity in action is a two-way alley: it needs effort and commitment on both sides and mutual trust. Applying solidarity in a crisis should generate extra commitment for serious reforms. And, once again, we need information about our real situation. Are we going to bicker about available money or make serious efforts to generate more money through reforms? Are we approaching a critical moment when the number of those who preferred to vote for more money will exceed the number of those who work for more money?

The third point is the democratic situation. We need more people to have results. I would like to end by quoting Margaret Thatcher, who said that facts are there not to be surrendered to; they are there to be changed by politicians. Or rather, by statesmen and stateswomen like Margaret Thatcher.

  Jyrki Katainen, Prime Minister of Finland. − Mr President, honourable Members, thank you very much for your comments. The issue of the diversity of the Union reminds me of the debate within my own six-party coalition. Almost all opinions are contained in one government, and I have got used to finding a compromise on the different values and different opinions and to trying to find a way forward.

(Interruption from the floor)

Yes, we only have one Prime Minister, and that is a difference.

Ladies and gentlemen, I enjoyed many of your quotes from Margaret Thatcher, and I would also like to quote her when she once said that pennies do not drop from the sky and we have to earn them down here on earth. That is very true, and I think we can all agree with her on this.

I would like to comment on some larger entities, like a rule-based Union and the rule of law. Just because I am a fan of a strong rule-based Union does not mean that it would represent a hardline school of thinking on Europe. On the contrary, I believe the rule of law – a good, strict rule base and living according to rules – is the very essence of democracy. It is like having a soccer team and playing soccer without a common rule base; it does not make any sense. So at once the EU is a Union of values and also a Union of democracy.

We have to underline that we have to live according to our common rules and respect the rule of law – otherwise we do not have anything; we are just a team with nice words but without a common commitment. So that is why a rule base and the rule of law are so important to my mind.

Many of you are worried – as we all are – about the future of the welfare society, and whether the austerity policy or consolidation of the budget will hit the welfare society too hard. Our interpretation of the welfare society is that, first of all, we have to be competitive enough to earn enough money for it. And the other way round: the welfare society is a precondition for equal opportunities for all.

My country is very dependent on external trade. Nearly 50% of our income comes from foreign trade, which means that in order to run a very generous welfare society we must be competitive not only in Europe and not only with the northern countries, but on a global scale. This is because the welfare society needs such a lot of money that we cannot afford to run it with Finnish taxpayers’ money alone; we need money from outside. That is why competitiveness and all the reforms which we need to make in order to improve competitiveness every single year are essential in order to strengthen the welfare society, which gives equal opportunities to everybody.

That is one of the reasons why we have cut our budget and raised taxes by approximately 3% of GDP during the last two years. We have done this in order to safeguard the welfare society. We also lowered the corporate tax rate in order to make our country more competitive on a global scale, because we have very good education in Finland, we have such good surroundings for innovation and we have invested in the welfare society for decades and now we want to profit from those assets such as the welfare society, education and our innovation system. So fiscal discipline is the best friend of the welfare society. It is not a theory; it is just plain common sense.

A second thing: there were a few colleagues who mentioned mutual debt. I am quite hesitant about this because I can see that we have already had a eurobond and we have seen the result. During the first decade of the existence of the euro, all the countries belonging to the euro received money at the same value, and this is part of the problem at the moment. I know that there are different opinions on this issue, but I am not that sure that a common debt would be a solution to our current problems. Moreover, it would mean some kind of Treaty change. We should not mix the current short-term challenges and difficulties with long-term solutions.

If we wanted to create a eurobond, which would be joint and several, to me it would be like creating religion without the devil. Even though we do not like the market forces right now – especially in the current situation where some countries are under heavy pressure from the market side – if we allow the market forces of the financial market to make the same mistake they made during the first decade of the existence of the euro, then it will not help us in the long run.

By the way, the financial market did not differentiate between the Member States, and that does not make any sense. In a market economy you have to know in which country or in which company you are investing your money, and there are several risks, or the level of risk varies from country to country or from company to company. That is why I would pay more attention to competitiveness (which is the best way to stimulate the economy) and to consolidate our budgets. This is what, for instance, Ireland and Portugal are, quite rightly, doing at the moment. We can already see some results.

I was in Portugal, where I met ordinary citizens. I got the impression that many citizens in Portugal are very close to losing all hope. I understand that situation, because this time is probably the most difficult for the Portuguese and Irish people. The citizens have already taken the bad-tasting medicine and the fever has come down, but the disease is still there. But, as we can see from the reactions of the financial market and the export and external balance figures in Portugal, we can already see some results. We just have to be patient. I am not asking the ordinary citizens to be patient, because they are suffering every single day. They are suffering. But what is the alternative? If these countries stopped consolidating their budgets, who would lend them money? I do not know of anybody. So we have to show solidarity in order to help these countries. We have to make sure that we stand by them, but the countries in trouble must also do their share in order to get good results.

Very briefly, I would just like to say to Mr Callanan that Europe has been a great opportunity for Finland. During its membership of the European Union, we have gone from thirtieth to third position in a competitiveness study. We have to struggle every single day and every single year in order to improve or maintain our good position. It has also improved our foreign trade and strengthened our welfare state. I very much agree with what Mr Verhofstadt said and with his attitude about the importance of Europe. I do not see any reason to even speculate about the fall of Europe. It does not make our life any easier. We just have to correct the mistakes or weaknesses that we have in the currency union. We have basically already done that, and I believe that after a couple of years the euro area and Europe as a whole will be stronger than ever before.

There were some questions concerning federalism. I tried to talk in straight terms about the facts and issues, not raising the debate in abstract terms like federalism. When somebody asks whether I am in favour of federalism or not, I have to ask whether that is the United States type of federalism or the German type of federalism, or even the UK type of federalism. Which federalism are we talking about? In this speech and in several previous speeches I have tried to assess what we need to do for Europe in order to make it more competitive, stronger and more united. Let us have this debate through the issues. What do we have to reform? What are we satisfied with and what are the biggest challenges ahead of us?

Regarding a transaction tax, I understand the logic behind it. In principle I do not have anything against it, but if we had taken it to Finland, knowing that Sweden will never take it and that Estonia does not have it, we would have lost money and it would have harmed our own economy. I did not want to do that.

Regarding tax evasion, I appreciate European parliamentarians actively fighting against tax evasion because it is a cancer of the market economy. We cannot afford to see a situation in which we have lived for so long. This is one part of making Europe more competitive, namely finding concrete solutions to tax evasion. I am very happy that the Commission has been so active on this issue and I appreciate Parliament’s activity in this. No matter what ideologies we are representing, I think we all – or at least the majority of us – are in favour of a fair and transparent market economy because it is the best way to create and generate welfare for our citizens.

Thank you very much for this debate.

  Der Präsident. − Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

PRESIDE: ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vicepresidente

Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 149 del Reglamento)

  Erik Bánki (PPE), írásban. – Tisztelt Elnök Úr! Nagyon fontosnak tartom a befektetési vállalkozásokra és hitelintézetekre vonatkozó tőkekövetelmények egységes szabályozását, mert az a hitelezői piac biztonságát és működését garantálja. A megnövelt tőketpuffer a bankok esetében fontos intézkedés, hiszen a kormányzati segítséget mindenképpen elkerülendőnek tartom annak érdekében, hogy ne az adófizetők pénzéből kelljen a banki mentőcsomagokat finanszírozni. Másrészt fontos, hogy a hitelintézetek képesek legyenek a kis- és középvállalkozásoknak hitelt nyújtani, ami a belső piac élénkítésének rövid távon is szükséges előfeltétele. További kiemelendő új eleme a szabályozásnak az átláthatóság. A bizalom visszaszerzéséhez, illetve a működés biztonságának a fenntartásához ugyanis ezt elengedhetetlennek tartom. Végül Magyarország szempontjából jelentős sikernek értékelem az önálló zálogjog szabályozásának kérdését. Ez a hitelkonstrukció Magyarországon régóta jól működő rendszer. A szabályozás garantálja, hogy ha a jelzáloghitelt eredetileg nyújtó bank fizetésképtelenné válik, a jelzáloghitel-intézet automatikusan a refinanszírozott jelzáloghitel jogosultjává válik, és így az adós a továbbiakban közvetlenül a jelzálogbanknak köteles teljesíteni.

  Corina Creţu (S&D), în scris. – Recesiunea, şomajul, tăierea veniturilor, reformele ineficiente şi dureroase, fără perspectiva relansării economiei europene, determină trecerea de la euroscepticism, la indiferenţă. Alegerile europarlamentare riscă, în acest ritm, să fie prilejul unei răbufniri iraţionale a extremismului. Ne îndreptăm spre decontul abrupt al acestui mandat şovăielnic al unei Comisii Europene incapabile să găsească soluţii pentru depăşirea crizei. Mai e doar un an în care solidaritatea şi eficienţa pot reda speranţa cetăţenilor. După aceea, ne vom întreba zadarnic de ce mutualizarea datoriilor nu s-a făcut din timp, de ce n-au fost stimulate investiţiile publice şi private pentru a combate şomajul record, de ce nu li s-a impus băncilor separarea creditării de operaţiunile speculative? Cetăţenii europeni au plătit, deja, o factură dureroasă a crizei, inclusiv pentru salvarea băncilor. Urmează scadenţa unei datorii imposibile, acumulate inutil şi paradoxal în timpul austerităţii. Soluţia cipriotă creează un precedent şi arată că, încă, Uniunea Europeană nu are altă reţetă anti-criză decât vârâtul mâinii tot mai adânc în buzunarul contribuabilului. Se impune o acţiune europeană urgentă, în vederea soluţionării problemelor grave care şubrezesc nivelul de trai şi încrederea în proiectul european. Altfel, există riscul major ca alegerile europene să fie rezultatul combinaţiei toxice între indiferenţă şi votul-sancţiune al cetăţenilor exasperaţi.

  Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), na piśmie. – Konkurencyjność jest kluczowym elementem zapewniającym efektywne funkcjonowanie gospodarki rynkowej. Istnienie konkurencji zapewnia korzyści konsumentom poprzez utrzymywanie niskich cen przy równoczesnym utrzymaniu dobrej jakości. Połączenie tych dwóch czynników motywuje producentów do poszukiwania innowacji, co przyczynia się do rozwoju całej gospodarki. Dlatego też tak ważne są działania Komisji mające na celu utrzymanie konkurencyjności na europejskich rynkach towarów i usług. Przedstawiony komunikat dotyczący działalności Komisji w roku 2011 pokazuje, że działania Komisji dotyczyły priorytetowych problemów i zostały przeprowadzone efektywnie. Szczególnie istotny był wkład Komisji w regulację sektora finansowego, gdyż jest to sektor, od którego w dużym stopniu zależy działalność firm z innych sektorów. Ważne, że eliminowane są nie tylko objawy, ale i przyczyny problemów i wymagane jest, by banki dokonywały zmian w modelach biznesowych. Banki zostały zachęcone do skupienia się na swojej działalności podstawowej. Kryzys i spowolnienie gospodarcze sprawiły, że wiele sektorów gospodarki skorzystało z pomocy państwowej. Dlatego istotnym zadaniem Komisji jest monitorowanie, aby walka ze skutkami kryzysu nie skutkowała długookresowymi zakłóceniami konkurencyjności. Równie ważne są działania Komisji we wspieraniu konkurencyjności na tych rynkach, gdzie istnieje brak równowagi sił. Tak jest w przypadku rynku żywności, gdzie podejmowane są próby wzmocnienia siły przetargowej producentów rolnych. Podobnie potrzebne są ingerencje na rynkach, gdzie w wyniku dużych barier ograniczających wejście na rynek nie ma odpowiednich bodźców do obniżania cen.

  Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – L'absence de leadership de la construction de l'Europe est l'originalité de sa construction mais aussi sa faiblesse en période de tensions fortes. Cette absence de leadership explique sans doute les nombreuses interrogations concernant l'avenir de l'Europe.

Le défi actuel est indéniablement de trouver ensemble des solutions communes à la crise bancaire et financière en minimisant les coûts sociaux, produire de nouvelles dynamiques centripètes vertueuses. Mais, quelle que soit la difficulté de la tâche, le grand défi de l'Europe est de poursuivre son unification pour ne pas être engloutie par la tectonique des plaques émergentes.

Au risque de choquer, le grand défi européen n'est pas de résoudre la crise actuelle, le grand défi européen est d'être capable de faire face à cette nouvelle donne mondiale et, en lien direct avec cette nouvelle donne, en particulier de faire face aux défis énergétiques.

Cette crise est une formidable opportunité pour comprendre la fragilité de nos États et pour comprendre que le projet européen est la réponse à nos problèmes et non la cause de nos problèmes. À condition, bien sûr, que la classe politique européenne joue la bonne partition, celle de l'action collective et non pas celle de la préservation des souverainetés nationales.

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. – Viitorul Uniunii Europene înseamnă, în primul rând, viitorul, aşteptările şi speranţele celor aproximativ 500 de milioane de cetăţeni europeni. Cea mai mare preocupare a cetăţenilor europeni este astăzi legată de lipsa locurilor de muncă. Şomajul a ajuns la cote alarmante, iar măsurile de austeritate nu au făcut decât să agraveze situaţia generată de lipsa locurilor de muncă. Din păcate, tinerii, cei care reprezintă viitorul Europei, sunt cei mai afectaţi de şomaj. De asemenea, măsurile de austeritate au însemnat, în multe state membre, reducerea bugetelor pentru educaţie şi sănătate, sectoare de care depinde viitorul Uniunii Europene. Consider că măsuri precum cele aplicate Ciprului şi impunerea unor măsuri de austeritate, neacompaniate de măsuri de creştere economică, slăbesc încrederea cetăţenilor în Uniune şi sporesc riscul creşterii extremismului. Este inadmisibil ca, în urma procesului de liberalizare a sectorului bancar european, cetăţenii să fie părtaşi doar la pierderi şi nu şi la beneficiile obţinute de instituţiile din acest sector. Este inadmisibil ca, astăzi, să existe încă bariere privind libera circulaţie a lucratorilor, iar statele membre să se confrunte cu un regres faţă de modelul social pe baza căruia Uniunea a fost construită. Uniunea trebuie să apere modelul social european, să crească competitivitatea industriei în toate statele membre şi să asigure locuri de muncă pe teritoriul Uniunii.

  Boris Zala (S&D), písomne – Vážený pán premiér, vážení kolegovia! Áno, stojíme na križovatke, a preto je potrebné pomenovať veci pravými slovami. Súhlasím s prehlbovaním integrácie v praktickom rozmere: banková únia, fiškálna únia, dotiahnuť jednotný trh, jednotný energetický systém, rozvinúť skutočnú európsku infraštruktúru, spoločný a jednotný digitálny priestor a mnoho ďalších praktických krokov. Napr. v oblasti harmonizácie daní, európskych rozpočtových príjmov či eurobondov. Lenže tieto projekty si vyžadujú aj prehĺbenie politickej integrácie a tá jasne vyžaduje federalizáciu. Viem, premiéri členských štátov sa boja tohto pojmu. Vyvolal by doma okamžite diskusiu o presunoch či strate suverenity a to by mohla byť voda na mlyn protieurópskym silám. Ale tomuto zápasu sa nebude možné vyhnúť, a tak každá proeurópska a zodpovedná vláda musí čestne a otvorene informovať, ale aj presviedčať občanov o potrebnosti, nevyhnutnosti a aj správnosti federalizácie. Iba to je cesta k demokratickej európskej integrácií. Ďakujem za pozornosť.