Der Präsident. − Als erster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung des Präsidenten der Kommission zur Lage der Union (2013/2623(RSP)).
Sehr geehrter Herr Kommissionspräsident Barroso, ich heiße Sie herzlich willkommen, ich heiße Herrn Außenminister Linkevičius ebenso herzlich willkommen. Meine sehr geehrten Damen und Herren, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen, ich freue mich sehr, Sie zur letzten State-of-the-Union-Erklärung des Kommissionspräsidenten in dieser Legislaturperiode begrüßen zu dürfen. Die State-of-the-Union-Debatte zwischen Kommission und Parlament ist sicher ein Schlüsselmoment im politischen Leben der Europäischen Union.
Heute findet ein Gipfeltreffen hier in Straßburg statt, ein Gipfeltreffen der Gemeinschaftsinstitutionen. Wir beraten einmal im Jahr, sicher wie immer auch dieses Mal in heftiger Auseinandersetzung, den Fahrplan für die Europäische Union. Wir, die Gemeinschaftsinstitutionen – Parlament und Kommission –, beraten transparent und öffentlich. Im Gegensatz zu anderen Organen, die zu Gipfeltreffen nach Brüssel reisen, sich manchmal selbst zur europäischen Exekutive erklären, oft hinter verschlossenen Türen tagen, tagen wir öffentlich.
Ich glaube, es ist gut, dass die Debatten über die europäischen Angelegenheiten transparent bei offenen Türen und für alle Bürgerinnen und Bürger erkennbar ausgetragen werden.
(Beifall)
Die Menschen in Europa wollen wissen, wer entscheidet wo auf welcher Grundlage warum und mit welchen Argumenten. Für unsere heutige Debatte muss eines gelten – der Vertrauensverlust von Menschen in die europäischen Institutionen ist gewaltig. Und deshalb gilt der Grundsatz: Transparenz schafft Vertrauen. Und diese Debatte ist eine transparente Debatte, von der ich hoffe, dass sie Vertrauen in die Funktionsweise und in die Funktionalität der europäischen Demokratie zurückbringt.
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, die Kommission und das Parlament haben eine gemeinsame Leitlinie: Mit überwältigender Mehrheit in diesem Hause und sicher einstimmig in der Kommission ist die Gemeinschaftsmethode die Leitlinie des Handelns in der Europäischen Union.
Die Gemeinschaftsmethode, das bedeutet, Konflikte durch Dialog und Konsens zu lösen, an Stelle des Rechts des Stärkeren die Solidarität und die Demokratie zu setzen, den Interessenausgleich zwischen kleinen und großen Staaten, zwischen Nord und Süd, Ost und West. Gemeinschaftsmethode, das bedeutet, das Wohl aller über die einzelnen Partikularinteressen zu stellen.
Die Partikularinteressen, die Einzelinteressen, übrigens auch, dass Nationen und einzelne Staaten gegeneinander konkurrieren, ist das Gegenteil der Gemeinschaftsmethode und es ist gefährlich. Deshalb, meine Damen und Herren, appelliere ich an die Mitglieder und die Mitgliedstaaten der Europäischen Union und die Mitglieder des Europäischen Rates, insbesondere was die Umsetzung großer gemeinsamer Projekte angeht: Im Parlament wird mit Mehrheit entschieden, wir haben eine lange Liste von Aufgaben, die deshalb nicht gelöst werden, weil im Rat Partikularinteressen herrschen und die Gesetzgebung blockieren.
(Beifall)
Das gilt insbesondere für die Umsetzung der von uns gemeinschaftlich und mit breiter Mehrheit hier beschlossenen Finanziellen Vorausschau. Deren Umsetzung in konkretes Recht ist extrem schwierig.
Meine Damen und Herren, dieser Sommer war der erste Sommer in fünf Krisenjahren, der relativ ruhig verlaufen ist. Darüber haben wir uns alle gefreut. Es war nicht so, dass jede Woche eine andere Katastrophennachricht über die Ticker lief oder apokalyptische Beschwörungen einer Euro-Dämmerung uns alle verunsichert haben. Und es ist Ruhe an den Finanzmärkten eingekehrt – das ist sicher eine gute Nachricht.
Doch diese Ruhe darf uns nicht täuschen, auch in der heutigen Debatte nicht. Noch immer leiden Millionen Menschen unter den Folgen der Krise. Die Arbeitslosenzahlen sind nach wie vor horrend hoch, die Armut ist dramatisch, die Wirtschaftsentwicklung schleppend, die Kreditklemme nach wie vor nicht behoben. Wir hier nehmen die Sorgen der Menschen sicher ernst. Wir müssen bis zu den Europawahlen die nicht gelösten Probleme auch engagiert und mutig anpacken.
Ich werde Ihnen morgen früh – ich glaube, das ist eine gute Nachricht – hier vor der Abstimmung vortragen können, dass zwischen uns und der Europäischen Zentralbank nach meinem Dafürhalten zur Bankenunion eine gute Lösung gefunden worden ist. Die Aufsicht und die parlamentarische Kontrolle über die Aufsichtstätigkeit der Zentralbank im Rahmen der Bankenunion ist auch ein Stück Transparenz, von dem ich eben geredet habe. Die Bürger und Bürgerinnen wollen wissen, was eine Zentralbank, wenn sie Aufsichtsorgan ist, an Rechenschaft gegenüber dem Parlament abzulegen hat.
Die Jugendgarantie muss umgesetzt werden. Das Schlimmste, was es in Europa gibt, ist die Jugendarbeitslosigkeit. Wenn wir jungen Menschen in Europa keine Perspektive geben, wie wollen wir erwarten, dass sie Vertrauen in die Europäische Union haben?
Ich habe über die Schwierigkeiten mit dem mehrjährigen Finanzrahmen gesprochen. Ich erwarte von allen Organen, von der Kommission und vom Europäischen Rat, dass wir die Finanzielle Vorausschau nutzen, um Wachstum in Europa zu schaffen, denn die Finanzielle Vorausschau ist ein gezieltes Investitionsprogramm.
José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Mr President, in eight months’ time, voters across Europe will judge what we have achieved together in the last five years. In these five years, Europe has been more present in the lives of citizens than ever before. Europe has been discussed in the coffee houses and popular talk shows all over our continent. Today, I want to look at what we have done together, at what we have yet to do. I want to present what I believe are the main ideas for a truly European political debate ahead of next year’s elections.
As we speak, exactly five years ago the United States Government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, bailed out AIG, and Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection. These events triggered the global financial crisis. It evolved into an unprecedented economic crisis. And it became a social crisis with dramatic consequences for many of our citizens. These events have aggravated the debt problem that still distresses our governments. They have led to an alarming increase in unemployment, especially amongst young people. And they are still holding back our households and our companies.
But Europe has fought back. In those five years, we have given a determined response. We suffered the crisis together. We realised we had to fight it together. And we did. And we are doing it.
If we look back and think about what we have done together throughout the crisis, I think it is fair to say that we would never have thought all of this possible five years ago. We are fundamentally reforming the financial sector so that people’s savings are safe. We have improved the way governments work together, how they return to sound public finances and modernise their economies. We have mobilised over EUR 700 billion to pull crisis-struck countries back from the brink, the biggest effort ever in stabilisation between countries.
I still vividly remember my meeting last year with chief economists of many of our leading banks. Most of them were expecting Greece to leave the euro. All of them feared the disintegration of the euro area. Now, we can give a clear reply to those fears: no one has left or has been forced to leave the euro. This year, the European Union enlarged from 27 to 28 Member States and next year the euro area will grow from 17 to 18 Member States. What matters now is what we make of this progress. Do we talk it up, or talk it down? Do we draw confidence from it to pursue what we have started, or do we belittle the results of our efforts?
I just came back from the G20 meeting in St Petersburg. I can tell you: this year, contrary to recent years, we Europeans did not receive any lessons from other parts of the world on how to address the crisis. We received appreciation and encouragement. Not because the crisis is over (because it is not over), but the resilience of our Union has been tested and will continue to be tested. But what we are doing creates the confidence that we are overcoming the crisis – provided we are not complacent.
We are tackling our challenges together and we have to tackle them together, because in our world of geo-economic and geopolitical tectonic changes, I believe that only together, as the European Union, can we give our citizens what they aspire to: that our values, our interests, our prosperity are protected and promoted in the age of globalisation.
So now is the time to rise above purely national issues and parochial interests and to have real progress for Europe. To bring a truly European perspective to the debate with national constituencies. Now is the time for all those who care about Europe, whatever their political or ideological position, wherever they come from, to speak up for Europe. If we ourselves do not do it, we cannot expect others to do it either.
We have come a long way since the start of the crisis. In last year’s State of the Union speech, I stated that ‘despite all our efforts, our responses have not yet convinced citizens, markets or our international partners’. One year on, the facts tell us that our efforts have started to convince. Overall spreads are coming down. The most vulnerable countries are paying less to borrow. Industrial output is increasing. Market trust is returning. Stock markets are performing well. The business outlook is steadily improving. Consumer confidence is rising sharply.
We see that the countries which are most vulnerable to the crisis and are now doing most to reform their economies are starting to note positive results. In Spain, as a signal of the very important reforms and increased competitiveness, exports of goods and services now make up 33% of GDP, more than ever since the introduction of the euro.
Ireland has been able to draw money from capital markets since the summer of 2012, the economy is expected to grow for a third consecutive year in 2013 and Irish manufacturing companies are rehiring staff. In Portugal, the external current account, which was structurally negative, is now expected to be broadly balanced, and growth is picking up after many quarters in the red.
Greece has completed, in just three years, a truly remarkable fiscal adjustment, is regaining competitiveness and is nearing for the first time in decades a primary surplus. And Cyprus, which started the programme later, is also implementing that programme as scheduled, which is a precondition for a return to growth.
My point is this: for Europe, recovery is within sight. Let us be realistic in analysis, let us not overestimate the positive results but let us not also underestimate what has been done.
Of course, we need to be vigilant. ‘One swallow does not make a summer, nor one fine day’. Even one fine quarter does not mean we are out of the economic heavy weather. But it does prove we are on the right track. On the basis of the figures and evolutions as we now see them, we have good reason to be confident.
This should push us to keep up our efforts. We owe it to those for whom the recovery is not yet within reach, to those who do not yet profit from positive developments. We owe it to our 26 million unemployed, especially to the young people who are unemployed and who are looking to us. They want to have reasons to feel hope about Europe and about their own countries. So hope and confidence are also part of the economic equation.
If we are where we are today, it is because we have shown the resolve to adapt both our politics and our policies to the lessons drawn from the crisis. And when I say ‘we’, I really mean ‘we’: it has really been a joint effort. At each and every step, you, the European Parliament, have played a decisive role through one of the most impressive records of legislative work ever. I personally believe this is not sufficiently known by the citizens of Europe and you deserve more credit and recognition for this. So let us continue to work together to reform our economies, for growth and jobs, and to adapt our institutional architecture. Only if we do so, will we leave this phase of the crisis behind us as well.
There is a lot we can still deliver together, in this Parliament’s and this Commission’s mandate. What we can and must do, first and foremost – let us be concrete – is to deliver the banking union. It is the first and most urgent phase on the way to deepening our economic and monetary union, as mapped out in the Commission’s Blueprint presented last autumn. The legislative process on the Single Supervisory Mechanism is almost completed. The next step is the ECB’s independent valuation of banks’ assets, before it takes up its supervisory role.
Our attention now must urgently turn to the Single Resolution Mechanism. The Commission’s proposal has been on the table since July and, together, we must do what is necessary to have it adopted during this term. It is the way to ensure that taxpayers are no longer the ones in the front line for paying the price of bank failure. It is the way to make progress in decoupling banks from sovereign risk. It is the way to remedy one of the most alarming and unacceptable results of the crisis: increased fragmentation of Europe’s financial sector and credit markets – even an implicit renationalisation. And it is also the way to help restore normal lending to the economy, notably to SMEs. Because in spite of the accommodating monetary policy, credit is not yet sufficiently flowing to the economy across the euro area. This needs to be addressed resolutely.
Ultimately, this is about one thing – growth – which is necessary to remedy today’s most pressing problem – unemployment. The current level of unemployment is economically unsustainable, politically untenable and socially unacceptable. So all of us here in the Commission – and I am happy to have all my colleagues in the Commission here with me today – all of us, not just one or two Commissioners, this is a collective effort – all of us want to work with you, intensively, to deliver as much of our growth agenda, our sustainable growth agenda, as we possibly can.
We are mobilising all the instruments we have at European level but of course we have to be honest, not all instruments are at European level: some of them are at national level. And I want to focus on the implementation of the decisions that are most crucial now: youth employment and financing the real economy for SMEs. We need to avoid a jobless recovery too.
Europe must, therefore, speed up the pace of structural reforms. Our Country Specific Recommendations set out what the Member States must do in this respect. And at European level – because there is what can be done at national level and what can be done at European level – the focus should also be on what matters most for the real economy: exploiting the full potential of the single market comes first.
We have a well-functioning single market for goods, and we see the economic benefits of that. We need to extend the same formula to other areas: mobility, communications, energy, finance and e-commerce, to name but a few. We have to remove the obstacles that hold back dynamic companies and people. We have to finish connecting Europe.
I would like to announce that, today, we will formally adopt a proposal that gives a push towards a single market for telecoms. Citizens know that Europe has dramatically brought down their costs for roaming. Our proposal will strengthen guarantees and lower prices for consumers, and present new opportunities for companies.
We know that in the future trade will be more and more digital. Is it not a paradox that we have an internal market for goods but when it comes to the digital market, we have 28 national markets. How can we grab all the opportunities of the future that are opened up by the digital economy if we do not conclude this internal market?
(Applause)
The same logic applies to the broader digital agenda: it solves real problems and improves daily life for citizens. The strength of Europe’s future industrial base depends on how well people and businesses are interconnected. And by properly combining the digital agenda with data protection and the defence of privacy, our European model strengthens the trust of citizens. Both with respect to internal and external developments, adopting the proposed legislation on data protection is of utmost importance to the Commission.
The single market is a key lever for competitiveness and employment. Adopting all remaining proposals under the Single Market Act I and II, and implementing the Connecting Europe Facility in the next few months, we will lay the foundations for prosperity in the years to come.
We are also adapting to a dynamic transformation on a global scale, so we must encourage this innovative dynamism on a European scale. That is why we must also invest more in innovation, in technology and in the role of science. I have great faith in science, in the capacity of the human mind and the capacity of a creative society to solve its problems. The world is changing dramatically and I believe many of the solutions are going to come, in Europe and outside Europe, from new science discoveries, from new technologies, and I would like Europe to be leading that effort globally.
This is why we – Parliament and the Commission – have made Horizon 2020 such a priority in the discussions on the European Union budget. That is why we use the European Union budget to invest in skills, education and vocational training, dynamising and supporting talent. That is why we have pushed for Erasmus Plus. And that is why, later this autumn, we will make further proposals for an industrial policy fit for the 21st century. Why we mobilise support for SMEs. Because we believe a strong dynamic industrial base is indispensable for a strong European economy.
(Applause)
And whilst fighting climate change, our 20-20-20 goals have set our economy on the path to green growth and resource efficiency, reducing costs and creating jobs.
By the end of this year, we will come out with concrete proposals for our energy and climate framework up to 2030. And we will continue to shape the international agenda by fleshing out a comprehensive, legally binding global climate agreement by 2015, with our partners. Frankly, we need the others on board too. Europe cannot fight climate change alone. We need a level playing field globally and we should lead that effort. At the same time, we will pursue our work on the impact of energy prices on competitiveness and also on social cohesion.
All these drivers for growth are part of our ‘Europe 2020’ agenda, and fully and swiftly implementing it is more urgent than ever. In some cases we even have to go beyond the Europe 2020 agenda. This means we must also pursue our active and assertive trade agenda. This is about linking us closer to growing third markets and guaranteeing our place in the global supply chain.
Contrary to perception, while most of our citizens think that we have been losing in global trade, we have in fact been increasing our surplus with the rest of the world. We have a significant and increased trade surplus of more than EUR 300 billion a year in goods, services and agriculture. We need to build on that. This too will demand our full attention in the months to come, notably with the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with the US and the negotiations with Canada and Japan.
Last but not least, we need to step up our game in implementing the Multiannual Financial Framework, the European budget. The EU budget is the most concrete lever we have at hand to boost investments. In some of our regions, European investment is the only means they have to get some public investment because they cannot now have resources at national level.
Both Parliament and the Commission wanted more resources – we have been in that fight together – but even so, let us be honest, one single year’s EU budget represents more money – at today’s prices – than the whole Marshall Plan did in its time! Let us now make sure that the programmes can start on 1 January 2014; that the results are felt on the ground, in our regions or across Europe, and that we use the possibilities of innovative financing: from instruments that have already started, to European Investment Bank money and to project bonds.
We have to make good on the commitment we made in July. From the Commission’s side, we will deliver. We will, for example, present the second amending budget for 2014 this month. There is no time to waste, so I warn against holding it up. In particular, I urge Member States not to delay.
I cannot emphasise this enough: citizens will not be convinced by rhetoric and promises only, but by a concrete set of common achievements. We have to show the many areas where Europe has solved problems for citizens. Europe does not cause problems: Europe is part of the solution.
I address what we have to do still more extensively in today’s letter to the President of the European Parliament, which you will also have received, so I will not go into detail now regarding our programme for next year. But my point today is clear: together, there is a lot still to achieve before the elections. It is not time to throw in the towel, it is time to roll up our sleeves and work hard.
Of course none of this is easy. I think that everybody recognises that we have been living in extremely challenging times, a real stress test for the European Union. We know too that the path of permanent and profound reform is as demanding as it is unavoidable. Let us make no mistake: there is no way back to business as usual. Some people believe that after this everything will go back to the way it was before. They are wrong. This crisis is different. This is not a cyclical crisis, but a structural crisis. We will not go back to the old ‘normal’. We have to shape a new ‘normal’. We are in a transforming period of history and we have to understand that, and not just say it but draw all the due conclusions, including in our state of mind and how we react to the problems. We can see from the first results that it is possible to win that battle, and we all know that it is not only possible but it is necessary.
At this point in time, with a fragile recovery, the biggest downside risk I see is – you know what – political. This is the biggest downside risk we have: lack of stability or lack of determination and perseverance. Over the last years we have seen that anything that casts doubt on governments’ commitment to reform is instantly punished. On the positive side, strong and convincing decisions have an important and immediate impact. In this phase of the crisis, governments’ job is to provide the certainty and predictability that markets still lack.
I am sure you all know Justus Lipsius. Justus Lipsius is the name of the Council building in Brussels. Justus Lipsius was the very influential 16th century humanist scholar who wrote a very important book called De Constantia. He wrote: ‘Constancy is a right and immovable strength of the mind, neither lifted up nor pressed down with external or casual accidents.’. Only a ‘strength of the mind’, he argued, based on ‘judgment and sound reason’, can help you through confusing and alarming times. I hope that in these difficult times, all of us, including the government representatives that meet at the Justus Lipsius Building, show that determination and that perseverance when it comes to the implementation of decisions taken, because one of the issues we have is to be coherent and not just take decisions but afterwards be able to implement them on the ground.
It is only natural that, over the last few years, our efforts to overcome the economic crisis have overshadowed everything else. But our idea of Europe needs to go far beyond economics. We are much more than a market. The European ideal touches the very foundations of European society. It is about values – and I underline the word ‘values’. It is based on a firm belief in political, social and economic standards, grounded in our social market economy.
In today’s world, the European Union level is indispensable to protecting these values and standards and promoting citizens’ rights: from consumer protection to labour rights, from women’s rights to respect for minorities, from environmental standards to data protection and privacy.
Whether defending our interests in international trade, securing our energy provision, or restoring people’s sense of fairness by fighting tax fraud and tax evasion, it is only by acting as a Union that we pull our weight on the world stage. Whether seeking impact for the development and humanitarian aid we give to developing countries, managing our common external borders or promoting Europe as a strong security and defence policy, it is only by integrating more that we can really reach our objectives.
There is no doubt about it. Our internal coherence and international relevance are inextricably linked. Our economic attraction and political traction are fundamentally entwined. Does anyone seriously believe that, if the euro had collapsed, we or our Member States would still have any credibility left internationally? Does everyone still realise how enlargement has been a success in terms of healing history’s deep scars, in establishing democracies where some years ago no one had thought it possible? How neighbourhood policy was and still is the best way to provide security and prosperity in regions of vital importance for Europe? Where would we be without all of this?
Today, countries like Ukraine are more than ever seeking closer ties with the European Union, attracted by our economic and social model. We cannot turn our back on them. We cannot accept any attempts to limit these countries’ own sovereign choices. Free will and free consent need to be respected. These are also the principles that lie at the basis of our Eastern Partnership, which we want to take forward at our summit in Vilnius.
And does everyone still remember just how much Europe has suffered from its wars during the last century, and how European integration was the valid answer? Next year, it will be one century since the start of the First World War. A war that tore Europe apart, from Sarajevo to the Somme. We must never take peace for granted. We need to recall that it is because of Europe that former enemies now sit around the same table and work together. It is only because they were offered a European perspective that even Serbia and Kosovo have now come to an agreement, under the mediation of the EU.
Last year’s Nobel Peace Prize reminded us of that historic achievement: that Europe is a project of peace. We should be more aware of it ourselves. Sometimes I think we should not be ashamed to be proud. Arrogance is one thing: we do not want to be arrogant. But we should be proud of Europe and of what we have achieved. We should look towards the future, but with a wisdom we gained from the past.
(Applause)
Let me say this to all those who rejoice in Europe’s difficulties and who want to roll back our integration and go back to isolation: the pre-integrated Europe of the divisions, the war, the trenches, is not what people desire and deserve. The European continent has never in its history known such a long period of peace as it has had since the creation of the European Communities. It is our duty to preserve it and to deepen it.
It is precisely with these values that we address the unbearable situation in Syria, which has tested, over the last months, the world’s conscience so severely. The European Union has led the international aid response by mobilising close to EUR 1.5 billion, of which EUR 850 million comes directly from the European Union budget. The Commission will do its utmost to help the Syrian people and refugees in neighbouring countries.
We have recently witnessed events we thought had long been eradicated. The use of chemical weapons is a horrendous act that deserves a clear condemnation and a strong answer. The international community, with the United Nations at its centre, carries a collective responsibility to sanction these acts and to put an end to this conflict. The proposal to put Syria’s chemical weapons beyond use is potentially a positive development. The Syrian regime must now demonstrate that it will implement this without any delay. In Europe, we believe that, ultimately, only a political solution stands a chance of delivering the lasting peace that the Syrian people deserve.
There are those who claim that a weaker Europe would make their country stronger, that Europe is a burden and they would be better off without it. My reply is clear: we all need a Europe that is united, strong and open. In the debate that is ongoing all across Europe, the bottom-line question is: do we want to improve Europe, or give it up? My answer is clear: let us engage! If you do not like Europe as it is: improve it! Find ways to make it stronger, internally and internationally, and you will have in me the firmest of supporters. Find ways that allow for diversity without creating discrimination, and I will be with you all the way. But do not turn away from it.
I recognise that, as in any human endeavour, the European Union is not perfect. For example, controversies about the division of labour between the national and European levels will never be conclusively ended. I value subsidiarity highly. For me subsidiarity is not a technical concept, it is a fundamental democratic principle. An ever closer union among the citizens of Europe demands that decisions are taken as openly and as transparently as possible and as close to the people as possible.
Not everything needs a solution at European level. Europe must focus on where it can add most value. Where this is not the case, it should not meddle. The European Union needs to be big on big things and smaller on smaller things – something we may occasionally have neglected in the past. The European Union needs to show it has the capacity to set both positive and negative priorities. As all governments, we need to take extra care of the quality and quantity of our regulation knowing that, as Montesquieu said, ‘les lois inutiles affaiblissent les lois nécessaires’ – useless laws weaken the necessary ones.
But there are areas of major importance where Europe must have more integration, more unity, where only a strong Europe can deliver results. I believe a political union needs to be our political horizon, as I stressed in last year’s State of the Union speech. This is not just the demand of a passionate European. This is the indispensable way forward to consolidate our progress and ensure the future. Ultimately, the solidity of our policies, namely of the economic and monetary union, depends on the credibility of the political and institutional construct that supports it.
So we have mapped out, in the Commission Blueprint for a deep and genuine Economic and Monetary Union, not only the economic and monetary features, but also the necessities, possibilities and limits in deepening our institutional set-up in the medium and long term. The Commission will continue to work for the implementation of its Blueprint, step by step, one phase after the other. And I confirm, as announced last year, the intention to present, before the European elections, further ideas on the future of our Union and how best to consolidate and deepen the Community method and the Community approach in the longer term. That way, these ideas can be subject to a real European debate. They will set out the principles and orientations that are necessary for a true, political union.
We can only meet the challenges of our time if we strengthen the consensus on our fundamental objectives. Politically, we must not be divided by differences between the euro area and those outside it, between the centre and the periphery, between north and south, between east and west. The European Union must remain a project for all members, a community of equals.
Economically, Europe has always been a way to close gaps between countries, regions and people. And that must remain so. We cannot do Member States’ work for them, the responsibility remains theirs, but we can and must complement it with European responsibility and European solidarity.
For that reason, strengthening the social dimension is a priority for the months to come, together with our social partners. The Commission will come with its communication on the social dimension of the economic and monetary union on 2 October. Solidarity is a key element of what being part of Europe is all about, and something to take pride in.
Safeguarding its values, such as the rule of law, is what the European Union was made to do, from its inception to the latest chapters in enlargement. In last year’s State of the Union speech, at a moment of challenges to the rule of law in our own Member States, I addressed the need to make a bridge between political persuasion and targeted infringement procedures, on the one hand, and what I call the nuclear option of Article 7 of the Treaty, namely suspension of a Member State’s rights.
Experience has confirmed the usefulness of the Commission role as an independent and objective referee. We should consolidate this experience through a more general framework. It should be based on the principle of equality between Member States, activated only in situations where there is a serious, systemic risk to the rule of law, and triggered by predefined benchmarks. The Commission will come forward with a communication on this. I believe it is a debate key to our idea of Europe.
This does not mean that national sovereignty or democracy are constrained, but we do need a robust European mechanism to influence the equation when basic common principles are at stake. There are certain non-negotiable values that the EU and its Member States must and shall always defend.
The polarisation that resulted from the crisis poses a risk to us all, to the European project. We, the legitimate representatives of the European Union, can turn the tide. You, the direct democratic representatives of Europe, directly elected, will be at the forefront of the political debate. The question I want to put to you is the following: which picture of Europe will voters be presented with? The candid version, or the cartoon version? The myths or the facts? The honest reasonable version or the extremist populist version? It is an important choice to make.
I know some people out there will say Europe is to blame for the crisis and the hardship. But we can remind people that the European Union was not at the origin of this crisis. It resulted from mismanagement of public finances from the national governments and the irresponsible behaviour in the financial markets.
We can explain how Europe has worked to fix the crisis, what we would have lost if we had not succeeded in upholding the single market. Because the single market was under threat and upholding the common currency, because some time ago some people were predicting the end of the common currency. If we had not coordinated recovery efforts and employment initiatives, how would we be now?
Some people will say that it is Europe that is forcing governments to cut spending, but we can remind voters that government debt got way out of hand even before the crisis. Not because of, but despite, Europe. We can add that the most vulnerable in our societies, and our children, will end up paying the price if we do not persevere now and the truth is that countries, inside the euro or outside the euro, in Europe or outside Europe, are making efforts to curb their very burdened public finances.
Some will campaign saying that we have given too much money to vulnerable countries. Others will say we have given too little money to the most vulnerable countries, but every one of us can explain what we did and why: there is a direct link between one country’s loans and another country’s banks, between one country’s investments and another country’s businesses, between one country’s workers and another country’s companies. This kind of interdependence means only European solutions can work. What I tell people is: when you are in the same boat, one cannot say: ‘your end of the boat is sinking’. We were in the same boat when things went well, and we are in it together when things are difficult.
Some people might campaign saying: Europe has grabbed too much power. Others will claim Europe always does too little, too late. The interesting thing is that sometimes we have the same: saying Europe is not doing enough and at the same time not giving more instruments for Europe to do what Europe has to do. But we can explain that Member States have entrusted Europe with tasks and competences. The European Union is not a foreign power. The European Union is a result of democratic decisions by the institutions and the Member States.
At the same time, we must acknowledge that, in some areas, Europe still lacks the power to do what is asked of it, a fact that is all too easily forgotten by those – and we know there are many out there – that are always ready to nationalise success and to Europeanise failure. Ultimately, what we have, and what we do not have, is the result of democratic decision-making and I think we should remind people of that.
I hope Parliament will take up this challenge with all the idealism it holds, with as much realism and determination as the times demand of us. The arguments are there. The facts are there. The agenda has been set out. In eight months’ time, voters will decide. Now, it is up to us to make the case for Europe. We can do so by using the next eight months to conclude as much as we can. We have a lot to do still: namely, adopting and implementing the European budget, the MFF. This is critical for investment in our regions all over Europe. This is indispensable for the first priority we have: the fight against unemployment, notably youth unemployment.
Another priority is to advance and implement the banking union. This is critical in order to address the problem of financing for businesses and SMEs. These are our clear priorities: employment and growth. Our job is not finished. It is in its decisive phase. Because the elections will not only be about the European Parliament, nor will they be about the European Commission or about the Council, about this or that personality. The elections will be about Europe. We will be judged together. So let us work together – for Europe. With passion and with determination.
Let us not forget that 100 years ago Europe was sleepwalking into the catastrophe of the war of 1914. Next year, in 2014, I hope Europe will be walking out of a crisis, more united, stronger and open.
(Applause)
Der Präsident. − Herr Kommissionspräsident! Sie haben auf Justus Lipsius Bezug genommen und die Namensgebung für das Ratsgebäude – das fand ich gut! Ich möchte Sie aber auch darauf aufmerksam machen, dass der Philosoph Justus Lipsius der Erfinder des Gottesgnadentums war – ich hoffe nicht, dass das der Grund für die Namensgebung für das Ratsgebäude war.
Joseph Daul, au nom du groupe PPE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président de la Commission, Monsieur le Président du Conseil, chers collègues, ce débat sur l'état de l'Union, à quelques mois de la fin de la législature, a une résonance particulière.
Je voudrais, Monsieur le Président, saluer votre travail et celui de la Commission européenne. Avec la crise, certains auraient pu prétendre aux solutions démagogiques. Vous n'avez pas emprunté cette voie: vous avez travaillé à des mesures concrètes. L'année écoulée, pour la première fois, vous avez analysé les orientations budgétaires des États membres, les réformes engagées, et ce avec recul. Je rappelle qu'il ne peut et qu'il ne doit pas y avoir deux poids, deux mesures. Tous les États doivent être traités de la même façon. C'est une question de confiance vis-à-vis de nos concitoyens. Il faut tenir le cap!
C'est d'autant plus important que les mesures qui ont été prises commencent à porter leurs fruits. Je crois qu'il faut aussi le dire. La Lettonie est sortie de la crise. L'Irlande est sur la bonne voie. Au Portugal, le chômage baisse pour la première fois depuis des mois. En Espagne, de grands investissements sont en cours. En Grèce, le tourisme a bien repris cet été. Ce trimestre, la zone euro renoue elle aussi avec la croissance.
Mais cela ne veut pas dire que nous pouvons ralentir et nous arrêter. Il faut poursuivre les réformes. La Commission, en tant qu'arbitre, a, de ce point de vue, une responsabilité. Nous devons attaquer la deuxième partie du match. L'achèvement du marché unique en fait partie – vous l'avez dit ce matin et je le répète. Un marché unique plus abouti, c'est au bas mot près de 1 % de croissance en plus et cela ne coûte pas un euro d'investissement en plus.
Nous avons obtenu un accord sur la reconnaissance plus large des qualifications professionnelles, une victoire pour les Européens. À cela s'ajoute le travail que nous faisons dans le secteur financier, notamment avec l'union bancaire. Il y a bien sûr les réformes du budget et le EFP et ce que vous nous avez dit, Monsieur le Président, il faut surtout le dire au Conseil. Nous avons donné notre accord; c'est au Conseil que ça bloque pour le moment. Je crois, là aussi, que vous avez encore des choses à faire et que vous devez encore convaincre, et je vous fais confiance. Nous avons avancé, avant l'été, et j'attends du Conseil qu'il remplisse ses engagements pour que nous puissions le mettre en œuvre, ce nouveau budget.
Chers collègues, il faut des impulsions au niveau européen pour stimuler la croissance, grâce à des législations et à des investissements ciblés qui mettent l'accent sur la création d'emplois. Il faut assainir encore nos finances publiques. Certains chefs de gouvernement ont pris avec courage des décisions indispensables pour le bien de leur pays et de l'Union européenne, mais la sagesse budgétaire n'est pas une fin en soi. Il faut évaluer l'efficacité de nos décisions. L'économie n'est pas une science exacte et toutes les politiques ne sont pas efficaces. Je crois qu'il faut aussi le reconnaître.
Laissez-moi vous donner un exemple: nous pensions tellement aux services que nous avons oublié l'industrie. Or, où sont les services aujourd'hui? Pour la plupart, pas en Europe! Nous avons le devoir d'investir à nouveau dans l'industrie pour garder nos emplois. Il ne faut pas avoir peur de le dire. C'est aussi cela le rôle de l'Europe.
Chers collègues, la crise économique n'a pas seulement affecté nos institutions financières, elle a aussi entamé la confiance des citoyens dans leurs gouvernements. Vous l'avez dit: la crise financière n'est pas due à l'Europe. C'est trop facile de dire que c'est à cause de l'Europe! Non! C'est grâce à l'Europe et à l'euro que nous avons sauvé les livrets d'épargne de nos concitoyens! Je crois que c'est important. Nos concitoyens se détournent, avec ces discours, des partis politiques traditionnels. Leur foi en l'Europe s'effrite. Les populismes de tous bords diffusent des schémas faciles et réducteurs. Or, ce n'est pas la solution. Nous ne pouvons pas succomber au repli sur soi, qui conduirait notre continent définitivement sur la pente du déclin.
Dans huit mois, lors des élections européennes, le débat ne se limitera pas à une confrontation droite-gauche. La question portera avant tout sur l'Europe que nous voulons.
L'histoire a démontré que l'Europe est le meilleur rempart pour protéger les Européens. Nous le voyons bien: pour que notre continent puisse exister, il nous faut une diplomatie européenne, une défense européenne commune, non pas pour faire la guerre mais pour assurer la paix et aider les plus pauvres de ce monde.
Moins il y a d'Europe, plus il y a d'échecs! Notre débat, aujourd'hui, a ce mérite: il nous permet de faire le point, de voir où nous en sommes. L'Europe est sur la bonne voie!
Pour assurer notre avenir, il faut des bases solides, il faut respecter les valeurs que nous défendons et qui sont les nôtres. Notre Parlement est et restera un partenaire de la Commission pour construire cet avenir commun!
(Applaudissements)
Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, as in all his previous speeches, President Barroso has described a half-full glass as totally full. I will demonstrate that the glass is still half empty. President Barroso, you spoke about figures and, yes, there are some good figures, and we are happy about that, but I want to speak about people: about women, about the younger generation and about children, who are still suffering under the austerity policy.
You spoke about increasing investment confidence. But why, Mr Barroso, is there a lack of confidence on the part of Europe’s citizens? This is another question that the Commission and the Commission President need to answer. Recently, Prime Minister Samaras, of the future Greek Presidency of the Council, spoke about a Greek recovery. With 60% of young people still unemployed and with efforts to find a new package for Greece, it is astonishing that some people should talk about a recovery.
Turning to Spain, you probably read the recent article about the young generation there: the children who have to go to school to be fed because they cannot get enough meals at home. And do you know, Mr Barroso, how many jobs have been created in Spain in the last few months? The answer is 31. Thirty-one new jobs: this is the recovery in Spain! It is a scandal.
As for Portugal, your own country, Mr Barroso, I do not know whether you have spoken, as I did recently when I was in Setúbal, with Caritas, who can show you children being taken out of kindergarten because people are ashamed to send their children to kindergarten with poor clothes. That is also the reality of Europe: so show that the glass is not simply half full; it is also half empty. We still have much to do, and we need to change the policies of the Commission.
(Loud applause)
Because austerity is increasing the rift between rich and poor and between north and south, and is aggravating racism and xenophobia. Blaming the others – the foreigners, the migrant workers, the welfare tourists from Bulgaria and Romania – is very popular, for example among the Conservatives in Great Britain, and even more so UKIP and others. This is happening all over Europe today: austerity is undermining solidarity between states and also between citizens.
Yes, I agree we need a strong Europe – a much stronger Europe. How can we support Baroness Ashton’s important work if we do not have a stronger Europe? And that means, of course, more investment because public and private investment is lacking. I have seen many young entrepreneurs who would like to go for new start-ups if they could get credit and investment.
I was recently at Porsche and at BASF, one of the leading companies in Germany, and I saw the high quality of work there. But you know, Mr Barroso, even in rich Germany there is a lack of investment and infrastructure. They have to close bridges and highways because they cannot be repaired; and people say that their Internet speed is sometimes slower in rich Germany than in some of our poor countries. We have to fight together, in all our countries, for more investment.
Mr Barroso, you also mentioned the civil liberties situation. Yes, you are right, but I would take an even stronger stance. How can it be that a black minister in Italy is attacked again daily, even by some of the Members of this Parliament? It is a shame. We should be proud to have a black minister in one of our European governments.
(Applause)
Journalists and friends of journalists are being intimidated in some other countries; laws against media freedom have been passed in certain countries; and Roma are being attacked again, even more so than before. These are things that we need to combat very strongly. Therefore I demand from the Commission more policies for economic recovery, more policies on social cohesion and solidarity, and more capacity to defend the rule of the law in Europe.
You also mentioned, Mr Barroso, some of the proposals due to come forward: for example, on the social dimension of economic and monetary union. But I would ask you: things have been in place since the spring, so why does it require nearly half a year to bring forward this proposal? Are you afraid that some governments are against it? Perhaps you mentioned it and I missed it.
We passed a legislative proposal on the restructuring of industries because we want restructured industries. We are not conservatives who say that once an industry is there, it has to stay as it is. It must be subject to social conditions. Why do you not have the courage to come forward with a legislative proposal on the restructuring of industries? Is it because some countries are against it?
You are the President of the Commission, and the Commission must have the strength to fight not only with this Parliament but also with the Council. So I hope, at least, that you come forward with some proposals on these issues because we need them.
(Applause)
I also want to raise the issue of health and safety regulations because I mentioned the health situation earlier. You need only look briefly at the book The body economic: why austerity kills. It kills in the true sense. Under austerity, among other things, the rate of suicide is increasing, so we also need health and safety regulations from the Commission.
However, let me also address the Council. We had an agreement on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF). Why is the Council breaking this agreement? We had an agreement, together with the Commission, on frontloading against youth unemployment. But the Council is not frontloading: it is reducing the money for youth unemployment, and this is not acceptable.
(Applause)
How can you present a budget for 2014 which is not up to standard, and not up to the agreement? How can the Council violate the law and the Treaty by not negotiating with Parliament about things which have to be negotiated? We must stick to the laws and the rules, and demand that the Council comes forward with a reasonable budget under the MFF for 2014. My group will not vote in favour of a budget that is not up to standard to fight against youth unemployment in Europe, for that is the biggest task. Talk alone is not enough; we want action from the Council.
(Applause)
We also expect progress on the financial transaction tax (FTT), which is currently taking a lot of flak. We expect of the Council, with the help of the Commission of course, that the promise made to our citizens – that the financial sector will contribute through the FTT – will finally be kept. It is not acceptable that so many citizens should suffer and that banks and financial institutions should not contribute to resolving the crisis.
Lastly, there is to be an election campaign, to which the President referred. The centre-left has approaches to many issues very different from those of the centre-right, especially on social issues. But I hope that the centre in this Parliament will defend the future of Europe. If some governments are now calling for the words ‘ever closer Union’ to be deleted from the Treaty, we say ‘No’. We want an ever closer union in the fields of both economic and foreign affairs. That is the only way to go forward, and I therefore believe in the vision of a United States of Europe. However, just as the United States of America, it is not a unitary state, Europe will never be one. It will have its diversity but will get rid of this nationalism and xenophobia.
With all our differences between right and left, let us fight for a common Europe: a Europe strong enough to defend itself; a Europe strong enough to say and do whatever we have to say and do, on issues from Syria and Egypt to competition with China, and all the others. We cannot defend the interests of our citizens if we go back to nationalism and xenophobia. We have to go forward towards a common united Europe.
(Loud applause)
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
Jaime Mayor Oreja (PPE), pregunta de «tarjeta azul». – Señor Presidente, sí, señor Swoboda, usted, al referirse a España —no sé si ha sido un problema de interpretación simultánea—, ha hablado de escándalo, cuando en este último mes hay 31 puestos de trabajo nuevos, que se suman a otros puestos de trabajo nuevos.
La pregunta es: ¿cuál es su concepto de escándalo? ¿Cuándo se crean puestos de trabajo, o cuando en la etapa de gobiernos socialistas se destruyeron millones de puestos de trabajo en España? ¿Cuál es su concepto de escándalo en ese sentido, señor Swoboda?
Hannes Swoboda (S&D), blue-card answer. – When we talk about recovery we think of thousands of new jobs, not merely 28 or 31. It is scandalous in this precarious situation – although you are proud of what your government has done and it is not only about politics – that there are just 31 jobs.
Do you know what has also happened? You know perfectly well that if you push people out of the queue for jobs – and the people who cannot find a job despair, and have no hope of getting a job – then you will have a good record. But recovery, for me, is about getting more people into jobs and not about having fewer people looking for work because they despair of finding it.
Many people in Spain – and not only in Spain but in many other countries too – are emigrating. You know perfectly well how many people have left the country to go to Argentina and other countries in Latin America and to Germany. We cannot solve the issue of unemployment by telling young people to leave the country and find a job elsewhere. That is not our policy in any way.
Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, this was Mr Barroso’s last State of the Union address before the elections, and he has also spoken about these elections. But let me be very frank: there is absolutely no room today for complacency, because in my opinion a number of important things – maybe the most important things – are still to be done to tackle this crisis. I am not alone in saying this. In last week’s issue of The Economist they wrote, and I quote: ‘our sleepwalking leaders must start now to agree if we want to avoid disaster’. The Economist was not talking about the President of the Commission – I think that the sleepwalking leaders that they meant were more to be found in the Council than in the Commission – but that is a fair analysis of what is happening.
We have to be clear here. This crisis is not over. It is true you have given a whole range of early signs of recovery, but we have to make a realistic assessment, a realistic analysis of the situation. These first signs of recovery are more the proof of the fact that we have hit the bottom of the recession, and that means that we are entering what I call a second phase of this crisis. It is far too easy only to see the negative points, as has been done a few minutes ago – but it is also not fair only to see the positive signs and say, OK, it is over now, we are going up again. That is not true. What we are in fact seeing is a second phase in this crisis: a long period of economic stagnation that we are about to enter – what I call a Japanese winter.
You know in Japan in the 1990s they also had a real-estate bubble. They entered an unresolved banking problem and for two decades they had low growth figures, high unemployment figures, growth between 0% and 2%, and that is what we are falling into now at this moment. So my problem with the State of the Union address, Mr Barroso, is that it fails to show a consistent vision for that problem: how to avoid a Japanese winter, how to avoid two lost decades of economic stagnation in the next twenty years. What do we do to avoid that? What is our common vision so we do not fall into that trap?
Personally I think that three things are necessary. Three big reforms towards a new Europe. The first thing – you have spoken about this and I want to come back to it – is a real banking union that is more than the Single Supervisory Mechanism that we have today.
Secondly – and there was not enough of this in your vision of the future – we need a more integrated eurozone, with a real government in the eurozone and in the European Union, with a common treasury, with common financial instruments so that we can finance our investments at a lower interest rate. We are on average paying 2% more interest in Europe to finance our investments than for example in Japan and America. So how can we recover?
Thirdly, I think we also have to open the issue of whether is it perhaps necessary to have a broader task for our Central Bank, as the Bank of Japan has, as the Federal Reserve Board in the United States has. In other words, next to inflation targeting, you should have gross domestic product targeting.
In fact, what I want to do today, in this debate on the State of the Union, is to make a proposal to our Parliament now to do something in these last eight months. Let us be honest, we can carry on in this last eight months in the same way as we are doing now, with big fights between the different political parties and the Council, and then we will end up with nothing at all because we will have reached the election campaign. Or we can use this time, these seven or eight months, to pick up a number of files where we are saying that they represent an added value for our people and for our citizens. Let us deal with a number of crucial files in the next months so that we can have something concrete to show for the remaining seven, eight months of this legislative period.
My proposals are two: firstly, there is a proposal now on the table from the Commission on the resolution fund to complete the banking union. Why not adopt this Commission proposal on a fast track? I think that everybody here – all the groups – can agree on the proposal that Mr Barnier has put on the table on the banking union and the resolution fund. Let us do a fast-track and let us immediately start negotiations with the Council on this. If we start with the whole business of a report and making our own mandate then we shall lose months and months and we shall not reach the discussion with the Council.
My second proposal tends in the same direction. You now have a package on the digital agenda to complete the single market with open Internet, with lower roaming tariffs. Either we discuss this, losing months in Parliament; or, together we say: yes, OK, this is a good proposal by Ms Kroes and the Commission, let us go forward and let us use a fast track. Let us immediately start the negotiations. Why waste months and months on defining a mandate on this and have nothing to show for it when the elections are here? No lower roaming tariffs and no open Internet?
My proposal to all the groups is that in the next weeks and months we make a deal on that, and the same applies to the MFF. I am sorry – and I am saying that to the Council, I am repeating what Mr Swoboda has said – there should be no agreement with Parliament if, as it appears, what you are offering on the MFF is in fact breaching your word. That is what you are doing. You are putting on the table a budget for 2014 that has lower figures for the MFF which we have to approve. How can that be possible?
Finally, I think the next elections should not be a big fight between the Left and the Right. I do not mind that, though certainly when you are in the Centre you have all the problems landing on your head. But I think it should be more between Eurosceptics, who think that you can put the world outside your borders, and pro-European forces, and I hope that all the pro-European forces can be united to beat the Eurosceptics.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
Miloslav Ransdorf (GUE/NGL), blue-card question. – Firstly, I agree with Mr Verhofstadt that the crisis is not over. We are facing the second stage of the crisis. What we need to overcome the crisis is a pioneering spirit and I agree with Mr Verhofstadt that we cannot see any pioneering spirit in the framework of the Commission. Instead we only see routine, the old ways of solving the problem, but in this case the Commission is not the solution to the problem but part of the problem.
In the Czech Republic we will soon be having elections. In 2004, 74% of the population were in favour of involvement in the European Union but now, in the most recent poll the same number, 74%, were against involvement in the European Union. Please could you speak about this problem of the lack of confidence...
(The President cut off the speaker)
Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE), blue-card answer. – Mr President, I do not know what the question was.
Rebecca Harms, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissionspräsident, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich finde eigentlich ganz gut, dass Herr Barroso uns daran erinnert hat, dass im nächsten Jahr 2014 ist und wir ein Hundert Jahre nach 1914 in der Europäischen Union leben.
Ich finde, die Rückbesinnung auf solche Daten, die macht noch einmal deutlicher, was für eine beneidenswerte Politikergeneration wir eigentlich heute sind, und in was für einem beneidenswerten Teil der Welt wir diejenigen sind, die politische Verantwortung für dieses wunderbare Projekt „Europäische Union” übernommen haben. Ich finde, das muss auch immer wieder gesagt werden.
Das was erreicht worden ist, ist wunderbar und es ist eher an uns allen die Fragen zu stellen, warum wir in den letzten Jahren so wenig in der Lage gewesen sind, dieses Wunder „Europäische Union” besser zu verteidigen. Denn tatsächlich haben wir ja insbesondere nach den letzten fünf Jahren, damit zu kämpfen, dass mehr und mehr Bürger in der Europäischen Union die Europäische Union nicht als Teil der Lösung, sondern als wachsendes Problem betrachten.
Von den Vorrednern, von Herrn Swoboda und auch von Herr Verhofstadt, ist gesagt worden, was ich nur unterstreichen kann: Die Krisenpolitik hat eben nicht uns alle sicher aus der Krise herausgeführt, sondern die Krise hat in weiten Teilen der Europäischen Union, so wie wir darauf reagiert haben, Elend und Perspektivlosigkeit geschaffen. Wie wir damit umgehen, wie wir aus der Rezession herauskommen und wie wir aufhören, uns immer nur mit der öffentlichen Verschuldung zu beschäftigen und die großen Risiken, die finanziell im Banken- und im Finanzsektor angetürmt sind, nicht bearbeiten, das ist eine ganz zentrale Frage. Die Bankenunion – da kann ich nur unterstützen, was Herr Kollege Verhofstadt gesagt hat – muss kommen, sonst werden wir die Ursachen der Krise nicht bekämpfen.
Ich möchte als „Grüne” Dinge ansprechen, die hier bisher überhaupt nicht erwähnt worden sind. Arbeitslosigkeit, Herr Kollege Verhofstadt, haben Sie angesprochen. Sie haben auch über die Notwendigkeit, die Rezession zu bekämpfen, geredet, aber wie machen wir das? In welche Richtung wollen wir industrielle und wirtschaftliche Erholung?
Ich finde es unerträglich, Herr Barroso, dass in Ihrer Amtszeit in den letzten fünf Jahren konsequent Klimaschutz nach hinten gerückt wurde. Ich finde es unerträglich, dass zur Zeit die Europäische Union, in der immer wieder behauptet wird, dass Energieeffizienz und Ressourceneffizienz und erneuerbare Energien die Zukunft sind, dass diese Europäische Union dank der Kommission im Moment dazu übergehen will, neue Subventionen für Atomkraft, für Kohle zu schaffen, und die neuen Technologien und die Effizienztechnologien benachteiligen will. Das ist nicht im Sinne der Bürgerinnen und Bürger, deren Vertrauen sie gewinnen will.
Ich finde auch nicht in Ordnung, dass Frau Merkel – toleriert von der Kommission – beim Kollegen Kenny in Irland oder beim Regierungschef in Portugal anruft und sagt: „Ich vertrete die Interessen von BMW und Mercedes. Wenn ihr Klimaschutz für die Autoindustrie macht, basierend auf einem abgeschlossenen Trilog, dann sorge ich als deutsche Regierungschefin dafür, dass Unternehmen von BMW und Mercedes aus diesen Ländern verschwinden.”
Meine Damen und Herren, wo sind wir eigentlich gelandet, warum widerspricht denn niemand aus der Kommission öffentlich, wenn ein solcher politischer Skandal passiert?
(Beifall)
Meine Damen und Herren, die Agrarreform – ökologisch hat das nichts gebracht! Es ist ungerecht, was Sie beschlossen haben. Das Handelsabkommen, das Sie mit den USA jetzt anfangen zu verhandeln, wird in Europa Zehntausende von Arbeitsplätzen überall in der Landwirtschaft kosten. Wollen Sie das wirklich, Herr Barroso?
Demokratie – in Italien hat das angefangen –, Pressefreiheit, Meinungsfreiheit: Sie haben das mit Ihren Kollegen akzeptiert, was da passiert ist. Heute können wir in Ungarn und in Rumänien nur noch beklagen, was da passiert. Sie verteidigen nicht die Grundrechte der Europäischen Union. Und dass der whistleblower Edward Snowden unfreiwillig im Asyl bei Putin hängt, was bedeutet das eigentlich für die demokratischen Werte und die Grundrechteorientierung in Europa?
(Beifall)
Herr Barroso, die Tabakrichtlinie: Tür und Tor weit auf für die mächtigste Lobby der Welt! Dass die Abstimmung vertagt worden ist, das ist wirklich der negative Schlusspunkt einer peinlichen Diskussion, die in der Kommission, aber auch in diesem Parlamentgeführt wird.
(Beifall)
Frau Sommer, ich würde gerne einmal mit Ihnen darüber reden.
Meine Damen und Herren, lassen Sie mich zum Schluss noch Folgendes sagen: Wir werden heute Nachmittag über Syrien in Ruhe reden. Ich bin total erleichtert, dass die Diplomatie sich noch einmal Raum geschaffen hat. Aber die Flüchtlingskatastrophe, die wir verantworten, mitverantworten – seit Monaten, seit Jahren –, die durch Syrien verschärft wird, das ist eine Schande! Sie können Europa besser machen! Herr Barroso, Sie hätten Europa besser machen können. Sie können das Vertrauen der Bürger mit einer anderen Politik zurückgewinnen.
(Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte” gemäß Artikel 149 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)
Daniel Caspary (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Geschätzte Kollegin Harms! Sie haben gerade in Ihrem Wortbeitrag aus vermeintlichen Telefonaten der deutschen Bundeskanzlerin zitiert. Da ich davon ausgehe, dass Sie die nicht persönlich abgehört haben: Kann es sein, dass vielleicht diese Situation auch ein Beispiel für Ihren gespaltenen Umgang mit dem Datenschutz ist? Die Grünen setzen sich ja auf der einen Seite immer wieder für Datenschutz ein, überdramatisieren jetzt diese Spionageaffäre und ziehen sie weiter hoch, und auf der anderen Seite möchte der grüne Verkehrsminister in Baden-Württemberg über Wochen hinweg Bewegungsprofile der Autofahrer abspeichern, um dann eine Maut abkassieren zu können.
Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Caspary! Ich würde mich freuen, wenn das, was Sie sagen wollten, auch in die Richtung ginge, dass die Intervention von Frau Merkel, über die in Brüssel überall geredet wurde, direkt in Lissabon anzurufen und in Irland in Dublin anzurufen, nachdem das Parlament sich unter der Führung eines Berichterstatters aus Ihrer Fraktion im Trilog auf unverbindliche, aber richtungsgebende Grenzwerte für Pkw zur CO2-Reduzierung geeinigt hatte, dass Frau Merkel sich mit diesen Anrufen nicht nur gegen diesen Trilog gestellt hat, sondern auch deutlich gemacht hat, unterstützt von vielen Kräften aus Deutschland in Brüssel, dass mit dieser Politik Standorte deutscher Automobilindustrie in Südeuropa gefährdet werden. Das halte ich für einen politischen Skandal, für den Sie sich entschuldigen sollten, Herr Caspary!
Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, Europe needs a new direction and that direction cannot be based on old ideas. Europe needs new thinking.
Now these are not my words, Mr Barroso: they are yours from the equivalent speech last year. The problem, of course, is that yet again you have not delivered on any of the big promises you have made or on any of your grand rhetoric year after year. Your chance to deliver that new direction has passed.
The question we have to address now is whether your successor will be able to deliver any of the change that the EU so desperately needs. Next year the Commission will have a fresh leader, although personally I am not optimistic that he or she will come up with any fresh ideas. Indeed, many of the applicants for your job are here today.
It is like a giant hustings meeting. Commissioner Reding, who I think has moved to the front bench now, is clearly running as the federalist candidate, producing more eye-catching babble every day that goes past. Commissioner Rehn could be delivering the speech next year, although I suspect that if he did we would all have a bit of a late lunch. And if Commissioner Rehn gets the Liberal nomination, what about poor Mr Verhofstadt? What is he going to do? Perhaps he could challenge Mr Schulz for the Socialist nomination. I am sure he would feel more at home in that group.
In fact I think I am one of the few people here who do not actually want to do your job. I am perfectly happy with the one that I have got.
The problem of course is that none of these potential candidates on show today represents any new ideas. They represent the vested interests of the past: the people of the European district in Brussels, rather than the people of Europe. And next May the choice will not be about anonymous candidates from political groupings that nobody has ever heard of. It will be about whether you want merely to shuffle the deck of cards or to throw the deck out completely and start afresh.
The essential flaw of the EU is that it simply does not trust the capacity of people and markets to overcome problems. Problems, we are told repeatedly here, can be solved only by ‘more Europe’. If somebody falls off a ladder somewhere in Europe, we need a new directive to solve it. People are not allowed to be trusted to decide their own working hours. They are not even to be allowed to take up e-cigarettes, to cite another topical example.
And when EU lawyers say, as they did yesterday, that the financial transaction tax, so beloved of so many of you, is actually illegal, that does not matter because nothing – not even the law – should stand in the way of further European integration.
We need a new Euro-realist direction with different ideas: one that says that patriotism is healthy; to be proudly German or French or Polish is not necessarily anti-European. The concepts are not mutually antagonistic, and to want a new direction for Europe is not anti-European. The real anti-Europeans are those whose idea of change in the EU only means moving further in the old, failed direction. The real nationalists are those who force us to accept a European nation, which, as reality shows, nobody in Europe actually wants.
And you know what? We have tried the old interventionist, centralising, socialist-type approach. It may have been appropriate for the 1950s; today it is well past its sell-by date. So, let us try something different. Let us try a new approach. Perhaps we could rediscover the principle of freedom that many in Europe fashioned for the world, of opening our markets, of embracing enterprise, of eliminating the many vested interests in the Union.
Next year’s elections will offer us an opportunity, not to advance European political parties and their candidates, beloved of many of us although nobody in the real world has heard of them, but to give people a true choice – not a choice about who you want steering the tanker, but actually about whether you want the tanker to go in a different direction.
Many of us want change. All the polls indicate that the people of Europe want change. Next May, they will have a chance to make a stand. They can say that they do not simply want a new president for the EU; they want a new direction for it.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
Graham Watson (ALDE), blue-card question. – In his group Mr Callanan has three Members who represent Gibraltar and yet he has said nothing about the frustration over the summer of the right to free movement of the people of Gibraltar or the harassment they have been suffering. Does this suggest that he does not think this is important? And would Mr Callanan welcome the fact that Prime Minister Cameron picked up the telephone to President Barroso and asked President Barroso to help him on this issue?
Martin Callanan (ECR), blue-card answer. – I commend Mr Watson’s opportunism in raising the subject of Gibraltar – he raised it again yesterday, so perhaps there is an election coming up – but the Conservative Members in my Group do an excellent job of representing the people of Gibraltar. He knows that I agree with them that the actions of the Spanish Government have been disgraceful.
Actually the people who they are hurting are the people of Spain – in the poorer parts of Spain – who actually want to cross the border into a free and prosperous Gibraltar and actually make a living and earn some money for their families.
So I am sure this is designed to distract attention from the many domestic problems that Mr García Magallo is suffering with his Prime Minister in Spain. I hope that the problems are resolved soon.
Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, εγώ προσωπικά έχω θαυμάσει το κουράγιο του κυρίου Barroso και την πίστη του ότι τα πράγματα βαίνουν καλώς στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Αγωνίστηκα να καταλάβω πόθεν προέρχεται αυτό το κουράγιο και νομίζω ότι προέρχεται από το γεγονός ότι ζει σε άλλη Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση από αυτή στην οποία ζω εγώ. Θα σας δώσω μερικές επιπρόσθετες εικόνες από αυτές που έχει δώσει ο κύριος Swoboda. Μόλις εκατό μέτρα έξω από το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο στις Βρυξέλλες συναντάτε κάθε εκατό μέτρα μερικούς ζητιάνους. Δεν τους έχετε δει; Και εδώ στο Στρασβούργο στα πεζοδρόμια κοιμούνται άστεγοι, στην καρδιά της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης! Και στην Κύπρο χιλιάδες παιδιά καταφέρνουν να πάνε στο σχολείο, σήμερα το 2013, επειδή φιλανθρωπικές οργανώσεις μπορούν να τους πάρουν ένα σάντουιτς και ένα ποτήρι γάλα, χιλιάδες νέοι... Για αυτό λέω ότι μάλλον ζούμε σε διαφορετική Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση από αυτή στην οποία ζει ο κύριος Barroso.
Although we are still in the midst of an economic crisis, all the austerity policies and measures that are being promoted are not only aggravating the problems that the economy is facing, but are also leading to a deepening of the crisis. The result is increased poverty and unemployment, more cuts and privatisations.
The harsh realities of the economic crisis cannot be afforded any more by the people. In saying this, we are not only referring to the European citizens of the south, we are also referring to all those people who lose their jobs in Germany, in France, in Slovenia, in Cyprus.
In my country, where the decisions taken by the Troika destroyed the economy, unfortunately the EU is associated nowadays with the economic crisis. It has lost the battle on technology and it also lacks coherence.
And now some words about Syria. We condemn any external intervention in the internal affairs of the country. We have already the example of Iraq where, during Blair’s and Bush’s orchestrated witch-hunt to discover one bottle of chemicals, more than one million people perished. They are still trying to find that bottle of chemicals. As long as the European Union continues to be dragged in the wake of others, it will never be able to play a substantial role towards peace.
Concerning chemical weapons, we believe that the Russian proposal could potentially be a solution. Nonetheless we cannot avoid asking the question who produces them? And who sells them? It is high time to start being more serious about disarmament. We have a duty as Europeans to play an important role towards this end. This is the cornerstone for achieving global peace. For as long as Europe accepts and continues to take part in the global arms trade industry, then wars will continue unabated.
Mr Barroso, there is a lack of democracy in Europe. We have to accept that. If we really want to see European citizens supporting the European Union project, the European Union can only fully materialise for its people when a Cypriot or a Maltese feels equal with a German or a French or a British citizen. Democracy means respect for minorities. There is no proportional respect today for smaller countries and I dare to say there is no respect even in the working of our Parliament as far as the minority opinion is concerned. As Baroness Ashton said lately to Mr Morsi, democracy is not only elections: democracy is the life that lies in between two elections.
Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, the problem is not just Mr Barroso but the entire unelected government of Europe – and perhaps there is a chance for our citizens to reflect on where the real power lies in this Union.
I have listened to Mr Barroso for nearly 10 years and I give him full marks for consistency. He is a man who likes fixed ideology. He probably picked it up when he was a Communist or a Maoist, or whatever he was, and for the last 10 years he has pursued Euro-federalism combined with an increasing green obsession.
And yes, it has been good! For bureaucrats, big businessmen and landowners it has not been a bad decade, but it has been a disaster for poor people, unemployed people and those on low wages. The euro, which you, Mr Barroso, believed would give us monetary stability, has done the very opposite. It was a misconstruction from the start and it is pretty clear that youth unemployment, at nearly 50% across the Mediterranean, is probably nearly double what it would have been, as a direct result of the misconstruction that is the euro. The countries in question are in the wrong currency, but I know that you will never admit to that. I think the euro will die a slow and painful death, but you are all in denial about that.
However, it is the green agenda that I really find more interesting. You keep telling us, Mr Barroso, that climate change is an absolute top priority and you have been greeted with near-hysteria in this place over the last 10 years. Those of us who have been sceptical have been mocked, derided and called deniers. We argued from the start that the science was not settled, and we have argued very strongly that the measures we are taking to combat what may or not be a problem are damaging our citizens. We have been proved to be right. Tens of millions have been forced into fuel poverty; manufacturing industry is being driven away because our competitors in China and America are going for cheap fossil alternatives; and wind turbines are blighting the landscapes and seascapes of Europe. Yet still today you go on about green growth. Well, the consensus is breaking down behind you.
Commissioner Tajani said the other day that we face a systematic industrial massacre. It is time to stop this stupidity. To help you, there is the NASA photograph taken last August of the northern ice caps and there is the NASA photograph of the ice caps taken this year. The ice has increased by 60% in one year. Leading American scientists are now saying that we are going into a period of between 15 and 30 years of global cooling. We may have made one of the biggest and most stupid collective mistakes in history by getting so worried about global warming.
You can reverse this in the next seven or eight months. You can bring down people’s taxes. If you do not do so, they will vote on it in the European elections of next year.
(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 149(8))
Jörg Leichtfried (S&D), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Präsident! Herr Farage! Sie sind ja manchmal recht witzig, aber immer seltener! Sie sitzen erste Reihe fußfrei und erzählen uns jetzt allen, was wir besser machen sollen, was Herr Barroso besser machen soll, was alle anderen besser machen sollen. Aber was haben Sie in dieser Zeit gemacht, seit Sie im Europäischen Parlament sind? Sie haben keinen einzigen Bericht eingebracht. Sie waren nie Schattenberichterstatter. Sie haben nie eine Stellungnahme gemacht. Das Einzige, was Sie gemacht haben, ist herumzuquatschen! Und Sie werfen den anderen vor, dass nichts geschieht! Wie kommen Sie dazu, Herr Farage? Wie können Sie das vor Ihren Wählern und Wählerinnen rechtfertigen, hier noch nie gearbeitet zu haben?
(Beifall)
Nigel Farage (EFD), blue-card answer. – Oh no, I’m sorry, old son, I haven’t accused you of not working – far from that. I have accused you of doing far too much and actually, collectively in this House, forming a consensus, and I am going to come back to this green agenda. You all formed the view that carbon dioxide emissions were leading to rapid global warming and that it was the greatest crisis that has ever faced mankind, and therefore we had to start taxing carbon.
There has been no global warming, Sir, for twenty years. The ice caps have grown significantly over the last twelve months, and I am making a positive proposal that would put back into work tens of thousands of people, and I am saying: let us scrap these climate levies and let us see where the science goes over the course of the next few years. I cannot think of a more positive thing that has been said in this House this morning.
Nicole Sinclaire (NI). - Mr President, I am amazed that we have had this State of the Union address today. I am surprised that Mrs Merkel has not asked us to postpone it until after the German general election.
Well, Mr Barroso, this was your fourth and last State of the Union address and you have brought along the rest of your appointed Commission – for support. Never before has a tier of this Parliament been filled with such incompetence and failure.
A question, why is it that it is the President of the unelected arm of the EU that gives this address? Why is it not President Schulz?
One Member of your Commission is here today, despite only having an attendance record of 52%, almost as low as a UKIP MEP. Your flagship policy, when you became President, was the much-vaunted Lisbon Strategy which seeks to make the EU the most dynamic economy in the world. That sank without trace. In fact the EU has gone into reverse. Unemployment, especially among youth, is rocketing and little Miss Red Tape sitting next to you is not helping.
Mr Barroso, your own Commission’s poll shows there is no trust in the EU. The people of the biggest five countries feel the EU is not working. Two-thirds of people across the EU think their views are not being heard. No wonder – but when they do express an opinion, for example in a rare referendum, they are treated with contempt and told that somehow they do not understand. The arrogance is palpable. The people must be listened to. Let the people decide.
Linas Antanas Linkevičius, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, President of the Commission, Commissioners, honourable Members, on behalf of the Council let me thank President Barroso for his clear and perceptive analysis of the current state of the European Union.
The President has set out many of the challenges we all face, not least in the area of economic and financial policies. The development of the economic and monetary union, banking union and the single resolution mechanism, as part of the overall objective of ensuring effective European decision-making in the banking sector: these are the priority areas for the Lithuanian Presidency.
President Barroso has rightly underlined the importance of continuing to make progress on the establishment of banking union, and effective delivery is essential here for all of us. Equally importantly to this end, we need to finalise the various proposals under the single market focusing on the digital agenda – something that was raised here in this House yesterday when a very important discussion took place – as well as moving forward with the internal energy market. I can assure the Commission of the Lithuanian Presidency’s support on these and other key issues.
We look forward to rapid progress in the trade and investment negotiations with the US, which, as was mentioned in this address, can give us a powerful tool for delivering greater prosperity and creating jobs.
The European economy also stands to benefit from the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), which will release much-needed funds to help stimulate growth and create jobs, particularly – and I agree with you here – for young people. The agreement we reached in June constitutes a good deal for our citizens and is very welcome. We therefore look forward to its adoption in the near future. I strongly agree that getting the economy financed is of crucial importance. We must work together here to adopt the MFF speedily. I can assure you that everything will be done according to agreed procedures and within an agreed legal framework.
‘Unity’ is a key word which was sounded today many times, and the united stance on Syria is of crucial importance. Our strong, united position, as reflected in the High Representative’s statement in Vilnius, has undoubtedly already contributed to the search for a diplomatic solution. It is already a contribution to this process. Mention was also made of united support for the countries of the Eastern Partnership, to help them withstand external pressure. This is another of our tasks, and we are addressing it.
I do not intend to run through all the issues raised by President Barroso in his address. Many of them, as I have said, already constitute priorities for the Lithuanian Presidency. I want to assure both the Commission and this House of the Presidency’s support in tackling the heavy agenda which lies before us. Our Irish colleagues set a formidable example with the results they were able to achieve, and we hope to prove equally productive. I know that our Greek colleagues, as the other member of the trio group, share the same ambition. Together we have a great deal of work to do before this parliamentary term comes to an end next year.
Herbert Reul (PPE). - Herren Präsidenten! Natürlich ist Europa noch in einer Krise, und es kommt darauf an, sie zu lösen und die Menschen bei dieser Lösung mitzunehmen – das stimmt.
Aber ich bin mir nicht sicher – Frau Harms, Herr Swoboda, Herr Verhofstadt – ob man Menschen bei der Bewältigung einer schwierigen Frage mitnimmt, indem man nur von morgens bis abends erklärt, wie dramatisch die Lage ist, wie elendig das ist, wie die blanke Not herrscht, wie alle nur in Not darben. Das stimmt doch nicht. Die Situation ist doch viel komplexer.
Und zur realistischen Beschreibung: – Da bin ich dem Herrn Präsidenten Barroso heute wirklich dankbar – er hat eine realistische Beschreibung abgegeben. Er hat keine Schönrednerei betrieben. Er hat beschrieben, welche Maßnahmen welche Erfolge haben und welche Maßnahmen wir weiter betreiben müssen. Und im Gegensatz zu vielen aus der linken Ecke dieses Hauses ist er eben der Meinung, dass man diesen Weg konsequent weitergehen muss, das ist auch richtig so!
An Strukturen, an Sparreformen geht kein Weg vorbei, aber es ist nicht alles. Aber es ist zentral, und es war erfolgreich! Und wenn Sie gestern einmal die Süddeutsche Zeitung gelesen haben: US-Anleger kaufen derzeit mehr europäische Aktien als je zuvor in den vergangenen 36 Jahren, auch das Vertrauen in Staatsanleihen steigt. Also Leute, es geht doch voran. Jetzt lasst uns doch mal bitte die Lage realistisch beschreiben. Die Maßnahmen waren richtig, sie waren vernünftig. Es braucht Zeit, manchmal muss man auch Situationen über eine längere Zeit durchhalten.
Und es gibt auch noch ein paar Fragen zu lösen. Na klar gibt es die, und sie sind ja auch hier beschrieben worden. Sie sind auch richtig beschrieben worden. Und sie richten sich an die Kommission, aber sie richten sich auch manchmal an uns. Wisst Ihr, immer dieses Gequatsche von Wirtschaft- und Industrieförderung, und dann gleichzeitig heute Mittag eine UVP beschließen, mit der die Maßnahmen für Industrieansiedlungen weiter verschärft werden, das ist ja nicht nur verlogen, das ist ja lächerlich. Das passiert doch hier.
(Beifall)
Hier wird Schönrednerei betrieben, wenn gesagt wird, wir müssen uns um die Industrie kümmern. Da meint man aber irgendwie nur die „schöne grüne neue Welt”. Und wenn es konkret wird, Frau Harms, da machen Sie mit, noch neue Auflagen reinzupacken. Was heute ansteht bei der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung, was ansteht bei vielen Vorschlägen, die Sie hier machen – Verbote, neue Genehmigungen, neue Auflagen – das macht Wachstum kaputt, und dafür sind Sie verantwortlich. Das ärgert mich maßlos!
(Beifall)
(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte” gemäß Artikel 149 Absatz 8 zu beantworten.)
Ana Gomes (S&D), Pergunta segundo o procedimento "cartão azul". – O Sr. Reul e o Presidente Barroso esqueceram-se de medir o estado da União pelo crescimento da desigualdade entre países ricos e pobres e entre cidadãos ricos e pobres em cada Estado-Membro. O que é que o Sr. Reul tem a dizer aos cidadãos alemães que vão votar este mês, muito preocupados com o que estão a gastar com os países resgatados, enquanto a Alemanha está a ganhar com os empréstimos e até já poupou 41 mil milhões de euros com os juros baixos ou negativos, enquanto os países resgatados se financiam a juros exorbitantes e a sua dívida pública não para de crescer? O que é que acham que pensam os cidadãos gregos, portugueses, irlandeses e espanhóis desta gritante negação do que deviam ser o euro e a União?
Herbert Reul (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Ich habe in meinem politischen Leben in den letzten Jahrzehnten in der europäischen Politik gelernt, dass Staaten, die sorgfältig mit Geld umgehen, Staaten, die sich um Strukturreform bemühen, einen mühsamen Weg gehen. Auch Deutschland hat das ja gemacht. Da gab es einmal einen SPD-Kanzler, der ist diesen Weg gegangen. Und damit haben wir uns die Kraft geschaffen, neues Wachstum zu erarbeiten und für die armen Menschen auch Arbeitsplätze zu schaffen. Ich kenne keine Alternative zu diesem Weg. Auf jeden Fall reicht Geld ausgeben und Geld reinschmeißen alleine nicht aus. Es muss ein bisschen intelligenter sein, Frau Kollegin!
Tonino Picula (S&D). - Gospodine Predsjedniče, u svom obraćanju danas, kao niti u pošlogodišnjem izvještaju o stanju Unije nijednom niste spomenuli proširenje Unije, kao ni Hrvatsku koja je prošle godine već završila pregovore, a od prvog srpnja je 28. članica. A trebali ste, jer je Hrvatska prva zemlja koja je ušla u Uniju nakon stupanja na snagu Lisabonskog sporazuma, što je zajednički uspjeh same Hrvatske, institucija Europske unije i, svakako, Vaše Komisije. Kao najnovija članica dokazat ćemo kako proširenje Unije na Hrvatsku olakšava traženje europskog rješenja i za regionalne napetosti budući da situacija na jugoistoku našeg kontinenta ostaje i dalje složena. Kada govorimo o utjecaju ulaska Hrvatske u Europsku uniju na regiju, volio bih da do iduće godine, kada će svijet obilježiti stogodišnjicu početka tragedije zvane Prvi svjetski rat, države na jugoistoku Europske unije budu još uvijek jasnije na putu članstva u Uniju jer se jedino tako mogu zaista otkloniti posljedice sukoba koji su tijekom prošlog stoljeća toliko koštali, ne samo taj prostor, nego cijelu Europu. Često ste spominjali globalizaciju. U vremenu kada su se snažno globalizirala tržišta, globalizirale su se i raznovrsne prijetnje, od financijskih i gospodarskih kriza do ratova, ali solidarnost se nažalost nije globalizirala u jednakoj mjeri. To potvrđuju razmjeri duboke krize u kojoj se Europa još uvijek nalazi. Gospodine Predsjedniče, što je s Vašim lanjskim prijedlogom „Decisive deal for Europe”? U travnju ove godine retorički ste se odrekli drastične politike odricanja, ali imam dojam da je europska politika ostala jednostrana, da se nastavlja naglašavati tržište i monetrana dimenzija, a zapostavlja socijalna politika i politika zapošljavanja. Visoka nezaposlenost mladih, žena i starijih radnika potpuno je izmijenila strukturu zaposlenosti u velikom dijelu Unije. Statistički podaci pokazuju da će svaka nova europska generacija biti manje zastupljena u trajnom zapošljavanju od generacije prije nje. Dakle, u Europskoj godini građana građani ostaju suočeni s ozbiljnim europskim socijalnim i gospodarskim neizvjesnostima. To je opomena svima nama, ali Vi ste među najodgovrnijima. Hvala.
Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). - Herr Präsident, Herr Barroso! Das war eine sehr gute State-of-the-Union-Rede, eine realistische Beschreibung der Situation. Erste Anzeichen von Besserung sind zu sehen: Die Wirtschaft wächst wieder, wenn auch auf niedrigem Niveau, die Arbeitslosigkeit sinkt, die Exporte steigen, die Spreads werden geringer. Dies zeigt, dass der eingeschlagene Weg richtig ist. Ich bin sehr dankbar, dass Sie das heute so deutlichgemacht haben. Das war wichtig, und es war ein sehr klares Signal! Der eingeschlagene Weg ist die Konsolidierung der öffentlichen Finanzen, dazu hat Kollege Reul eben schon etwas gesagt, aber es sind eben auch Strukturreformen in den betroffenen Ländern: Liberalisierung der Gütermärkte, der Dienstleistungsmärkte und der Arbeitsmärkte – all die schmerzhaften Prozesse, die einige Länder bereits hinter sich haben.
Ich will hier ein paar Worte zur Jugendarbeitslosigkeit sagen: Ja, es ist richtig, sie ist viel zu hoch, sie ist dramatisch und muss bekämpft werden. Aber wo waren eigentlich unsere Freunde von den Sozialisten und den Grünen, als die Jugendarbeitslosigkeit in einigen der betroffenen Länder bereits vor der Krise bei 20, 25 % lag? Da haben wir die Liberalisierung der Arbeitsmärkte vorgeschlagen, da haben wir Strukturreformen vorgeschlagen, das wurde immer abgelehnt. Es ist ja nicht so, dass die Arbeitslosigkeit erst durch die Krise nach oben gegangen ist. Sind wir am Ziel? Nein, sicher nicht, aber wir sind sicher auf dem richtigen Weg!
Und lassen Sie mich eine Sache ganz zum Schluss noch sagen: Sehr dankbar bin ich Ihnen dafür, dass Sie eine Rechtsstaatsinitiative aufnehmen, dass Sie die Diskussion um Ungarn jetzt zum Anlass nehmen – liebe Kollegin Reding, Sie haben das ja auch vorangebracht –, um etwas zu tun, damit wir Europäer unsere Werte verteidigen. Wenn wir unsere Werte vergessen, vergessen wir uns selbst! Das dürfen wir nicht zulassen! Viel Glück dabei!
Jill Evans (Verts/ALE). - Mr President, President Barroso asked us what would make Europe stronger. Well, today is Catalonia’s National Day and thousands of people will form a human chain across the country to demand independence in the form of the Catalan Way, which is based on the Baltic Way of 1989 which led to the independence of the Baltic countries and transformed the European Union.
Next year there will be a legally-agreed referendum on Scottish Independence. I represent Wales, which is a nation with its own government. However, in the Council of Ministers our vote is passed by the UK and not in the Welsh national interest, even when funding and jobs are at stake. We want the ability to play a full part in rebuilding the economy, reclaiming Europe for all its nations and regions. That is what will make Europe stronger. Also, you mentioned the centenary of the First World War, so can I ask that you today pledge your support for the peace process in the Basque country?
Jan Zahradil (ECR). - Pane předsedající, pane přesedo Barroso, já jsem vás volil v roce 2004, protože vás předcházela pověst reformátora. V roce 2009 už jsem sice nevěřil, že jste reformátor, ale volil jsem vás stejně, abych dokázal, že naše skupina ECR se umí chovat konstruktivně. Věřte, že kdybyste kandidoval potřetí, což už kandidovat nebudete, tak bych vás už nevolil. A váš dnešní projev je toho jenom důkazem, ten mi to jenom potvrdil. Já vás nebudu trápit, pane předsedo, myslím, že to byl suverénně nejslabší projev, který jste kdy v této sněmovně, v tomto sále pronesl. Ale daleko zajímavější bylo to, co přišlo potom, daleko zajímavější byly ty reakce z jednotlivých skupin, od lidovců, od socialistů, od liberálů, od zelených. Ta bezradnost a to zoufalství, které z toho čišelo.
Ono by to bylo skoro směšné, kdyby to zároveň nebylo tragické, jak ani jedna z těchto skupin neví, jak má reagovat na to, co je všechno dnes v Evropské unii špatně. Prostě vy jste si všichni tady vystavěli vzdušný zámek, takovou skleněnou věž, teď se tam začínají objevovat praskliny a nikdo z vás neví, co s tím vlastně dělat, a všichni jenom dokolečka dokola opakujete: „více Evropy, více Evropy“, a strašíte tady euroskepticismem.
Já tedy nevím, co to přesně je, ten euroskepticismus, ale vím, že počet lidí v Evropě, kteří se dívají kriticky na současný stav Evropské unie, pořád narůstá. A být kritický k některým aspektům Evropské unie neznamená být euroskeptik. Neznamená to chtít tu konstrukci zničit, ale znamená to chtít ji vylepšit.
To se ovšem nemůže stát, dokud tady budou sedět lidé jako vy. Dámy a pánové, já vám říkám, bohužel, jste všichni úplně mimo, úplně mimo. A naštěstí ty volby příští rok dopadnou tak, že lidí jako vy tady bude stále méně, lidí jako my tady bude stále více, a to bude pokračovat, dokud se nám nepodaří paradigma evropské integrace změnit nějakým rozumnějším směrem. Já se na to velice těším, dámy a pánové.
(Řečník souhlasil s tím, že odpoví na otázku položenou zvednutím modré karty (čl. 149 odst. 8 jednacího řádu)).
Michael Theurer (ALDE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Kollege Zahradil! Sind Sie bereit, anzuerkennen, dass nicht die EU Probleme hat, sondern dass die Nationalstaaten ihre Hausaufgaben nicht gemacht haben? Nehmen wir doch einmal die Jugendarbeitslosigkeit: Da hat doch die EU überhaupt keine Kompetenzen! Da wird jetzt behauptet, die EU hätte Probleme. Sie stellen sich hier hin und sprechen von EU-Problemen. Tatsache ist doch, dass die Nationalstaaten – also das Konzept, das Sie vertreten – die Probleme geschaffen haben. Da müssten Sie die Nationalstaaten einmal auffordern, vor ihrer eigenen Tür zu kehren. Präsident Barroso hat doch völlig Recht, wenn er sagt, die Probleme werden europäisiert und die Erfolge nationalisiert! Das ist doch der falsche Weg!
Jan Zahradil (ECR), odpověď na otázku Michaela Theurera položenou zvednutím modré karty. – Pane Theurere, já s vámi klidně budu souhlasit v tom, že jsou evropské vlády, které se chovají nezodpovědně, které žily na dluh, které utrácely víc, než mohly, a které zruinovaly vlastní rozpočty a zruinovaly vlastní ekonomiku. Ale já nevěřím, že je možné vymyslet takové evropské řešení, které – shora, od zeleného stolu – se uvalí na tyto země jako nějaká násilná nepřirozená věc.
Podívejte se, k čemu to vede, podívejte se, jaké nálady vznikají např. v Řecku. A podívejte se naproti tomu, jaké nálady vznikají v Německu. To jsou nálady, které jsou vyprokovány nepřirozenými umělými celoevropskými řešeními, které občané ani jedné z těchto zemí nejsou schopni akceptovat.
Lorenzo Fontana (EFD). - Signor Presidente, dal mio punto di vista, il problema è che quest'Europa è stata costruita al contrario, nel senso che uno Stato federale doveva mettere in primo piano soprattutto la realizzazione di un'unione politica, estera e di difesa, mentre noi siamo partiti dall'unione monetaria. Se è vero che l'attuale crisi economica non è imputabile all'Europa, è anche vero che le politiche europee e la moneta unica, purtroppo, non hanno favorito la ripresa, anzi, forse l'hanno resa molto più difficile e lenta.
Signor Presidente, ci chiediamo come mai ci siano tanti cittadini contrari all'Europa. Personalmente, le devo dire che mi stupirei del contrario. Ovviamente, questo non significa che i cittadini sono contrari all'Europa tout court, perché ci sono delle contraddizioni da risolvere. Ad esempio, dov'è l'unità europea quando – com'è successo quest'estate – Malta rifiuta di accogliere un barcone di immigrati e rifugiati, i quali devono essere dirottati verso le coste italiane? Dove erano finite nella fattispecie la solidarietà e l'unità europee? Dov'è l'Europa unita quando si tratta di difendere il settore manifatturiero dalla concorrenza sleale cinese? Anche sotto questo aspetto si fa molto poco.
Cosa dovrei raccontare a quei giovani che per trovare un lavoro sono costretti ad emigrare – come avevano fatto i loro nonni – che l'Europa si preoccupa per l'appunto di finanziare rifugiati politici, Stati in preadesione come la Turchia e talune minoranze come i rom? Cosa dovrei dire, che l'Europa non si occupa dei giovani?
Signor Presidente, se risolveremo questi problemi probabilmente ci sarà un po' più di europeismo.
(L'oratore accetta di rispondere a una domanda "cartellino blu" 'articolo 149, paragrafo 8, del regolamento))
Liisa Jaakonsaari (S&D), sinisen kortin kysymys. – Arvoisa puhemies, komission puheenjohtaja Barroso sanoi puheessaan viisaasti, että Euroopan unionin pitää olla suuri suurissa asioissa ja pieni pienissä asioissa. Mutta kun kuuntelen teidän ryhmänne edustajia ja nyt teitä, puheenjohtajaa, niin en löydä yhtä ainoaa asiaa, en suurta enkä pientä, jossa te näkisitte Euroopan unionilla olevan tärkeän roolin. Äsken puhuitte puolustuspolitiikasta. Onko todellakin niin, että ajattelette puolustuspolitiikkaa ainoana alueena, jossa Euroopan pitäisi toimia yhdessä?
Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), Risposta a una domanda "cartellino blu". – Non solo in tema di politica di difesa., mi sembra di essere stato abbastanza chiaro. Ad esempio, in materia di politica commerciale ed economica nei riguardi di paesi che fanno concorrenza sleale, quando stipuliamo trattati con la Cina che magari impiega gli schiavi nei laogai, ecco l'Europa potrebbe davvero fare molto di più. Questo è un ambito nel quale l'Europa potrebbe difendere i cittadini europei, ma purtroppo ritengo si faccia ancora abbastanza poco.
Philip Claeys (NI). - Mijnheer Barroso, de goednieuwsshow die u daarjuist heeft gegeven was bijna een oefening in zelfparodie, een oefening in politieke satire. Het kwam erop neer dat u op de G20 in St. Petersburg felicitaties in ontvangst heeft kunnen nemen voor de aanpak van de problemen van de EU.
Welnu, ik nodig u uit om even met beide voeten op de grond te gaan staan. Binnen enkele dagen zullen de Duitse kiezers naar de stembus trekken, en onmiddellijk daarna zal de grote ontnuchtering volgen en zullen zij te horen krijgen hoeveel geld er opnieuw naar Griekenland moet gaan en naar alle andere landen. De problemen worden onder de mat geveegd in de hoop dat de kiezers niet in opstand zullen komen.
Wij weten allemaal dat de burgers in Europa zich massaal afkeren van de bemoeizuchtige en geldverslindende EU en zij hebben daar alle reden toe. De euro is voor de noordelijke landen een bodemloze put geworden en voor de zuidelijke landen een economische gevangenis.De Schengenruimte leidt tot nog meer ongecontroleerde immigratie, terwijl er nu al meer dan 26 miljoen werklozen in de EU zijn en dat is waar de Europese kiezers in mei volgend jaar mee zullen afrekenen.
Mairead McGuinness (PPE). - Mr President, allow me to thank Mr Barroso for an honest and reasonable speech. You used those words yourself when you spoke.
Let us not disrespect our citizens: they are much more sophisticated than many Members, and particularly the previous speaker, realise. Allow me to cite the Eurobarometer survey that this Parliament itself conducted: our citizens realise that peace and freedom of movement are two of the European Union’s most positive achievements. A large majority say that membership of the European Union is a good thing. Ireland despite our difficulties – and many have spoken about them – is particularly positive: 66% say EU membership is a good thing.
Seven Europeans in ten – and this is important – think that what brings us together is much more significant than what separates us. However, one particular finding should give great heart to those of us who know that Europe has a future: a clear majority believe that, by 2025, EU citizens will be more involved in European affairs than they currently are. So there is a future and we have to build it. That means we have to solve the problems which, we know, exist today. Rather than moaning about them and getting up here all the time to say how bad things are, let us get on and cure the problems.
Member States are doing this with difficulty themselves. The European Union has to assist them. So let us continue the work, and let us do it not because there is an election coming but because we are elected to do it and to serve our citizens.
Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). - Señor Presidente, señor Presidente de la Comisión, estoy de acuerdo en que el debate de hoy no puede limitarse a los últimos meses ni circunscribirse a datos y magnitudes que puedan ofrecer una foto distorsionada del estado de la Unión.
Estamos en la recta final de la legislatura, con unas elecciones europeas próximas –mayo de 2014–; nos estamos jugando el futuro de la Unión y es el momento de hacer balance y rendir cuentas.
Y la Unión sigue padeciendo los efectos de la gran recesión, que ha sido la peor hora de su historia, y no es aceptable intentar una narrativa edulcorada que pretenda hacer pasar por recuperación o luz al final del túnel lo que no es sino un punto de inflexión de un ciclo negativo que dura demasiado, en el que el manejo de la crisis ha sido pésimo, con errores de diagnóstico, de estrategia y de dirección política.
Incluso si se deja atrás la recesión, la crisis no ha terminado. El proyecto político basado en la confianza mutua está muy deteriorado, y el euroescepticismo, el populismo y el extremismo son sus consecuencias.
De manera que dejar atrás la recesión puede ser un efecto estadístico: después de una prolongada caída, un punto de inflexión hacia arriba; pero nada permite anunciar ningún tiempo nuevo, ni legitima la estrategia de austeridad aplicada implacablemente, ni el sentimiento de culpa y penitencia que se ha impuesto a los países con mayores dificultades, quebrando el espíritu europeo de solidaridad.
De manera que el triunfalismo económico está injustificado. Pero no es inocente, convalida la política aplicada: ni cambia, ni camufla, ni tapa el daño social, ni la creciente desigualdad, ni la injusticia provocada por los ajustes de la crisis, ni las esperanzas rotas, ni las vidas truncadas de muchos europeos, y no solo entre la gente joven.
Pero sigue habiendo 26 millones de parados, muchos sin cobertura y sin esperanza de volver a encontrar empleo, como sucede en España, donde el derrumbamiento de la población activa y el desánimo de quienes ya no tienen incentivos para inscribirse en las listas del paro no equivalen ni a crecimiento del empleo ni a reducción del paro.
El déficit público está muy por encima de lo que en su momento se anunció como tope de imposible cumplimiento, luego revisado al servicio de la misma estrategia fallida. Y la deuda pública está en unos niveles sin precedentes. Por cierto, los mismos que la doctrina que se ha usado de cobertura –dice que son incompatibles con el crecimiento–, pero lo cierto es que estamos ante un crecimiento raquítico, sin empleo y sin esperanza para los jóvenes, que es la negación del impulso europeo y del modelo social europeo.
De manera que el estado de la Unión no es bueno, no es aceptable; seguimos necesitando inversión, crecimiento, empleo, financiado con recursos y un presupuesto robusto, y, en definitiva, una respuesta europeísta, que muchos echan de menos desde hace ya unos cuantos años.
(El orador acepta responder a una pregunta formulada con arreglo al procedimiento de la «tarjeta azul» (artículo 149, apartado 8, del Reglamento))
Krisztina Morvai (NI), blue-card question. – You mentioned extremism as a problem. What do you think about the mass surveillance of European citizens?
This is a question which I wanted to ask Mr Barroso, but due to a lack of full democracy there is no opportunity to ask him spontaneous questions. What do you think about his adviser, Mr György Konrád? Mr Konrád is a Hungarian who is an adviser of the Commission on the future of Europe, and he, as a liberal person, thinks that there is nothing wrong with mass surveillance.
Is it part of the future of Europe that it will be OK and accepted that we shall be surveyed by Big Brother?
Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D), respuesta de «tarjeta azul». – Sí, el extremismo, claro que sí, es un desafío. Está bien el recordatorio de que el año que viene se cumplirán cien años del desencadenamiento de la conflagración que fue en su momento la más devastadora de la historia de Europa, hasta que 30 años después vino la Segunda Guerra Mundial, aún peor, causada por un incremento, por un redoble, de mayor nacionalismo y de mayor extremismo. No es la respuesta adecuada, no. Soy un europeísta convencido, pero también convencido de que hay que cambiar el rumbo, de que hace falta otra política europea, con otros contenidos y otra dirección, y de que hay una Unión Europea que demasiados europeos echan de menos durante demasiado tiempo.
Pero ha mencionado también el espionaje masivo sobre los europeos, y es una ocasión en la que la Unión Europea tiene que mostrar que se preocupa por los derechos fundamentales de los ciudadanos y los hace valer. Y este Parlamento lo está haciendo. La comisión que presido —la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior— conduce precisamente una investigación que quiere deducir las consecuencias de esas prácticas inaceptables, llevarlas al plano político en la relación bilateral con los Estados Unidos, si es necesario, pero, sobre todo, reforzar el régimen de protección de la privacidad de los derechos fundamentales de los europeos, cumpliendo el trabajo de finalización del procedimiento legislativo de protección de datos que está en marcha en la Comisión.
Andrew Duff (ALDE). - Mr President, Mr Barroso has tantalised us with the promise of principles and orientations for political union. In plain language that means of course Treaty change. And the Commission contribution to this is vital because the central purpose of the next round of Treaty reform is to transform the Commission to be a democratic, federal government of a fiscal union.
We have to put the Council of Ministers in order and adjust the role of the European Council. And, if we are to start the Convention, as we expect to be able to do in the spring of 2015, it is this Commission and this Parliament which have got to prepare the ground thoroughly.
Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI). - Mijnheer Barroso lijkt van mening dat hij best goed werk heeft geleverd, maar durft hij dat ook hardop te verkondigen op straat? Op welke planeet woont u eigenlijk, mijnheer Barroso? Europa is een sociaal en economisch slagveld, de Europese Unie kan zich niet verschuilen achter de globale crisis. De wereldeconomie groeit, terwijl Europa krimpt, alléén Europa.
De Europese Unie is de oorzaak van deze crisis, niet de oplossing. Gelukkig is er nog een sprankje hoop en dat zijn de Europese verkiezingen van volgend jaar. Dan zal de kiezer een streep in het zand trekken en zeggen: genoeg is genoeg! De burger heeft er genoeg van om als proefkonijn te moeten opdraaien voor dit absurde experiment. Men heeft genoeg van dit ondemocratisch monster en men heeft genoeg van de partijen die ons hebben verkocht aan de EU. Wij staan aan de vooravond van een electorale aardverschuiving. De winter is voorbij, de lente komt, de Europese lente is nabij!
Giovanni La Via (PPE). - Signor Presidente, signor Presidente Barroso, oggi abbiamo ascoltato un quadro complessivo dell'Unione, e ovviamente la ringraziamo per la completezza della sua esposizione.
Come avrà probabilmente compreso dalla reazione abbastanza fredda dell'Aula in alcuni passaggi, forse questo Parlamento si aspettava qualcosa di più, più coraggio, un quadro più ampio di proposte in grado di dare risposte alle criticità che l'Europa sta vivendo. Abbiamo sempre incentrato la nostra attenzione su crescita e sviluppo, ma molto spesso ci siamo confrontati esclusivamente con austerità e rigore.
Abbiamo bisogno di nuovi strumenti per sostenere investimenti e occupazione. Abbiamo bisogno di forzare la nostra attenzione su crescita e sviluppo, perché se non avremo crescita, se il nostro PIL non crescerà, sicuramente non avremo nemmeno occupazione. Abbiamo invece riscontrato da parte del Consiglio, soprattutto col bilancio del 2014 rispetto alle conclusioni del Consiglio dei capi di Stato e di governo, una scarsa attenzione alle linee di bilancio su crescita e occupazione – la rubrica 1A. Abbiamo bisogno di invertire la tendenza!
Per sganciarci sicuramente dai vincoli che gli Stati membri ci pongono, abbiamo bisogno di fare un discorso nuovo sulle risorse proprie. Il bilancio europeo non può rimanere ancorato al finanziamento degli Stati membri che condizionano l'utilizzazione delle risorse. Per avere più Europa dobbiamo avere più autonomia. Dall'altro lato, abbiamo bisogno anche di finanza innovativa. Per uscire dalla crisi, abbiamo bisogno di finanziare gli investimenti, e su questo ci attendiamo delle proposte da parte della Commissione.
Quanto poi alla politica estera e alla politica mediterranea, assistendo a quanto avviene sulla sua sponda meridionale, e settentrionale dell'Africa, ritengo si debba fare di più perché concediamo molte risorse ma contiamo poco. In altri termini, signor Presidente, per uscire dalla crisi serve più Europa, ma dobbiamo anche utilizzare meglio quanto di cui già disponiamo.
Patrizia Toia (S&D). - Signor Presidente, i cinque anni della nostra legislatura hanno racchiuso esattamente il tempo della crisi peggiore dal dopoguerra. La crisi ha messo alla prova la capacità dell'Europa di reagire, la validità del progetto europeo, e noi dobbiamo essere onesti e dire la verità, cioè che l'Europa non ha saputo rispondere in modo sufficiente, altrimenti la realtà economica e sociale che ci circonda non sarebbe quella che vediamo.
Ritengo soprattutto che l'errore di una politica unilaterale di miope austerità, di cui qualcuno porterà la responsabilità politica, rischia oggi, a giudizio dei cittadini, di far bocciare l'Europa stessa, e il prossimo Parlamento potrebbe essere il riflesso di questo sentimento di rifiuto. Certo, delle misure sono state prese, ci mancherebbe che fossimo stati con le mani in mano a guardare! Ma gli indicatori rivelano un'Europa stremata, di giovani senza indipendenza perché senza lavoro, di un tessuto sociale debole e di imprese ancora in grande affanno.
Se nel nostro dibattito mettiamo il dito sulla piaga sociale, non vorrei passassimo per i soliti socialdemocratici un po' ossessionati dal walfare. Non è così! Noi pensiamo che la questione sociale sia quella da cui partire perché facciamo politica per i cittadini, non per altro, e perché siamo lungimiranti e sappiamo che il futuro, anche economico, richiede coesione del tessuto sociale e preparazione.
Facciamo politica sulla base di valori, il primo dei quali è la qualità di una vita decente e dignitosa per tutti i cittadini europei. Riteniamo poi che lo sviluppo, anche il più smart, debba fondarsi sull'equità – parola sparita dal vocabolario europeo e spesso sostituita da quella dell'esclusione sociale. Il rischio che corriamo oggi, è anche politico e democratico, è di non comprendere che a fallire o a mancare l'obiettivo è stata quest'Europa incompleta, divisa ed egoista, con un preciso credo politico, mentre invece un'Europa diversa è possibile, necessaria e va costruita.
Signor Presidente, ciò che occorre non è solo un lungo elenco di cose da fare, ma un cambiamento profondo, un'alternativa da cui far discendere anche le cose da fare. Vogliamo un'Europa unita, sociale, un'Europa prospera. È troppo, troppo ambizioso? Io credo di no perché senza ambizione l'Europa non solo non sarebbe nata ma non sarebbe neanche stata concepita da coloro che l'hanno concepita e poi realizzata.
(L'oratore accetta di rispondere a una domanda "cartellino blu", articolo 149, paragrafo 8, del regolamento))
PRESIDE: MIGUEL ÁNGEL MARTÍNEZ MARTÍNEZ Vicepresidente
Karin Kadenbach (S&D), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Frau Toia, wenn ich Sie richtig verstanden habe, treten auch Sie für eine Politik der Solidarität, des Zusammenhalts ein, so wie wir sie in Österreich unter sozialdemokratischer Führung vorleben – nämlich eine Politik, die in Jugend investiert, die eine Jugendbeschäftigungsgarantie gibt, die Vorbild für Europa sein könnte, die keine tiefen Einschnitte im Sozialbereich verfolgt, sondern ganz im Gegenteil weiß, dass Investitionen in den Pflegebereich in den Sozialbereich, in die Krankenpflege und in den Bildungsbereich zu Beschäftigung führen.
Österreich hat im Moment die höchste Beschäftigungsrate in Europa und die beste Rate bei der Jugendarbeitslosigkeit. Sind Sie auch der Meinung, dass der Weg, den der Herr Barroso und die Konservativen beschreiben – die Kaputt-Spar-Politik –, der falsche Weg für ein solidarisches und soziales Europa ist?
Patrizia Toia (S&D), Risposta a una domanda "cartellino blu". – Non solo l'ho detto, ma lo credo profondamente. Credo proprio che l'obiettivo della politica sociale – quella che tu hai richiamato, l'occupazione, la sanità, una vita decente e di qualità – non sia solo un grande obiettivo sociale ed etico, ma anche un buon punto di partenza per la crescita economica e lo sviluppo che vogliamo perseguire.
Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président de la Commission européenne, Mesdames et Messieurs les commissaires, Monsieur le Ministre, chers collègues, l'Union traverse un moment difficile. Elle est en grand danger. Pourquoi?
Parce qu'elle est confrontée à la pire des crises: celle de la confiance de ses citoyens. Pourtant, les commissaires et vous-même, Monsieur le Président, avez tenu la barre. Au nom de ma délégation, nous saluons l'action de certains d'entre eux, dont Michel Barnier, tout particulièrement en ce qui concerne la régulation et la supervision des activités économiques et financières.
Avec les gouvernements des États membres, soutenus par les parlements nationaux et dans le cadre de la colégislation, nous avons évité un effondrement du continent, même si des maladresses ont été commises. Les chefs d'État ou de gouvernement, au sein du Conseil européen, ont travaillé dans une logique d'union sacrée et ont assuré la cohésion d'ensemble. Je salue l'action de son président, M. Van Rompuy, même si je regrette qu'il n'ait pas entretenu suffisamment de relations politiques avec notre Parlement. Malgré tout, la confiance se perd.
Que faire dès lors pour retrouver la confiance des citoyens? Il faut leur dire la vérité, à savoir que les États membres ont vécu au-dessus de leurs moyens en s'endettant de manière démesurée. Que nous devons travailler dur – comme partout dans le monde – pour préserver notre ambition sociale et notre influence internationale. Que nous devons, Monsieur le Président, cesser d'être naïfs. Nous devons avoir des frontières extérieures sûres, une douane efficace et défendre nos intérêts commerciaux dans le monde sans concessions.
Dans les négociations commerciales bilatérales, prenez bien en considération la réciprocité des normes sociales, sanitaires et environnementales. Ne prenez pas l'agriculture comme variable d'ajustement, sinon vous vous verrez adresser un jour un refus de ratification par notre Parlement, ainsi que le traité de Lisbonne nous en donne le pouvoir.
La vérité, c'est qu'aujourd'hui, dans les dix pays les plus puissants du monde, il y a quatre pays européens et que, tous les dix ans, un État européen sort de la liste, de telle sorte qu'en 2050, il n'y en aura plus aucun. Oui, de la vérité jaillira la lumière! De cette lumière renaîtra l'espérance des peuples européens, appelés à jouer un grand rôle dans le monde nouveau qui s'ouvre devant nous.
Glenis Willmott (S&D). - Mr President, though I usually welcome an optimistic outlook and while it is always good to hear from you, President Barroso, that the bad times are almost over, I am afraid that for many, this message really just does not fit the reality and, while you may be thinking about popping open the champagne, I would air some caution as the real work is yet to begin.
The financial markets may be recovering and the experts may be more optimistic about the EU economy, but if you step outside the bubble, you will see the true consequences of austerity: living, social and working standards dropping; ordinary people feeling the pain; exploitation by predatory employers using zero-hour contracts; a massive rise in food banks and the need for aid across the EU, while energy prices rise and unemployment remains cripplingly high.
Now is not the time to congratulate ourselves. Now is the time to get to work and stop the erosion of living and working conditions caused by austerity across the EU.
Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE). - Europa a traversat o perioadă dificilă. Criza financiară a generat o criză economică şi a creat mari probleme în majoritatea statelor membre. Comisia a reacţionat şi a propus legislaţia necesară pentru a preveni situaţii similare şi a creea posibilitatea de redresare. Parlamentul European a sprijinit aceste propuneri, de cele mai multe ori împotriva poziţiei Consiliului şi, în consecinţă, avem acum o legislaţie solidă, care trebuie implementată.
Guvernele, sub presiunea internă, au utilizat deseori măsuri populiste. Dezbaterea austeritate – dezvoltare – locuri de muncă a determinat creşterea populismului. Comisia are acum la dispoziţie două mecanisme care pot determina statele membre să adopte măsurile necesare pentru dezvoltare şi locuri de muncă: Semestrul european şi Acordul de parteneriat.
Semestrul european poate direcţiona bugetele naţionale către o politică de cheltuieli înţelepte şi investiţii pentru dezvoltare şi locuri de muncă. Acordul de parteneriat trebuie să creeze sinergia între bugetele naţionale şi fondurile europene. Statele membre trebuie să elaboreze strategii clare privind direcţiile şi priorităţile de dezvoltare pentru a utiliza la maximum această sinergie.
Cred că, în perioada următoare, Comisia are un rol extrem de important şi nu trebuie să ezite să ia toate deciziile necesare, indiferent de statul membru afectat, pentru a aplica aceste mecanisme care pot redresa contextul actual şi pot genera creştere economică şi stabilitate la nivelul întregii Uniuni.
Jacek Protasiewicz (PPE). - Panie Przewodniczący! Panie Przewodniczący Komisji Europejskiej! Spieramy się dzisiaj nawet ostro o stan Unii Europejskiej w piątym i, miejmy nadzieję, ostatnim roku kryzysu, który – to prawda – nie zaczął się w Europie, ale boleśnie dotknął także i nasz kontynent. W odróżnieniu od wielu mówców, zarówno z lewej, jak i z radykalnie prawej strony tej sali, uważam, że instytucje unijne potrafiły udzielać prawidłowej odpowiedzi na wyzwania stawiane przez kryzys. Ostatnim tego przejawem był bardzo mądry kompromis w sprawie wieloletniego budżetu unijnego, który dla wielu regionów Europy, a zwłaszcza tych pogrążonych w poważnym kryzysie, będzie źródłem jedynych funduszy na inwestycje publiczne, a zatem na rozwój i nowe miejsca pracy.
Panie Przewodniczący Barroso, czas kryzysu to także wzrost nastrojów ksenofobicznych skutkujących wezwaniami do ograniczania kluczowej swobody unijnej, jaką jest wolność przepływu osób na wspólnym europejskim rynku z prawem do wyboru miejsca zamieszkania i legalnej pracy. Liczę i oczekuję, Panie Przewodniczący Barroso, że Komisja Europejska nadal będzie bronić tego fundamentalnego prawa przed populistycznymi pomysłami pojawiającymi się tu i ówdzie nie tylko w debacie publicznej, nie tylko w debacie parlamentarnej, ale również w wypowiedziach – co bardzo niepokojące – wielu członków rządów państw członkowskich.
Trzecią sprawą, na którą chciałbym zwrócić uwagę jest nasze wschodnie sąsiedztwo. Mimo wewnętrznych kłopotów gospodarczych, mimo politycznego zmęczenia związanego z rozszerzaniem Unii Europejskiej, nie możemy odwrócić się do naszych wschodnich sąsiadów plecami. Zwłaszcza teraz, gdy kraje te poddane są ogromnej presji politycznej ze strony Rosji. Apeluję więc zarówno do Pana, Panie Przewodniczący Barroso, ale też do litewskiej prezydencji reprezentowanej tutaj przez ministra spraw zagranicznych: nie zmarnujmy szansy, jaką jest szczyt Partnerstwa Wschodniego w Wilnie, na podpisanie i natychmiastowe, nawet prowizoryczne, wdrożenie umowy stowarzyszeniowej z Ukrainą i rozpoczęcie podobnego procesu z innymi krajami Partnerstwa Wschodniego. To szansa na historyczny zwrot w naszym nowym wschodnim sąsiedztwie, którego nie wolno nam zaprzepaścić.
VORSITZ: MARTIN SCHULZ Präsident
Gunnar Hökmark (PPE). - Mr President, I would like to thank the President of the Commission for his presentation of the State of the Union. I think we have two challenges. One is to deal with the consequences of the problems of the crisis which, as he underlined, we still have to fight. At the same time we also need to meet the challenges we have seen emerging, because the global economy in 2013 is not the same as before we entered the crisis in 2008.
We face new and rapidly emerging competition in all areas and it is not enough to deal with the problems of the crisis. We must also accelerate the reforms needed to keep up with and to take up the global competition. I think one way of describing the change is that this year there will be more mobile-phone connections than human beings, which is a sign of the level of prosperity. It is also the sign of a totally new global economy.
It is not enough to be as good as we were in 2008. We must be much better and that requires reforms in all areas. I would like the Commission, as well as the Presidency of the Council, to see the challenges that we have in the global economy. That underlines for me that we must now take action to make reforms to the European economy for the internal market and ensure that we have full freedom of movement in all areas, not least the service sector. Regarding the telecoms sector, we must be insistent and decisive in achieving a European telecoms market, which is one of the most important things in order to enable the whole of the European economy. I said yesterday, and I say now, that we need to ensure that we in Europe can achieve the new Googles, the new Yahoos and the new Apples. We must also ensure that in the future Nokias will buy Microsofts and not the other way round. I would like us to make the reforms that will turn Europe into the leading economy. That requires difficult decisions and we are all responsible for taking them.
Dubravka Šuica (PPE). - gospodine Predsjedniče, slažem se s vama da nije dovoljno donijeti odluke nego treba imati snagu za njihovu implementaciju. Građane nećemo moći uvjeriti retorikom nego konkretnim akcijama. ovo su izazovna vremena za EU i nužnost reformi je neizbježna i ovo je posebna kriza kao što se sami rekli trebamo stvoriti novi model. Mi trebamo jaku Europu, potrebno je više jedinstva, i slažem se da trebamo više solidarnosti i odgovornosti i da moramo osigurati vrijednosti EU. Pitali ste koju ćemo sliku Evrope prikazati našim biračima; populističku ili iskrenu verziju, onu koju građani osjećaju. Moj odgovor je onu u koju građani vjeruju a to je ideal da će građani i u mojoj Hrvatskoj i na primjer u Njemačkoj imati približno isti standard tu mislim i na materijalni status građana i na stupanj razvoja infrastrukture ali i na ideal Evrope, dakle na vrijednosti poput vladavine prava. Činjenica je da je i posredstvom Komisije došlo do toga da i oni koji su nekoć bili neprijatelji danas sjede zajedno. Tu mislim na naše susjedstvo i zato pozdravljam nastavak proširenja. Isto tako ne smijemo zanemariti činjenicu da 7 od 10 Europljana kaže da trebamo biti zajedno i onda to ne smijemo ignorirati. Ali nikako ne smijemo podijeliti Europu na one koji su u eurozoni i oni koji su izvan nje, na bogate i siromašne, na sjever i jug. Dakle podržavam sve najvažnije prioritete koje ste spominjali, a kad razgovaramo o tome da je nezaposlenost ....
Othmar Karas (PPE). - Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissionspräsident, meine Damen und Herren! Robert Schuman hat 1950 gesagt, die Europäische Union entsteht nicht mit einem Schlag, nicht durch eine einfache Zusammenfassung, sondern es wird Ereignisse geben, die eine neue Tat der Solidarität schaffen. Zu nicht mehr und nicht weniger hat uns heute der Kommissionspräsident aufgerufen: nicht satt zu sein, nicht stehenzubleiben, sondern den Weg der Taten, der Solidarität fortzusetzen!
Wir haben Armut und Jugendarbeitslosigkeit zu bekämpfen, die Datensicherheit sicherzustellen, die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit zu erhöhen, eine Antwort auf die Globalisierung zu geben und die Umwelt- und Klimaveränderungen zu bewältigen. All das ist nur möglich, wenn wir neue Taten der Solidarität, mehr Zusammenhalt, mehr Gemeinschaftskompetenzen, mehr Zusammenarbeit zwischen Parlament und Kommission wollen!
Und wenn jemand sagt, das Glas ist halbleer, dann meint er, wir sind gescheitert. Wenn jemand sagt, das Glas ist halbvoll, dann meint er, wir sind am richtigen Weg, wir dürfen aber nicht satt sein, sondern müssen den Weg fortsetzen – gemeinsam. Und wir haben ja auch einen Fahrplan dafür: Bankenunion, Fiskalunion, Wirtschafts- und Sozialunion, Gemeinsame Außen- und Verteidigungspolitik und die Politische Union. Da ist viel zu tun! Aber das, was wir getan haben, bietet uns die Grundlage dafür, diese Ziele zu erreichen – mit einem Konvent und mit der öffentlichen Debatte, die zu Recht eingemahnt wurde. Und daher hat das Europäische Parlament mit dieser Rede zur Lage der Union die Informationsoffensive „ACT.REACT.IMPACT“ für die nächsten zwölf Monate gestartet!
Paulo Rangel (PPE). - Senhor Presidente, Senhor Presidente da Comissão, queria também saudar a Presidência lituana, uma vez que é a primeira oportunidade que tenho de estar em contacto com a Presidência do Conselho lituana.
Sr. Presidente, eu queria dizer neste momento, que é o momento anterior às eleições para o Parlamento Europeu, em que há um discurso do estado da União, que, como português e como membro do PPE, tenho orgulho no trabalho que a Comissão fez e, em particular, na presidência que o Dr. Durão Barroso teve aqui ao longo destes dez anos, e em particular também nestes cinco anos. Um orgulho não arrogante, exatamente como aquele que aqui definiu que nós, europeus, devemos ter.
Queria deixar só dois pontos. O primeiro: o que acho que é fundamental que esta Comissão deixe como legado é a ideia que tem de haver mais solidariedade e mais coesão. Eu acho que neste momento os países que estão em crise económica e financeira, designadamente países periféricos e países do sul da Europa, têm dado um exemplo de grande determinação na feitura das reformas estruturais e precisam de sinais de coesão por parte da União Europeia e dos países mais fortes da União Europeia. E, portanto, é fundamental que esta linha seja prosseguida.
E um segundo ponto que queria trazer aqui, que para mim é um grande motivo de esperança e que devia ser para nós uma grande meta do futuro: é a aposta séria na parceria com os Estados Unidos. Eu julgo que o exemplo que o caso sírio nos dá é o exemplo também do reforço dos valores ocidentais. Quando a solução que nós temos para escolher é entre a ditadura e o terrorismo, os valores ocidentais saem reforçados, e por isso uma parceria séria, económica, de abertura de mercados com os Estados Unidos, relançando a centralidade do Atlântico, penso que é o projeto que pode relançar também a solidariedade europeia.
José Manuel Barroso, Comissão. − Senhor Presidente, começo por responder diretamente ao Sr. Deputado Paulo Rangel, para lhe agradecer as suas palavras e para dizer que realmente os países que têm estado sob programa têm feito um esforço notável, com imensos sacrifícios. Por isso mesmo é que aqui os reconheci publicamente e por isso mesmo é que também continuo a fazer um apelo a maior solidariedade no conjunto da União Europeia. Este valor, solidariedade, com a correspondente responsabilidade, é essencial numa União verdadeiramente digna desse nome.
J'aimerais aussi répondre à plusieurs questions qui ont été posées par d'autres parlementaires.
Joseph Daul a parlé d'un principe auquel la Commission et moi-même tenons absolument: le principe de l'égalité des États devant les traités. En fait, nous sommes face à un grand défi. Comment garantir, dans une Union à vingt-huit États membres – certains étant dans la zone euro, certains n'y étant pas encore, certains ne voulant pas y être –, la flexibilité nécessaire sans créer de la stratification, sans créer de hiérarchies? Sentons-nous que nous faisons partie de la même Union?
La Commission, gardienne des traités, a l'obligation de défendre l'unité de notre projet et elle continuera de le faire. Par conséquent, il s'agit d'une grande entreprise politique qui demandera beaucoup d'intelligence, beaucoup de sagesse, celles de garantir l'unité tout en permettant la diversité. Je suis d'accord avec M. Verhofstadt – même si, parfois, j'ai l'impression que, même lorsque nous sommes d'accord, M. Verhofstadt aime dire qu'il n'est pas d'accord avec moi – quand il affirme que nous devons avoir une plus grande intégration dans la zone euro. C'est pourquoi nous avons présenté le projet pour une véritable Union économique et monétaire. Finalement, ce que vous avez proposé, Monsieur Verhofstadt, ce sont les pistes que nous avons aussi proposées dans ce projet dont je suis particulièrement fier.
L'autre jour, un des plus grands philosophes européens, M. Jürgen Habermas, a déclaré que, jusqu'à présent, le document que la Commission a présenté était le projet politique le plus complet sur l'avenir de l'Europe. Nous continuerons à le développer progressivement, fidèles à cette vision qui nous guide. J'ai été ravi de constater qu'aujourd'hui, presque tous les groupes, malgré leurs différences considèrent les propositions qui sont sur la table au sujet de l'union bancaire, notamment le mécanisme de résolution unique, comme une priorité législative de la construction européenne. Mais nous devons également nous projeter au-delà de l'union bancaire, sur le plan du budget, de la gestion de la zone euro, voire de l'union politique.
And I think for me the most interesting point during this debate was this one. Many of you focus on the problems. Others focus on the solutions. I prefer to be on the side of the solutions. This is the question.
I think my assessment was realistic. I have recognised that there are still difficulties. I have not said that we are out of the crisis. I have explicitly said that we are still in the crisis and that we should avoid any kind of complacency. But regarding the situation, we have two possibilities: we have the possibility of insisting on the negative side, of continuing this self-deprecation and this Euro-pessimism that is so destructive, that is sometimes intellectually glamorous but will not bring hope and confidence to our citizens, or, as European leaders – and you are a European leader, as I am – we can give people hope and we can say to them, look, there are indeed some signals – because there are some signals – that things are changing for the better. And this is the point. And this is the political question that I put to all of you at the beginning of my intervention today.
Then I want to speak more directly to the pro-European forces, some from the centre-left, some from the centre-right, some from the centre, but who basically share, as Mr Swoboda rightly said, the same values. What is going to be your story to the electors? Are you going to say, like the populists or the extremists, that everything is wrong in Europe? If you go that way you will only reinforce those who do not believe, as we do, in European values.
Mr Callanan, you said, making a joke about possible competitors for the Commission election, that you are not interested in that job, that you are very happy with yours. Let me tell you very frankly that even if you were interested you could not have a chance to be elected President of the Commission and do you know why? I am not saying that happily, because I think increasingly your party and your Group is looking like UKIP, a Eurosceptic, anti-European group. And I am starting to have some doubts that you are going to be elected yourself in Britain, or if it is not UKIP that is going to be the first force in the British elections. Because when it comes to being against Europe, the people, between the original and the copy, prefer the original. That is probably why they are going to vote more for Mr Farage than for Mr Callanan.
And this I do not say with any kind of satisfaction, because, even if we have some differences, we have worked in many areas very constructively with the Conservatives, the British Conservatives and the Conservative Group. We have worked together for the internal market, for reform, we have worked together against some kinds of regulation, we have worked together in many areas including free trade. But this is an important point, because if those forces that are pro-European, or even those that are not really pro-European but constructive, have the same discourse, the same political attitude as the anti-Europeans, the Eurosceptics, the populists, in that case the latter will win the next election.
So my appeal to you is to make the case for Europe, because you are part of Europe. As I have said, much of the legislation that has been made would not have been possible without the very strong cooperation between the Commission and the European Parliament. Take the MFF. We were not happy with the result, but, frankly, without the complicity between the Commission and the European Parliament the result would be much worse. President Schulz knows that well because we were together during those negotiations. And I could give you many more examples.
Ms Harms, when you say that Europe has done nothing or that on climate change there is zero change, come on! Let us be real! Europe is leading the world in terms of the objective for climate change. On low-CO2 cars, the proposals were put forward by the Commission. If you are not satisfied with the solution now, put the question to the Member States, not to the Commission. We are keeping a very strong commitment to climate change.
Mr Farage shows that populists are sometimes obscurantists. Ninety-nine per cent of scientists, Mr Farage, believe that climate change exists as a result of human activity: 99% of scientists. Of course there are always people who are paid to say the opposite. To pretend, as you pretend, against all well-established science, that the problem of climate change is just an invention of the Greens or of the Left, is complete nonsense.
Of course we have to find a way, of course we have to find a sensible way to fight climate change. And we have to look at the same time at competitiveness in Europe. We have to make this part of our agenda for growth and I believe that the green economy brings many possibilities. It would be a mistake to base the case on climate change solely on environmental matters. They are of course decisive. It is an existential matter for our planet, the conservation of our planet. But we have to make the case also in terms of the economy, in terms of what it can bring in terms of our health, because in fact we have seen increasing numbers of natural disasters that most scientists attribute to climate change.
So this is important, and I think that it is almost incredible that the leader of one European Parliament group says that something which has been established clearly by science is an invention of some political forces.
As I have said before, I believe in science and I believe part of the solution for our problems is through more science, more innovation, more research, more technology and this is the way for Europe to address these problems.
Regarding the social aspect, Mr Swoboda, you know very well that Europe – or at least European institutions – have been fighting a lot for these matters. You know very well that the Commission was pushing hard for a more generous Social Fund, for the Globalisation Adjustment Fund, for the financial transaction tax that now some Member States do not want to implement. You know very well, so let us not create artificial divisions here.
Now, what happens in fact is that we are aware of the difficulties in Europe. You are right, you and some others, when you outline difficulties that many of our citizens, particularly unemployed people, are still experiencing.
And to one of the distinguished Members of Parliament who said to me that I have never seen that reality, that I have never seen people begging near the Parliament, let me tell you, I have not only seen people near Parliament but, together with Joseph Daul, I went to a food bank in the region of Strasbourg/Bas-Rhin, and I know well how many people are poor in Europe and suffer.
Coming from my country, Portugal, I know well the difficulties of poverty in many of our sectors. But not only do I know, I am fighting to solve that problem. It was the Commission which upheld the aspiration for a fund for the most deprived people and had to fight hard against some capitals that were seeking to remove it our priorities. So not only do we know the reality in Europe, but we are trying to do our best with the instruments we have to remedy those situations.
And this is the point I want to make as well, because, as some of you said, where are the instruments? Many of these instruments and responsibilities are at national level. Let us be honest: employment is mainly a national policy. We can influence, we can create some funds. We can create the Youth Employment Initiative, we took the initiative of the Youth Guarantee. But in the end it depends on what Member States do or do not do. This is the point.
And that is why we have to be clear about this because if not – and you are going to see that during the elections – many of our citizens are going to put the blame on Europe for what was in fact the action or inaction of some of our governments and Member States. That is the tendency to Europeanise failure and to nationalise success. And I believe that you, as Members of Parliament and we, as the European Commission, have a duty to explain to our citizens what is the national responsibility, what is the European responsibility: of course making an honest and reasonable assessment; of course recognising also that not everything we have been doing is perfect; of course recognising that these slow decisions of the Member States and the European Union architecture are sometimes frustrating; but giving hope to our citizens.
I think that, as political leaders, we have the duty of confidence, we have a duty to provide hope to our citizens. And that is my appeal to you, particularly to the pro-European forces who I believe, in spite of some ideological differences, share the same values. The same values that are in the Treaty of Lisbon, that have been there since the Treaty of Rome, the values of the dignity of human beings, of peace, of freedom and justice.
And that is why I was also happy to receive the words of many of you congratulating the Commission for what we are doing in terms of the rule of law. Because if you want to speak about the rule of law internationally, we have to be sure that here in Europe we also respect all those principles, because our conception of Europe is not just about the economy or about the market, it is a conception based on values. And I believe that in spite of the natural differences, we basically share these values.
And I have a great confidence in Europe. I think that it was Ms McGuinness who gave some figures about the extraordinary support that still exists in Europe for the European ideal. Do you not find it really extraordinary that in spite of all the difficulties that Greek citizens have been experiencing, a huge majority of Greek citizens support the euro? Do you not find it extraordinary that in Spain, even if there are five million non-Spanish unemployed, there is not a xenophobic or anti-foreigner party? I believe that in Europe we have a great resilience. I believe that this crisis has tested us and is testing us to the limit and I believe that in Europe, if you keep the objectives, we will come out of this crisis stronger because our resilience was tested.
It is a complete caricature to present European policy just as fiscal consolidation. At least since 2010 I have been saying that fiscal consolidation alone is not sufficient, that there are some limits to the policy of fiscal consolidation. Our policy is a complex mix of fiscal consolidation, structural reform and investment – targeted investment in the sectors of the future, to have a more innovative, a more modern Europe.
And even in fiscal consolidation, we have been adapting to the different difficult economic cycle. The Commission has been putting much more emphasis on the structural deficit than on the nominal deficit, as you know, and it was our proposal in several cases to give the Member States more time to adjust their deficits. So trying to find the right balance and the right calibration for a policy that of course in the medium term, in the short term, has naturally a recessionary effect.
But to put the question once again: who is responsible for the difficulties in Europe. Was it policy or was it the mistakes made in the past? One of you said Greece is the victim of the policies of Europe. False! Completely! Greece is the victim of the irresponsible behaviour of the governments of Greece. This is the reality, and it was because of this that the European Union was asked to come and give support. Without European Union support, Greece would now be completely insolvent. The situation would be much more difficult. So we have to have the courage to ask who created the problem.
Without the European Union, the countries that are now in a difficult situation would be in a much worse situation. Without Europe they would be suffering much more. And so it is important to put the record straight, because, if not, our electors, your electors, will think that Europe is to blame when in fact, as I said, Europe, even if it is not perfect, did not create the problem, Europe is a victim of the problem and Europe is certainly part of the solution.
(Applause)
Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE). - Señor Presidente, es una cuestión muy breve y de orden.
Ayer, señor Presidente, el señor Watson utilizó de forma fraudulenta el Reglamento para referirse a un tema de fondo sensible como es Gibraltar. Hoy, él mismo —el señor Watson— y el representante de los conservadores han montado una pantomima para abordar un tema de fondo que ha producido indefensión, y yo no he podido contestar, ni siquiera con la tarjeta azul.
Yo apelo a su autoridad y a su equidad probada para decir sencillamente que es verdad que existe un problema en Gibraltar, que no es menos cierto que existe un diálogo entre el Primer Ministro británico y el Presidente del Gobierno de España y que no es menos cierto que traen causa estos problemas de que el Gobierno de España está intentando adoptar medidas para evitar el contrabando de tabaco, la evasión fiscal y el blanqueo de capitales.
Eso es lo que hay que hacer: dialogar. Sobran intervenciones nostálgicas, electoralistas, en defensa de una colonia que no tiene sentido en Europa.
Nicole Sinclaire (NI). - Mr President, I was extremely disappointed that Mr Barroso did not answer my main question: why it should be he, the unelected representative of an EU institution, giving the State of the Union address rather than the elected representative, Mr Schulz. Maybe you could help me on this point, Mr Barroso?
We do not agree on much, and I do not agree with your vision of a united Europe, but I do agree with you, Mr Barroso, that if the club is going to prosper, if it is going to work, you need all the members inside working towards that. I need to ask you then: why do you not challenge the UK to put up or shut up? Why do you go along with the UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, pretending that he can renegotiate to recover powers from the European Union? Are you saying that he can renegotiate certain items from the Treaty of Rome? Can you just make it clear, once and for all, that renegotiation of significant powers such as the Social Chapter is not possible?
Is it not damaging to the European Union to have the UK in its current predicament until 2017? Is it not time for the UK and its people to decide, sooner rather than later, whether they want the country to remain a member of the European Union?
Nigel Farage (EFD). - Mr President, next year’s European election will not be contested on the old division lines of left and right and several group leaders have agreed with that today. Frankly, that is all irrelevant. It will be contested between those of us that believe in national democracy within the nation state and those that believe that the 28 countries that are part of the EU are better governed by these institutions. That in a sense is what this comes down to.
But, Mr Barroso, those of us that believe in national democracy do not want to take us back to the Western Front or 1914. Those of us that believe in national democracy will say to you it is a healthy assertion of identity, but it also shows a deeper understanding of why the problems of Europe were caused in the past. It is democratic nation states in Europe, that are stable, that will not go to war with each other, which are a force for good and I would remind people that, without the vote in the House of Commons two weeks ago, we would now be at war in Syria. What better proof can there be that nation state democracy can be a force for good?
Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου (GUE/NGL). - Κύριε Barroso, είπατε ότι οι Έλληνες πολίτες υποστηρίζουν στην πλειοψηφία τους το ευρώ. Στην πραγματικότητα όλοι οι πολίτες, όχι μόνον στην Ελλάδα, που υποστηρίζουν κατά την δική σας άποψη το ευρώ, στην πραγματικότητα φοβούνται να φύγουν από το ευρώ. Είναι τελείως διαφορετικό πράγμα να στηρίζετε τα επιχειρήματά σας πάνω στον φόβο των πολιτών να μετακινηθούν σε κάτι καινούργιο. Αυτή είναι η πραγματικότητα και αφήσατε πίσω το γεγονός ότι το χρέος της Ελλάδας είναι σήμερα μεγαλύτερο από ό,τι ήταν με την έναρξη της κρίσης.
Είπατε ότι αυτή η κρίση δεν έχει καμιά σχέση με καμιά από τις προηγούμενες και για αυτό πρέπει να σκεφθούμε διαφορετικά. Το ‘διαφορετικά’ όμως δεν μας το περιγράψατε. Φοβάστε να χρησιμοποιήσετε τη λέξη ‘κοινωνική δικαιοσύνη’. Χρησιμοποιούμε τη λέξη ‘συνοχή’. Έχει αλλάξει το λεξιλόγιο. Η ‘κοινωνική δικαιοσύνη’ είναι μια λέξη η οποία δεν πρέπει να χρησιμοποιείται σε αυτό το Κοινοβούλιο.
Μιλάτε για κινητικότητα. Κύριε Barroso, εγώ προέρχομαι από ένα χωριό της Ευρώπης που ένα πρωί οι μισοί του κάτοικοι εξαφανίστηκαν άλλοι στη Νότιο Αφρική και άλλοι στην Αυστραλία. Ξέρουμε από κινητικότητα. Είναι όμως άλλο πράγμα η κινητικότητα βασισμένη πάνω στη γνώση μου, και άλλο πράγμα η επιβολή να σηκωθώ να φύγω από το κράτος μου, για να πάω σε άλλο κράτος της Ευρώπης για να παίρνω 600 ευρώ μισθό. Ξέρουμε, λοιπόν, τι εστί κινητικότητα.
Τονίσατε ότι εκατομμύρια άνθρωποι υποφέρουν. Εγώ θα προσθέσω ότι εκατομμύρια χρήματα έχουν φύγει από τις τσέπες των πολλών και έχουν πάει στις τσέπες των ολίγων. Η Ευρώπη θα βρει τον δρόμο της εάν γίνει μοχλός για την παγκόσμια ειρήνη και εάν φέρει ισονομία, ισοπολιτεία και κοινωνική δικαιοσύνη μέσα στους πολίτες της.
Martin Callanan (ECR). - Mr President, can I first of all thank Mr Barroso for the unsolicited electoral advice for my party. It is a bit rich coming from the unelected head of the European Commission to give us electoral advice on how to prepare for elections, but I suppose that is typical of him.
He has spoken for what I totted up to be a total of 55 minutes this morning and of course he played his usual trick of having something for everyone. There was a little bit on a commitment to subsidiarity, which I welcome; I would like to see it in action but nevertheless I welcome it; and of course all the usual guff about more integration being required, more Europe being the solution to our problems, accompanied also by the usual scaremongering that somehow the alternative to ever-closer integration is the trenches of the First World War. Come on, Mr Barroso, nobody seriously believes that any more.
As usual, your speeches this morning were long on rhetoric but your time in office has been very short on action. I really believe that those of us who believe in less Europe and less integration are actually starting to win the arguments in Europe now. Even Mr Schulz, in his interview with Reuters yesterday – I was amazed – said, if they quoted you correctly, Mr President, that the EU cannot do everything and what you can do locally you should do locally. Well, of course we welcome the sinner that half-repenteth but, never mind, we should appreciate from where this comes.
Mr Barroso, concerning your grand rhetoric, the journalists in the Press Room have a terrible habit of playing buzzword bingo with your phrases to see whether you come out with your favourite phrases. I have to say my favourite from this morning which I wrote down is that you said ‘we have to shape a new “normal”’. I hope that makes sense in Portuguese because I really do not know what it means in English.
Rebecca Harms (Verts/ALE). - Herr Präsident! Meiner Meinung nach gewinnt man Vertrauen und Zustimmung nicht zurück, wenn man versucht, den Menschen an Stellen ein schönes Bild zu zeigen, an denen die sie wissen, dass ihre Unsicherheit zu Recht besteht.
Und ein ganz wichtiger Punkt ist zur Zeit in Europa, dass die Lasten der Krise ungerecht verteilt sind und dass wir zunehmend wegen dieser Ungerechtigkeit Verunsicherung erleben, was die Zukunftsperspektiven angeht. Und ich finde, da sollten Sie das nicht schönreden.
Ihr ganzes Engagement für die Klimapolitik – Sie sind ja da dankenswerter Weise gegen die großen Klimaskeptiker in diesem Haus, also Herrn Reul, Herrn Farage und andere noch einmal in die „Bütt“ gegangen – Ihr verbales Bekenntnis ist gut und schön. Ich erinnere mich an eine sehr erfolgreiche Klimapolitik mit Stavros Dimas, mit dem ehemaligen Energiekommissar Piebalgs. Ich sehe eben heute, dass Sie mit Ihrer umweltpolitischen Unvernunft immer wieder Günther Oettinger und Herrn Tajani stützen und dass vernünftige Leute wie Frau Hedegaard oder Herr Potočnik in dieser Auseinandersetzung einfach nichts mehr zu sagen haben. Das finde ich bedauerlich!
Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE). - Mr President, I think that it would be a big mistake to make it a fight between Eurosceptics and those who are defending the present state of affairs in Europe. Then we would lose this election, Mr Barroso.
There is a third way, a third choice to be made. That is to defend Europe, but a different Europe. In a way the Eurosceptics are right in their criticism that this crisis has been badly managed. They are right. That is not a criticism of you but is mainly directed at the Heads of State and Government, who acted far too late and did far too little in a number of their reforms.
What we have to defend is a pro-European line, but a line that is in favour of a different Europe from that of today – a more integrated Europe than we have today. I am sure that this message could be very popular if we want it to be. Who can believe Mr Callanan who, together with Mr Farage, is telling everybody that we shall beat the Chinese and the Indians and that we shall beat the Americans economically by retreating behind our national borders, by going to negotiations as single nation states in this economic struggle of today. Nobody can believe that, Mr Callanan. A new vision on Europe does not mean going back to the past. It means looking to the future and not to the past.
Hannes Swoboda (S&D). - Mr President, if I had 40 minutes speaking time like President Barroso I would have talked about the many good things about the European Union and defended the European Union, but with less time I have to point to those elements which he did not point out.
Mr Barroso, you said you want to be on the side of the solutions. Yes. What I want is for you to be more active, for example, concerning the Member States you criticise here. Honestly, after our criticism here today, you have been much more dynamic, much more social even, so you cannot expect more criticism in the future calling for a more social and more dynamic Mr Barroso.
Let me make one last point, because this really shows the difference in how we think. In the south of Spain – I am sorry to use another example from Spain, it is not against Spain, not at all – there is a mayor who is now running a lottery at the swimming pool in his city, and the prize is a transitional temporary job. This is not what we want. People have a right to have a job. We want a policy for jobs. We do not want lotteries to win a temporary job: we want a European employment policy to get permanent jobs, sustainable jobs. That is what we are fighting for and I hope we have you on our side.
Joseph Daul (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, j'ai bien écouté tout le monde, j'étais là du début à la fin. Je sais que nous sommes en campagne électorale. Il y a, actuellement, des campagnes dans les différents pays; il y aura une campagne européenne. Heureusement que les citoyens ne nous ont pas écoutés parce que nous avons quand même pris des mesures depuis la crise, que nous avons votées ensemble dans les partis démocratiques et qui vont dans le bon sens. C'est le premier point. Je vous remercie d'avoir voté cela; après nous partirons tous en campagne. Je ne renierai pas mes valeurs ni ma foi en faisant de la démagogie. Nous n'avons pas le droit de faire cela, nous avons le devoir de dire la vérité à nos concitoyens.
Chers amis, je suis pour une politique sociale et fiscale. J'ai mené une bagarre pour qu'il y ait une politique agricole et nous avons aujourd'hui la même politique dans toute l'Europe. Si nous avions fait la même chose au niveau social et fiscal, nous ne serions pas dans cette situation.
Voilà ce que nous devons dire à nos électeurs. Voilà ce nous devons défendre pour sauver l'Europe.
(Applaudissements)
Der Präsident. − Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.
PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. ROBERTA ANGELILLI Vicepresidente
Struan Stevenson (ECR). - Madam President, on 1 September, 52 innocent, unarmed civilians were massacred in Camp Ashraf in Iraq and seven hostages were taken. I understand this morning that these seven hostages, including six women, were secretly flown by helicopter last night to the Iranian border where they are about to be handed back to the Iranians and will face certain torture and execution. Why has Baroness Ashton not intervened? Why are we not insisting that they be released immediately? I ask for your absolute immediate intervention on this issue, Madam President.
Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL). - Señora Presidenta, se cumplen hoy 40 años del golpe de Estado en Chile, y quería rendir homenaje, hoy aquí, al Presidente Salvador Allende y a los miles de chilenos y chilenas asesinados, torturados y desaparecidos. Honor al Presidente Salvador Allende, que supo inmolarse para defender la Constitución de Chile.
Hannes Swoboda (S&D). - Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte noch erwähnen, dass unsere Fraktion auch heute Abend dazu eine Veranstaltung hat.
Was ich aber auch noch erwähnen möchte: Heute ist der Gedenktag zur Erinnerung an den tragischen Tod von Anna Lindh, der ehemaligen schwedischen Außenministerin. Und wir sollten auch ihrer gedenken. Das war ein brutaler Anschlag mitten in Europa, und sie war eine junge, dynamische zukünftige Ministerin. Das ist auch sehr traurig, und ich wollte nur darauf hinweisen.
Petri Sarvamaa (PPE). - Madam President, since we seem to be commemorating 11 September I would just like to add one more to this list, especially today when it is exactly 12 years since the towers fell, and we are witnessing the inaction of the international community in times which will affect the future, though none of us in this House can predict how. We will know in about 10 years, 20 years, or maybe in 50 years our children will know, but I hope for the best for all of us in this time of crisis.
Presidente. − La discussione è chiusa.
Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 149)
Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D), in writing. – In face of the State of the Union, we also need to stress the insufficiencies of European policies. I want to draw attention to the phenomenon of precarious work, which knows no limits. It is urgent to address the hardship that this places upon our citizens. Precarious work brings with it social problems, such as poverty and social exclusion, and it is detrimental to working conditions and rights of workers. I remind Parliament and the Commission of a 2010 resolution on precarious work and female workers, and a follow-up on the actions that have been taken since. The time is also ripe for a plan that addresses precarious work amongst youth. The EU needs to recognise that precarious work is eroding the very heart of our society. It leads individuals to live at the risk of poverty. Member States have an obligation to find efficient solutions. In this context, I cannot but praise the current initiatives by the Maltese Government to tackle precarious work; its example should be followed by both the Commission and other Member States. Such concrete measures would send a strong message of hope.
Ivo Belet (PPE), schriftelijk. – We zijn begonnen aan het laatste politieke seizoen van deze legislatuur en we gaan ervan uit dat dit een aansporing voor ons allen is om cruciale dossiers rond te krijgen. Het Europese toezicht op de banken is essentieel om het vertrouwen diepgaand te herstellen en zo de bescheiden economische groei een forse duw in de rug te geven. Het is een unieke kans om de burgers te tonen dat we uit het dal gekropen zijn, de zaken onder controle hebben en de welvaart van de Europeanen veilig zullen kunnen stellen.
We hebben zeer turbulente jaren achter ons liggen, maar gelukkig hebben we hieruit lessen getrokken en structurele ingrepen gedaan om te vermijden dat manke toestanden zich kunnen herhalen. We moeten daarnaast ook knopen doorhakken over de biobrandstoffen en over een strengere regulering voor rookwaren. Ook hier moeten we aantonen dat we durven beslissingen te nemen die in het algemeen belang zijn en die tegen de haren instrijken van heel wat belanghebbenden. Kortom, we staan voor een politiek jaar waarin we de Europeanen kunnen tonen en bewijzen dat we meer dan ooit gebaat zijn met een sterkere Europese samenwerking.
John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – I must laud the Commission Presidentʼs attempt to put a positive spin on the current State of the Union, however, I quite simply fail to buy into his over optimistic and ideological view. And I am sure I am not the only one. Europe is, in reality, nowhere near an economic recovery – fragile or otherwise. And this incessant pursuit of forming a Europe-wide banking union is unlikely to aid recovery. It is, if anything, more likely to lead Europe into an even deeper financial mess. Similarly, his suggestion that we continue to work in the same way to alleviate unemployment levels in the EU is simply absurd. One look at the figures tells us that the schemes and systems implemented to date have been ineffective – and yet he insists on forcing the Member States to continue down this road to ruin. To end on a positive note, although it is unusual for the Commission President to express opinions about the internal political situation in a Member State, I welcome his acknowledgement that UKIP is fast becoming a real fighting force in UK politics. The real brand of euro-scepticism that our party offers is finally receiving the recognition it deserves.
Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. – Statistics are showing minute economic growth and a slight decrease in unemployment; although they could act as signs that we are coming out of recession, these are, however, just statistics. To ordinary citizens we are in just the same situation as we were when we entered the recession. With unemployment stabilising and statistics showing minor economic growth, there are some signs of recovery in the EU. But it is an incredibly feeble recovery. This recovery is a numerical one and the struggling people in Europe have not yet seen improvements. Many of our citizens have no jobs or opportunities, there have been cuts in social protection, and public services such as pensions, education and health. The austerity agenda is not working and is making recovery worse. However, there is a viable alternative. It involves making the multinationals, the banks and the rich pay their fair share in solving the economic crisis they caused, whilst stimulating economic growth through targeted investment and maintaining the living standards of people on low incomes so that economic growth happens. That is how we will start to see real recovery.
Corina Creţu (S&D), în scris. – Dezbaterea privind starea Uniunii este, din păcate, bilanţul unui cincinal pierdut pentru cetăţeni şi pentru proiectul european. Austeritatea impusă de populari a sporit şomajul, sărăcia şi euroscepticismul. Totodată, nu s-a făcut pasul spre ceea ce numim "mai multă Europă". Comisia Barroso nu a avut viziunea şi curajul necesare pentru a împinge construcţia europeană înainte. Există iniţiative, precum „uniunea bancară“, şi „garanţia pentru tineret“ blocate într-un proces birocratic care trebuie accelerat. Sunt, în acest sens, eforturi semnificative din partea Parlamentului pentru a stimula cooperarea şi transparenţa decizională, precum acordul dintre Parlamentul European şi Banca Centrală Europeană privind mecanismul unic de supraveghere bancară şi acordul interparlamentar privind bugetul UE pentru exercițiul financiar 2014-2020.
Din păcate, Consiliul încearcă să minimalizeze în continuare atribuţia de legiferare a Parlamentului şi importanța pe care acesta o acordă creșterii economice și ocupării forței de muncă. Deși austeritatea a dispărut din vocabularul popularilor europeni, ea este o realitate la nivelul Uniunii, reflectată și în percepţia Consiliului privind bugetul european pentru viitorii şapte ani. E inadmisibilă reducerea, în ultimul moment, cu un miliard de euro, a bugetelor alocate creării locurilor de muncă pentru tineri şi inovării.
Σπύρος Δανέλλης (S&D), in writing. – Είναι εξαιρετικά θετική η πρόταση για τους όρους οι οποίοι προσδιορίζουν την προτιμησιακή καταγωγή των προϊόντων, βάσει της οποίας θεσπίζονται τα προτιμησιακά δασμολογικά μέτρα. Αυτή ορίζει ότι για να εξασφαλισθεί προτιμησιακή εισαγωγή ενός προϊόντος στην ΕΕ θα πρέπει αυτό είτε να έχει παραχθεί εξ ολοκλήρου στη συγκεκριμένη χώρα καταγωγής είτε να έχει υποστεί σημαντική μεταποίηση ή επεξεργασία που έχει καταλήξει στην κατασκευή ενός νέου προϊόντος. Επίσης, εντάσσει ρητά στη βασική νομοθετική πράξη τα κριτήρια προσδιορισμού ενός προϊόντος ως έχοντος προτιμησιακή καταγωγή. Με την πρόταση αυτή γίνεται ένα σημαντικό βήμα για την άρση αθέμιτου ανταγωνισμού -μεταξύ άλλων- από νωπά γεωργικά προϊόντα τρίτων χωρών στα αντίστοιχα προϊόντα της Ε.Ε. Σας υπενθυμίζω ότι νωπά γεωργικά προϊόντα από τρίτες χώρες, με χαμηλό κόστος παραγωγής, εισάγονταν στην ΕΕ και μετά από υποτυπώδη επεξεργασία που δεν μετέβαλλε τα χαρακτηριστικά ή την ειδική υφή του προϊόντος, διετίθεντο στην ευρωπαϊκή αγορά ως προϊόντα της ΕΕ.
Ismail Ertug (S&D), schriftlich. – In den letzten Jahren durchlebte die EU-Politik eine Legitimitätskrise, da die europäische Bevölkerung vor allem durch die Sparpolitik der Eurozone immer stärker verunsichert wurde. Viele Menschen stehen nicht nur dieser Politik, sondern auch dem europäischen Einigungsprozess mittlerweile kritisch gegenüber. Deshalb müssen wir versuchen, die Bevölkerung für unsere Politik und unser Handeln zurückzugewinnen.
Wir müssen als Politiker Visionen schaffen, welche den einzelnen EU-Bürger selbst betreffen, sodass er sich damit identifizieren und auseinandersetzen kann.
Präsident Barroso, bei Ihrem Vortrag erhielt man den Eindruck, als sei die Krise bereits passé. Ein leichter Wirtschaftsaufschwung allein reicht jedoch nicht, den vielen Arbeitslosen wieder einen Zugang zum Arbeitsmarkt zu bieten. Wir können die Vertrauenskrise in der EU aber auch die Wirtschaftskrise nur dann überwinden, wenn die Krisenpolitik der EU endlich auch zur Verbesserung der Situation von Arbeitslosen und Arbeitnehmern in prekären Beschäftigungsverhältnissen beiträgt.
Darüber hinaus müssen alle Länder an einem Strang ziehen. Das bedeutet, dass man mit einer gemeinsamen Währung nur erfolgreich agieren kann, wenn man gemeinsame wirtschaftliche und soziale Ziele verfolgt. Das Spardiktat von Kanzlerin Merkel & Co. war ein Paradebeispiel dafür, wie man europäische Politik nicht gestalten sollte.
Ein weiterer zentraler Punkt, mit dem wir uns dringend auf EU-Ebene stärker auseinandersetzen müssen, ist der Steuerbetrug. Alleine in Deutschland entstehen durch die Steuersünder jährlich Schäden in Höhe von 30 Milliarden Euro. Das ist Geld, welches in Bildung, Infrastruktur oder Schuldenabbau besser investiert werden könnte.
Mit den so gewonnen Mitteln lässt sich wiederum eine ausgewogenere Haushaltspolitik finanzieren, die nicht nur auf Sparen ausgerichtet ist, sondern auch durch gezielte Investitionen in Bildung, Forschung, Wachstumsbranchen und Beschäftigung einen Mehrwert für die Bevölkerung mit sich bringt.
Lasst uns gemeinsam eine neue, mutigere und sozialere Politik wagen, welche unsere Bevölkerung überzeugt und unsere Union dauerhaft stärkt!
Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. – Pretrvávajúca hospodárska a sociálna kríza sa tvrdo dotýka najzraniteľnejších skupín obyvateľov EÚ. Obrovská úroveň nezamestnanosti, krachujúce podniky a nezmyselné škrty vo verejnom sektore vedú k zvyšovaniu fenoménu chudoby a k situácii, keď našim občanom nevieme zabezpečiť ani len základné sociálne služby a práva, ako je právo na dôstojný život, právo na vzdelanie, právo na prácu, na lekársku starostlivosť, právo na pomoc v núdzi atď. Zlá ekonomická a sociálna situácia našich obyvateľov spôsobuje nedôveru v zmysel európskeho projektu a v Európsku úniu ako takú. Súčasné problémy Únie ľudia cítia na vlastnej koži. Nemôžeme sa čudovať, že sú čím ďalej tým viac skeptickí. Obyvatelia jednotlivých členských štátov totiž necítia reálne výsledky našej snahy. Protikrízové opatrenia nie sú dostatočne účinné. Treba prijať konkrétne opatrenia na podporu trvalého a inteligentného rastu, vytvárať nové pracovné miesta, prijímať opatrenia, ktoré mladým ľuďom zaručia, že po skončení štúdia sa môžu začať realizovať na pracovnom trhu, a nie mrhať svojim talentom na úradoch práce. Treba prijať potrebné opatrenia zamerané na podporu konkurencieschopnosti EÚ. Treba prijať opatrenia na oživenie nášho jednotného trhu a na podporu malých a stredných podnikateľov, ktorí sú v kontexte oživenia hospodárstva nenahraditeľní. Únia potrebuje hlbšiu mieru integrácie a väčšiu mieru vzájomnej solidarity.
András Gyürk (PPE), irasban. – Az Európai Bizottság számos kísérletet tett a gazdasági válság felszámolására, azonban egyelőre úgy tűnik, az európai polgárok kételkednek az eredményekben.
Nemrégiben készült egy 28 tagállamra kiterjedő felmérés, amely szerint 2014-ben az európai választásokon az Európai Parlament frakcióinak visszaszorulása, és a szélsőséges erők előretörése várható. Vajon a szkepticizmus terjedése és a polgárok elfordulása a hagyományos európai elittől nem annak az eredménye, hogy az uniós intézmények a valóban fontos kérdések helyett túlzottan sokat foglalkoztak egyes tagállamok belügyeivel?
Magyarország, amelyet az elmúlt két évben méltatlanul ültettek szégyenpadra, mára bebizonyította, hogy önálló és innovatív gazdaságpolitikát folytatva képes jelentős eredményeket elérni az állam pénzügyeinek konszolidálása és a polgárok életkörülményeinek javítása terén. A magyarok erőfeszítéseinek köszönhetően nyolc év után idén végre lezárult a Magyarország ellen folyó túlzottdeficit-eljárás, és egyedüliként az IMF-hitelhez folyamodó államok közül, Magyarország előtörlesztette a Valutaalaptól 2008-ban felvett kölcsönt.
Emellett Magyarország azon kevés ország közé tartozik, amelyekben idén növekedett a bérek vásárlóértéke, emelkedett a nyugdíj, és csökkentek a közszolgáltatási díjak.
Meggyőződésem, hogy az Európai Unió hitelessége csak úgy szerezhető vissza, ha az intézmények az embereket érintő legfontosabb kérdésekkel foglalkoznak, és teret engednek a nemzeti megoldásoknak. A magyar polgárok eredményei a közösséget erősítik, ezért méltók Európa elismerésére. Európa tanulhat a magyar modellből.
Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), na piśmie. – Dane napływające z europejskiej gospodarki pokazują, że najgorszy okres kryzysu mamy już za sobą. Jednak ożywienie gospodarcze jest bardzo słabe i nie przekłada się na poprawę sytuacji na rynku pracy. Większość analityków jest zgodna co do tego, że niewielki wzrost gospodarczy, jaki nas czeka w najbliższych latach, nie spowoduje przyrostu ilości miejsc pracy. Nie możemy również zapominać, że te, które powstają, mają najczęściej charakter tymczasowy i są niskopłatne. UE potrzebuje więc nowej polityki przemysłowej. Działania sanacyjne ostatnich lat skoncentrowane były przede wszystkim na redukowaniu wydatków publicznych. Sytuacja na rynku pracy bardzo wyraźnie pokazuje, że działania te były może nie błędne, ale z pewnością zbyt jednostronne. Niezbędne staje się uzupełnienie ich inicjatywami wspierającymi tworzenie miejsc pracy, te zaś powinny zmierzać do ściągnięcia do Europy inwestycji przemysłowych. Nie możemy się oszukiwać, że nowe czy zielone technologie nie stworzą miejsc pracy dla wszystkich Europejczyków.
Powinniśmy wzorować się na Stanach Zjednoczonych, które coraz skuteczniej potrafią przekonać przedsiębiorców do inwestowania w Ameryce. Oczywiście miało na to wpływ obniżenie kosztów pracy i spadek cen surowców energetycznych, ale wsparte to było również aktywną postawą tamtejszych władz wszystkich szczebli. Wydaje się, że Europa powinna pójść w tym samym kierunku, aby poprawić sytuację na rynku pracy.
Filip Kaczmarek (PPE), na piśmie. – W Parlamencie Europejskim istnieje szeroka zgoda, że podstawowym problemem dzisiejszej Unii Europejskiej jest bezrobocie, a w szczególności bezrobocie wśród młodzieży. Dobrze, że UE próbuje zmniejszyć skalę bezrobocia. Nie zapominajmy jednak, że to ani państwo, ani organizacje międzynarodowe – generalnie – nie tworzą miejsc pracy. Powinniśmy zatem koncentrować się na tworzeniu warunków dla tych, którzy dzięki temu stworzą z kolei trwałe miejsca pracy. Możemy pomagać przedsiębiorcom w kreowaniu dobrobytu, ale nie próbujmy ich zastępować. Uważamy europejski model społeczno-ekonomiczny za najlepszy na świecie. Tak pewnie jest w rzeczywistości, choć musimy jednocześnie pamiętać, że model ten nie jest bytem idealnym. Trzeba go nieustannie doskonalić, poprawiać, a przede wszystkim dbać o gospodarkę, która jest prawdziwym i niezastępowalnym paliwem dla realizacji europejskiego modelu. Bez zdrowej gospodarki europejski model nie może i nie będzie funkcjonować prawidłowo.
Sandra Kalniete (PPE), rakstiski. – Es piekrītu Eiropas Komisijas prezidenta Žozē Manuela Barrozu teiktajam, ka dalībvalstis nedrīkst apstāties pie veiktajām reformām. Ir jāturpina iesāktais darbs, jo ekonomiskā izaugsme joprojām eiro zonā ir nepiedodami vāja. Ja dalībvalstis neturpinās reformas, tad šo patiešām varēs dēvēt par zudušo desmitgadi. Ir jāsaprot, ka pasaule mainās un Eiropas Savienībai ir jāspēj mainīties līdzi. Mēs redzam, ka šobrīd spēcīgākā ekonomiskā izaugsme ir tieši Ziemeļeiropas valstīs, kuras stingri ievēro fiskālo disciplīnu un veic nepieciešamās reformas, lai izdevumi būtu saskaņoti ar ieņēmumiem. Protams, ka daudziem var nepatikt Baltijas valstu un īpaši Latvijas minēšana kā piemērs, kuras valdība un cilvēki pašaizliedzīgi ir paveikuši milzīgu darbu, lai atjaunotu stabilu un ilgtspējīgu ekonomisko izaugsmi. Tomēr arī Dienvideiropas valstīm ir jāsaprot skarbā realitāte, ka nāksies pieņemt vēl virkni nepatīkamu lēmumu, lai nākotnē varētu saglabāt augsto dzīves līmeni. Esmu gandarīta, ka eiro zonā mēs redzam ekonomisko izaugsmi, un ceru, ka pēc gada mēs jau runāsim par daudz labākiem ekonomiskās izaugsmes un nodarbinātības rādītājiem.
Mitro Repo (S&D) ), kirjallinen. – Tosiasioiden tunnustaminen on viisauden alku. On anteeksiantamatonta antaa Eurooppa-projektin valua tuhkana tuuleen. Meidän on hyväksyttävä, että keskiverto eurooppalaisella on oikeus tuntea itsensä turhautuneeksi ja jopa petetyksi, mitä tulee viimeaikaiseen talouskriisin hoitoon eri vaiheissa ja eri instansseissa. Politiikka, joka antaa vastuuttomasti liian suuria lupauksia edes yrittämättä lunastaa niitä, ei voi johtaa kuin vararikkoon. Kymmenien huippukokouksien pitäminen, joitten jälkeen kansalaisille uudestaan ja uudestaan kerrotaan tehdyn historiallisia päätöksiä kriisin ratkaisuksi, ei voi olla uuvuttamatta rehellisimpääkin eurooppalaista. Ensikevään EP-vaalit, jotka ajoittuvat Kreikan puheenjohtajuuskaudelle, jolle joudutaan vielä antamaan kolmas avustuspaketti, tulevat olemaan kyllä kohtalokkaat. Vastakkain ei enää ole perinteinen oikeisto- ja vasemmistoleiri, vastakkain tulee olemaan euroskeptikot ja Eurooppa-myönteiset. Pelkään pahoin, että edelliset on paljon helpompi mobilisoida liikkeelle. Eurooppapolitiikkaa pitäisi tehdä niin, että kulloisiinkin vaaleihin valmistauduttaisiin koko vaalikauden ajan niin että jo toteutetulla politiikalla haetaan uudelleen vahvistusta alkuperäiselle visiolle. Uskon, että eurooppalaiset ovat poliittisesti kypsiä hahmottamaan myös suurempia strategiakokonaisuuksia. Se vaistoaa erittäin herkästi, jos siltä kätketään tosiasiat ja jos totuutta vääristellään. Tämä tarkoittaa sitä, että EU ansaitsee sellaiset johtajat, joilla on rohkeus tunnustaa virheensä ja puutteensa ja samalla kertoa selvästi, ymmärrettävästi ja rohkeasti oman visionsa Euroopasta ja sen toteutumisen mukana tuomat seuraukset ja riskit.
Czesław Adam Siekierski (PPE), na piśmie. – Odnosząc się do orędzia przewodniczącego Barroso należy podkreślić, że stan UE jest obecnie trudny do jednoznacznego określenia, co wynika z dużego uzależnienia Europy od sytuacji globalnej. Nadal brakuje jednoznacznie ukształtowanych unijnych instytucji w dziedzinie nadzoru bankowego. Bez wątpienia głównym atutem Unii jest wspólny rynek, ale nadal nie jest on w pełni ukończony, m.in. brak jest ciągle wspólnotowego rynku usług, a unia bankowa jest tworzona zbyt wolno. Zarządzanie gospodarcze w Europie często sprowadza się do „ręcznego sterowania”, a brakuje rozwiązań systemowych. Zadowalające jest bezpieczeństwo żywnościowe naszego kontynentu, ale rolnicy europejscy mają zbyt małe dochody; mamy coraz mniej młodych ludzi skłonnych przejmować gospodarstwa, przegrywamy konkurencję z importem żywności. Nasza działalność na zewnątrz jest ciągle zbyt mała i nieuporządkowana.
Przewodniczący nie odniósł się do wyników utworzonej niedawno Europejskiej Służby Działań Zewnętrznych. Można jednak zakładać, że wiele pozostaje do zrobienia w tym obszarze. Zabrakło również szerszego odniesienia do kwestii ograniczenia wieloletnich ram finansowych UE na lata 2014-2020, które po raz pierwszy w historii będą miały okrojony budżet. Jak te cięcia budżetowe mają się do faktu przyjęcia Chorwacji, strategii „Europa 2020” stawiającej przed nami ambitne plany? Jak chcemy likwidować wielkie różnice w rozwoju między krajami członkowskimi, regionami, czy po prostu między poziomem życia obywateli UE?
Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. – A crise económica e financeira que tem assolado o mundo colocou as instituições europeias no centro da solução para crise. A partir desta, a integração económica passou a ser um pilar da Estratégia UE2020 e os Estados-Membros estão agora mais próximos nas políticas económicas, monetárias e financeiras. Apesar de alguns progressos no crescimento económico, visíveis nos países europeus, estamos a enfrentar uma enorme crise social com 26 milhões de desempregados, na sua grande maioria jovens qualificados. Não podemos pedir mais sem criar um quadro de crescimento futuro. É, por isso, urgente aprovar o próximo quadro financeiro plurianual 2014-2020, pois será este a fonte de investimento de muitas regiões europeias. Temos que apoiar e facilitar o acesso ao financiamento europeu das PME, a base do mercado europeu. É preciso finalizar a união bancária, de forma a termos medidas preventivas e corretivas para uma crise futura semelhante à que vivemos hoje. Queremos mais Europa onde houver valor acrescentado. Queremos mais solidariedade quando as situações são negativas para uns Estados-membros e positivas para outros. Uma união política que permita que o processo decisório e institucional seja mais célere e eficaz.
Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. – Starea Uniunii trebuie analizată prin percepția şi încrederea celor 500 de milioane de cetățeni europeni în propriul viitor. Rata ocupării forței de muncă este de numai 68,4%, cheltuielile pentru cercetare şi dezvoltare sunt doar de 2,02% din produsul intern brut (PIB), 12,8% din populația cu vârsta între 18-24 ani a părăsit timpuriu școala și 119,8 milioane cetățeni europeni se află în pragul sărăciei sau a excluziunii sociale. Starea Uniunii nu se poate îmbunătăți dacă nu se investește în educație și în sănătate, în asigurarea de locuri de muncă decente şi în garantarea unei pensii decente. UE trebuie să își dezvolte o politică industrială capabilă să refacă industria europeană, într-o manieră eco-eficientă. Dezvoltarea industrială a UE trebuie acompaniată de măsuri de finanțare a economiei europene, astfel încât să se asigure atât locuri de muncă pe teritoriul UE, cât şi competitivitatea UE pe plan mondial. Este inadmisibil ca astăzi să existe încă bariere privind libera circulație a lucrătorilor, iar statele membre să se confrunte cu un regres față 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 și să asigure locuri de muncă pe teritoriul Uniunii.
Γεώργιος Τούσσας (GUE/NGL), in writing. – Η σημερινή ομιλία του προέδρου της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, δηλώνει την αποφασιστικότητα των μονοπωλίων και του πολιτικού τους προσωπικού να συνεχίσουν με την ίδια σφοδρότητα την αντιλαϊκή επίθεσή τους ενάντια στους εργαζόμενους, σε όλα τα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ. Είναι αλήθεια αυτό που δήλωσε ο πρόεδρος της Επιτροπής, ότι τα τελευταία χρόνια η ΕΕ, μαζί με το Ευρωκοινοβούλιο και τις αστικές κυβερνήσεις των κρατών μελών, πέτυχαν πολλά. Πράγματι. Στήριξαν και διασφάλισαν την κερδοφορία του κεφαλαίου, μειώνοντας δραστικά την τιμή της εργατικής δύναμης σε όλα τα κράτη μέλη της ΕΕ. Σ' αυτές τις "επιτυχίες" για το κεφάλαιο αναφέρεται ο πρόεδρος της Επιτροπής, όταν συγχαίρει την συγκυβέρνηση του κεφαλαίου ΝΔ-ΠΑΣΟΚ (όπως και τις προηγούμενες) για τις "εντυπωσιακές μεταρρυθμίσεις" που πραγματοποίησαν στην Ελλάδα "τα τελευταία τρία χρόνια". Πίσω από τις προπαγανδιστικές ενέσεις αισιοδοξίας, ενόψει των ευρωεκλογών, κρύβεται η ανησυχία του πολιτικού προσωπικού των μονοπωλίων για την χρεοκοπία της αντιλαϊκής πολιτικής της ΕΕ στις λαϊκές συνειδήσεις. Οι λαοί πρέπει να απορρίψουν το τραγικό παρόν και το εφιαλτικό μέλλον που τους επιφυλάσσει η ένωση των μονοπωλίων. Η δική τους ελπίδα βρίσκεται στην διάλυση της ΕΕ, την αποδέσμευση από τα δεσμά της λυκοσυμμαχίας, την οικοδόμηση της κοινωνικής συμμαχίας, για να περάσει η εξουσία από τα μονοπώλια στα χέρια της εργατικής τάξης."
Dominique Vlasto (PPE), par écrit. – Je me réjouis, Monsieur le Président, du ton de votre discours sur l'état de l'Union, qui tranche avec ceux de certains gouvernements qui clament depuis plusieurs mois que la crise est derrière nous! Effectivement, les signes de reprise sont là, poussent à l'optimisme, mais ne relâchons pas nos efforts! Le PPE soutient un mot d'ordre: la réponse, c'est plus d'Europe! Durant cette crise, l'Union a été un rempart, car qui sait dans quel état seraient nos économies si l'Europe n'avait pas réagi. Alors on peut regretter que la réaction ait parfois été faible, que les décisions pas toujours prises dans les temps ou que l'absence de coordination entre les politiques nationales ait gaspillé beaucoup d'énergie, mais les résultats sont là et les réformes en matière de supervision, d'assainissement des finances publiques et de convergence commencent à porter leurs fruits. Dans la plupart des pays membres, le chômage baisse et l'activité industrielle repart. Rien ne sera jamais plus comme avant, du moins faut-il l'espérer. Si l'Europe s'est dotée d'outils pour se prémunir contre toute rechute, il s'agit désormais de convaincre les Etats qui laissent filer la dette publique de faire des choix courageux.
Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – O Presidente da Comissão Europeia tentou mitificar o projeto da União Europeia, em tom de ode pouco triunfal, proclamando o projeto e os valores da União, a forma heroica como resistiu às adversidades e a necessidade de ser defendida. Mas porque temos que a defender? Porque a UE é um veículo para garantir às pessoas os seus direitos e uma vida digna? Não, pelo contrário. Temos que a defender porque é a União Europeia. Um projeto comum na retórica de Barroso, um projeto de criação de desigualdade, na realidade quotidiana dos trabalhadores. O discurso de Barroso foi, assim, vazio de conteúdo concreto e forte em mistificações abstratas que estão longe, bem longe, do mundo real. Barroso apostou também no argumento de que a mudança está aí, os sinais da retoma económica estão finalmente a aparecer depois dos nossos esforços. Portugal serviu de exemplo - o crescimento regressou ao país após uma série de trimestres negativos. A economia portuguesa, bem sabemos, não cresceu, o que aconteceu foi que o ritmo da recessão abrandou ligeiramente e circunstancialmente. Os portugueses vivem um drama social real, com perspetivas de se agravar através das medidas já anunciadas de despedimentos e cortes nas pensões. Mas a demagogia retórica de Barroso ignora o concreto.
Presidente. − L'ordine del giorno reca il turno di votazioni.
Avremo più di un'ora, vi prego la massima concentrazione. Se volete votazioni elettroniche, non esitate a chiederlo, però collaborazione massima.
Vi annuncio, come è stato già comunicato e deciso dalla Conferenza dei presidenti, che oggi non sono previste dichiarazioni di voto orali, ci saranno domani.
(Per i risultati delle votazioni e altri dettagli che le riguardano: vedasi processo verbale)
5.1. Endangered European languages and linguistic diversity (A7-0239/2013 - François Alfonsi) (vote)
- Prima della votazione:
François Alfonsi (Verts/ALE). - Madame la Présidente, la diversité culturelle – qui est l'objet de ce rapport – est une dimension essentielle de la construction européenne, affirmée par le traité de Lisbonne, qui demande que "l'Union contribue à l'épanouissement des cultures des États membres dans le respect de leur diversité nationale et régionale".
Aussi nos institutions se doivent-elles de réagir face à la menace de disparition qui pèse sur plusieurs dizaines de langues en Europe, selon les inventaires scientifiques établis par l'Unesco. Chaque fois qu'une langue disparaît, c'est un patrimoine européen qui disparaît. Ce rapport a donc pour ambition de relancer l'action sur ces questions, trop longtemps négligées.
Sa rédaction a impliqué différents groupes, ce qui a permis d'aboutir à un texte qui a recueilli l'unanimité des votes de la commission de la culture. Je compte sur tous les collègues ici présents pour confirmer ce vote en plénière.
Le Parlement européen pourra ainsi enclencher une dynamique nouvelle, porteuse d'espoir pour les dizaines de millions d'Européens qui possèdent en héritage une langue et une culture apprises de leurs aïeux et qui désirent pouvoir en assurer la transmission aux générations futures.
5.2. Parliament's rights in the appointment procedure of future executive directors of the European Environment Agency (A7-0264/2013 - Matthias Groote) (vote)
5.3. Draft amending budget No 2/2013 - Increase in forecasts concerning other revenue stemming from fines and penalties - Increase in payment appropriations (A7-0287/2013 - Giovanni La Via) (vote)
5.4. Draft amending budget No 3/2013 - Surplus resulting from the implementation of the budget year 2012 (A7-0284/2013 - Giovanni La Via) (vote)
5.5. Draft amending budget No 4/2013 - Staff of the European GNSS Agency - Staff of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) - Staff of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Rule 138) (A7-0285/2013 - Giovanni La Via, Derek Vaughan) (vote)
5.6. Mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund: flooding in Slovenia, Croatia and Austria in autumn 2012 (A7-0283/2013 - José Manuel Fernandes) (vote)
5.7. Draft amending budget No 5/2013 - Mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund following flooding in Slovenia, Croatia and Austria in 2012 (A7-0286/2013 - Giovanni La Via) (vote)
5.8. Fuel quality directive and renewable energy directive (A7-0279/2013 - Corinne Lepage) (vote)
- Prima della votazione:
Alejo Vidal-Quadras (PPE). - Madam President, just a warning in relation to the voting list of the PPE group. On Amendment 60, there is a separate vote in two parts. The first part, which is a roll-call vote, is marked as a key vote. The second part, which is also a roll-call vote, should also be a key vote; it is not marked as such on your voting list but the second part of Amendment 60 should also be a key vote.
- Prima della votazione sull'emendamento 186:
Corinne Lepage, rapporteure. − Je vous propose un amendement oral. Je vous propose la suppression du point d) de l'annexe IX, qui concerne les matières ligno-cellulosiques, à l'exception des grumes de sciage et de placage, pour les inclure dans la partie A de l'annexe IX. C'est très technique mais l'objectif est d'inclure les matières ligno-cellulosiques dans la liste des carburants avancés.
(L'emendamento orale è accolto)
- Prima della votazione finale:
Corinne Lepage, rapporteure. − Madame la Présidente, je voudrais vous proposer de reporter le vote de la résolution législative, conformément à l'article 57, paragraphe 2, et de me donner mandat de négociation.
Christa Klaß (PPE). - Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir haben hier einen so strittigen Bericht. Meine Fraktion möchte hier unbedingt in die zweite Lesung gehen, und ich bitte, diesem Vorschlag nicht zuzustimmen!
(Lebhafter Beifall)
(La richiesta di rinvio è respinta)
5.9. Measures for the recovery of European eel stocks (A7-0242/2013 - Isabella Lövin) (vote)
- Prima della votazione sull'emendamento 13:
Isabella Lövin, föredragande. − Herr talman! Jag skulle vilja ändra datumet i den artikeln, från 31 oktober till 31 december 2013, eftersom vi nu redan är i september. Det lite för kort tid för kommissionen att komma med en ny utvärdering.
(l'emendamento orale è accolto)
5.10. Union Customs Code (A7-0006/2013 - Constance Le Grip) (vote)
5.11. Collection of accountancy data on the incomes and business operation of agricultural holdings (A7-0179/2012 - Giancarlo Scottà) (vote)
5.12. Amendment of food safety directives as regards the powers to be conferred on the Commission (A7-0045/2013 - Matthias Groote) (vote)
- Prima della votazione:
Matthias Groote, Berichterstatter. − Frau Präsidentin, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich möchte keinen vom Mittagessen abhalten, aber bevor wir mittagessen können, müssen wir uns die fünf Frühstücksrichtlinien abstimmen.
Und da haben wir eine Einigung mit dem Rat erzielt. Das Parlament – sprich der ENVI-Ausschuss – hat aber Wert darauf gelegt, dass die geänderten Rechtstexte auch veröffentlicht werden. Bisher liegt uns noch keine Mitteilung der Kommission vor. Aber informell haben wir vom Amt für Veröffentlichungen eine Mitteilung bekommen, dass dies binnen eines Monats stattfinden soll. Das war einigen Kollegen wichtig. Das möchte ich noch einmal kundtun. Und dann können wir über diesen Bericht abstimmen.
5.13. Amendment of Directive 2011/92/EU on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (A7-0277/2013 - Andrea Zanoni) (vote)
- Prima della votazione:
Νικόλαος Χουντής (GUE/NGL). - Κυρία Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, η Ομάδα μου στη Διάσκεψη των Προέδρων είχε προτείνει να τεθεί αυτό το θέμα και να προβούμε σε ψηφοφορία αφού συζητήσουμε. Το θέμα, όπως ξέρετε, είναι πάρα πολύ σοβαρό. Ως συντάκτης της γνωμοδότησης της Επιτροπής Αναφορών επισημαίνω ότι, σύμφωνα με τα στοιχεία μας, το 85% των αναφορών έχουν σχέση με το ζήτημα που συζητάμε, δηλαδή με τις δυσμενείς περιβαλλοντικές επιπτώσεις δημοσίων και ιδιωτικών έργων. Η Επιτροπή Αναφορών δούλεψε με πάρα πολλή σοβαρότητα και θα ήθελε να ακουστεί η άποψή της. Δυστυχώς όμως το θέμα εισήχθη χωρίς τη σχετική συζήτηση.
Κατόπιν τούτου, κυρία Πρόεδρε, αγαπητοί συνάδελφοι, προτείνω: αν είναι να γίνει συζήτηση για να ακούσουμε και τη γνώμη της Επιτροπής και να μπορέσει και το Κοινοβούλιο να τοποθετηθεί υπεύθυνα σε πολύ κρίσιμες ρυθμίσεις, για τις οποίες ξέρω πάρα πολύ καλά ότι ασκούνται πιέσεις προς τη μία ή την άλλη κατεύθυνση, προτείνω να εξετασθεί το θέμα στην Ολομέλεια του Οκτωβρίου με συζήτηση και ψηφοφορία, με την προϋπόθεση ότι θα γίνει συζήτηση ουσιαστική. Σας ανέφερα τους λόγους.
(La votazione è rinviata)
5.14. EU-Cape Verde agreement on facilitating the issue of short-stay visas to citizens of the Republic of Cape Verde and of the EU (A7-0266/2013 - Mariya Gabriel) (vote)
5.15. EU-Cape Verde agreement on the readmission of persons residing without authorisation (A7-0267/2013 - Mariya Gabriel) (vote)
5.16. Implementation of the EU youth strategy 2010-2012 (A7-0238/2013 - Georgios Papanikolaou) (vote)
5.17. Tackling youth unemployment: possible ways out (A7-0275/2013 - Joanna Katarzyna Skrzydlewska) (vote)
5.18. Internal market for services (A7-0273/2013 - Anna Maria Corazza Bildt) (vote)
- Prima della votazione:
Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, rapporteur. − Madam President, I would like to appeal to all colleagues to vote responsibly in favour of the Services Directive. A vote against would be a vote against jobs in Europe. We went the extra mile to take into account all the concerns expressed by the Social Democrats on the social dimension that are fully covered by the Treaty and in the Services Directive.
- Dopo la votazione:
Anna Maria Corazza Bildt, föredragande. − Fru talman! Jag beklagar att den rödgröna gruppen har röstat emot betänkandet. Det är en oansvarig och jobbfientlig linje, så jag beklagar det jättemycket.
Evelyne Gebhardt (S&D). - Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir können als Sozialdemokraten auf keinen Fall einem Bericht zustimmen, in dem die soziale Dimension der Dienstleistungen negiert wird. Und ich weise das zurück, was Frau Corazza Bildt gesagt hat.
(Lebhafter Beifall)
5.19. Negotiations for an EU-Malaysia partnership and cooperation agreement (A7-0235/2013 - Emilio Menéndez del Valle) (vote)
Presidente. − Con questo si conclude il turno di votazioni.
6. Explanations of vote
6.1. Endangered European languages and linguistic diversity (A7-0239/2013 - François Alfonsi)
Dichiarazioni di voto scritte
Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report, because it recognises that linguistic diversity is an essential part of European cultural heritage, and because it calls on us to be attentive to discrimination against small and/or vulnerable languages. However, the EU institutions should set an example in their call to preserve languages, by ensuring that official EU languages can be used at least within its own premises. As an official EU language, Maltese interpretation should be available not only for plenary sessions, but also during committee meetings.
Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente relatório, tendo em conta que existe um crescente número de línguas em risco de extinção, sendo necessário avaliar a situação destas línguas a aumentar a consciência a nível europeu sobre as implicações do desaparecimento e a necessidade de as reativar de modo a prevenir seu desaparecimento e preservar a sua riqueza na nossa sociedade. A meu ver, a promoção das línguas da União, bem como daquelas que estão em risco de extinção, é um desafio vital que a Europa tem de enfrentar para um verdadeiro futuro, de modo a promover a sua riqueza e angariar novos clientes à volta de sua herança, principalmente nas gerações mais jovens.
Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL), in writing. - I voted in favour of this report and hope that the commission and member states heed the advice of Mr Alfonsi and do much more to preserve, protect and promote regional and minority languages.
However, I would like to point out something startling: while we vote to protect and promote minority languages, the EU has still not fulfilled its obligations and has still not afforded the Irish language, supposedly an official language of this Union, equal status to its counterparts.
According to the Parliament’s own report voted earlier this week, Irish is used more than three other languages which have full interpretation and translation services at their disposal. I sincerely hope to see a strategic approach to rectifying this, so that all languages are treated equally.
Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – La diversité linguistique est au cœur du projet européen. Il me semble essentiel que les langues européennes soient promues et développées car elles représentent une richesse inestimable. Cependant, la mise en valeur des langues ne doit en aucun cas devenir une source potentielle de conflit entre les peuples européens ou renforcer les tendances séparatistes de certaines régions européennes. En effet, la paix et la stabilité des frontières font partie des plus grands acquis de l’Union européenne, il faut à tout prix les conserver. C’est la raison pour laquelle j’ai préféré m’abstenir sur ce rapport.
Zoltán Bagó (PPE), írásban. - Megszavaztam a CULT Bizottság saját kezdeményezésű jelentését. Egyetértek azzal, hogy az Európai Unió egyik alapelve a nyelvi és kulturális sokszínűség, illetve értékét és méltóságát tekintve Európa valamennyi nyelve egyenlő. A jelentés rávilágít arra is, hogy a tagállamok hivatalos nyelvei is lehetnek az Unió különböző területein veszélyeztetett nyelvek.
Különösen támogatom azon pontot a jelentésben, mely szerint az Európai Parlament felkéri a tagállamok kormányait, hogy ítéljék el azokat a gyakorlatokat, melyek nyelvi diszkriminációt okoznak és erőltetett vagy rejtett asszimilációt. Egyetértek azzal is, hogy a periférikus helyzetbe jutott és jobbára a családi nyelvhasználat zárt körébe szorult nyelvek élvezhessék a nyilvános társadalmi nyelvhasználat jogait.
Végül a legfontosabb megállapításnak tartom, hogy a Bizottság fordítson figyelmet arra, hogy néhány tagállam és régió politikájával veszélybe sodorja a határain belüli nyelvek túlélését még akkor is, ha ezek a nyelvek európai szinten nincsenek is veszélyben.
Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį siūlymą dėl Europos kalbų išnykimo grėsmės ir kalbų įvairovės, kurio tikslas – saugoti ir skatinti visą Europos Sąjungos kultūrų bei kalbų paveldą. Pritariu išdėstytiems siūlymams rengti kalbų, kurioms gresia išnykimas, puoselėjimo veiksmų planus, įgyvendinti Europos regioninių arba mažumų kalbų chartiją bei rengti programas, kuriomis būtų skatinama tolerancija nykstančioms kalbinėms ar etninėms bendruomenėms, pagarba jų kalbos ir kultūros vertybėms bei visuomenės pagarba šioms bendruomenėms. Taip pat svarbu stiprinti visų amžiaus grupių studentams skirtą kalbų, kurioms gresia išnykimas, mokymą pasitelkiant atitinkamas metodikas, įskaitant nuotolinį mokymąsi, daugiau dėmesio skirti su kalbomis susijusio aukštojo mokslo studijoms ir moksliniams tyrimams ir juos remti. Tuo pačiu svarbu bendradarbiauti su tarptautinėmis organizacijomis, tokiomis kaip UNESCO, kurios įgyvendina kalbų, kurioms gresia išnykimas, apsaugos ir skatinimo programas ir iniciatyvas.
Francesca Barracciu (S&D), per iscritto. − La lingua sarda è certamente una delle più antiche lingue europee cui si riferisce questa relazione. E la tutela delle lingue a rischio di estinzione e della diversità linguistica deve essere una priorità dell'Unione. Non soltanto per il loro evidente valore culturale, in quanto racchiudono secoli di storia, o perché sono il cardine del sentimento identitario delle comunità locali su cui si fonda l'Unione. Vi sono anche ragioni pedagogiche ed economiche che motivano questa scelta. È dimostrato, infatti, che i bambini bilingui hanno maggiore facilità nell'apprendimento di ulteriori lingue rispetto ai monolingui. Poiché nel mercato del lavoro europeo ci sarà una domanda sempre maggiore di lavoratori poliglotti, ritengo che la difesa della diversità linguistica sia la giusta strada per assicurare maggiori opportunità lavorative ai nostri giovani. Accolgo con favore questa relazione, ma approfitto per rammaricarmi della mancata ratifica da parte dell'Italia della Carta europea delle lingue regionali e minoritarie, giacché una politica non sufficientemente incisiva in questo ambito può arrecare un danno notevole alle comunità etniche locali e all'Unione nel complesso e spero che anche la Commissione faccia sentire la sua voce in materia.
Regina Bastos (PPE), por escrito. − A diversidade linguística e cultural é um dos princípios basilares da União Europeia, consagrado na Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais na qual se afirma que a União respeitará a diversidade cultural, religiosa e linguística. As línguas ameaçadas de extinção devem ser entendidas como parte integrante do património cultural europeu e não um veículo para as aspirações políticas, étnicas ou territoriais. Todas as línguas, incluindo as que se encontram ameaçadas de extinção, refletem conhecimentos e saberes históricos, sociais e culturais. Nesse sentido, os Estados-Membros que ainda não o fizeram deverão ratificar e aplicar a Carta Europeia das Línguas Regionais ou Minoritárias, prestar uma atenção redobrada e apoiar a prossecução de estudos superiores e a investigação, com especial destaque para as línguas ameaçadas. A Comissão Europeia deverá propor medidas concretas para a proteção das línguas ameaçadas, assim como apoiar a investigação em matéria de aquisição e revitalização das línguas ameaçadas. Pelo exposto, apoiei o presente relatório.
Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), par écrit. – Ce Mercredi 11 septembre, j’ai soutenu et approuvé le rapport de mon collègue et ami, François Alfonsi, sur l’urgence à relancer concrètement les dispositifs d’aide au multilinguisme. Notre patrimoine culturel et linguistique est une richesse inestimable, et alors que de nombreuses langues s’éteignent de par le monde, mais aussi en Europe, il est de notre responsabilité d’inverser durablement la tendance. L’Europe, notamment depuis les années 2000, s’est profondément endormie. La mise en sommeil de la plupart des programmes consacrés à la promotion des langues minoritaires fut une faute considérable. Programmes culturels, mobilité étudiante type Erasmus, Fonds social européen, FEDER…, les leviers existent et des fléchages peuvent et doivent être ciblés sur cet objectif commun notamment vers les plus jeunes qui détiennent dans leurs mains les clés de la diversité culturelle européenne. Alors que 16 États membres ont d’ores et déjà ratifié la Charte européenne des langues régionales et minoritaires du Conseil de l’Europe, il est une nouvelle fois très triste de constater le silence des autorités françaises sur ce dossier en dépit des promesses tenues et répétées dans le passé récent.
Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Ho votato a favore della relazione Alfonsi che ha affronta il tema delle lingue in pericolo e della diversità linguistica. Il testo, molto equilibrato, s’inspira a un principio che condivido pienamente: la Commissione europea deve creare programmi e fondi specifici per sostenere le lingue regionali che svolgono un ruolo decisivo nella trasmissione e nella tutela di tradizioni e culture che diversamente rischiano di scomparire.
Vilija Blinkevičiūtė (S&D), raštu.− Balsavau dėl šio pranešimo, kadangi reikėtų skirti ypatingą dėmesį toms kalboms, kurioms gresia išnykimas, pripažįstant kultūrų įvairovę ir daugiakalbystę. Kalbų, kurioms gresia išnykimas, kategorijai taip pat priskiriamos kalbos, kurioms toks pavojus gresia tik tam tikroje teritorijoje, kurioje jomis kalbančių bendruomenės asmenų skaičius labai mažėja, taip pat tos kalbos, kai kelis kartus iš eilės atlikus surašymus iš statistinių duomenų matyti, kad tam tikra kalba kalbančių asmenų skaičius smarkiai sumažėjo. Taigi Europos Parlamentas ragina Europos Sąjungą ir valstybes nares daugiau dėmesio skirti nykstančioms kalboms ir įsipareigoti saugoti bei skatinti unikalią Sąjungos kalbų ir kultūrų paveldo įvairovę. Be to, svarbu ugdyti didesnį ES piliečių sąmoningumą šių bendruomenių kalbų ir kultūrų turtingumo klausimais. Valstybės narės turėtų rengti kalbų, kurioms gresia išnykimas, puoselėjimo veiksmų planus, remdamosi bendra gerąja patirtimi, kurios jau esama keliose Europos kalbinėse bendruomenėse. Parlamentas taip pat ragina Komisiją apsvarstyti konkrečių priemonių, susijusių su kalbų, kurioms gresia išnykimas, apsauga, išsaugojimu ir skatinimu, įgyvendinimo ES mastu galimybes.
Philippe Boulland (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté pour ce rapport qui appelle l'UE à engager sans réserve une politique de protection et de promotion des langues en danger afin de préserver la diversité du patrimoine linguistique et culturel européen. Nous avons aussi soutenu une politique linguistique qui permettrait aux enfants d'acquérir deux langues maternelles dès le plus jeune âge. La devise de l'UE était "Unis dans la diversité", il était important de s'engager dans la protection de notre héritage culturel, puisque ce sont nos différences qui font notre richesse.
Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), na piśmie. − W głosowaniu opowiedziałem się za sprawozdaniem posła François Alfonsi dotyczącym ochrony zagrożonych języków europejskich oraz utrzymaniem różnorodności językowej na obszarze całej Unii Europejskiej. Dokument ten zakłada podjęcie działań w celu zagwarantowania ochrony zagrożonych języków europejskich. Działania przedstawione w sprawozdaniu mają skupiać się m. in. na: finansowaniu programów ochrony języków, walce z dyskryminacją ze względu na język i przynależność do mniejszości etnicznej, promowaniu wielojęzyczności, jak i zapewnieniu trwałości języka poprzez zachęcanie do wychowania dzieci w sposób umożliwiający im przyswajanie zagrożonego języka jako języka ojczystego.
Obecne rozwiązania prawne nie regulują kwestii ochrony języków w wystarczający sposób. Stanowi to jedną z przyczyn ich zanikania, co w konsekwencji prowadzi do zamierania kultur całych obszarów językowych. Wierzę, że doprecyzowanie kwestii języków zagrożonych przełoży się na się na ich zachowanie, a tym samym na utrzymanie różnorodności językowej i kulturowej, która jestjedną z zasad Unii Europejskiej.
John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − Against. As a Welsh MEP I am hugely supportive of Welsh and other minority languages across Europe, however, I do not feel that at this time taxpayers should be carrying any additional burdens. Having examined the motion, I voted against the report on the basis of the potential costs involved.
Alain Cadec (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur du rapport Alfonsi qui émet des recommandations pour la protection de la diversité linguistique et, par cela même, culturelle en Europe. J'ai toujours considéré que cette diversité est le reflet de la démocratie européenne. L'attention concrète portée par le rapporteur aux langues menacées de disparition, et donc à la préservation de ce pluralisme, est consubstantielle à l'idée d'égalité européenne. En ce sens, j'invite les États-membres de l'Union à promouvoir une intense politique linguistique et, pour ceux qui ne l'ont pas encore fait, à ratifier la Charte européenne de la diversité culturelle.
Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − Voto favoravelmente neste relatório porque considero que todas as línguas, incluindo as que se encontram ameaçadas de extinção, refletem conhecimentos e saberes históricos, sociais e culturais, bem como uma mentalidade e um tipo de criatividade que integram a riqueza e a diversidade da União Europeia e a base da identidade europeia. Considero, por conseguinte, que a diversidade linguística e a presença de línguas ameaçadas de extinção num país devem ser encaradas como uma mais-valia, e não como um fardo, razão por que devem ser apoiadas e promovidas.
Joseph Cuschieri (S&D), bil-miktub. − Il-Parlament Ewropew approva rapport li jitratta d-diversità lingwistika u l-lingwi Ewropej li huma fil-periklu. L-iskop ta’ dan ir-rapport hu li nsibu l-mezzi kif nużaw din id-diversità fl-interess tal-popli Ewropej filwaqt li nistimulaw attività, interess u innovazzjoni f’lingwi li huma inqas użati.
Ta' spiss għamilt enfasi fuq l-importanza tad-diversità lingwistika. Bħad-diversità fin-natura, id-diversità fil-lingwi u l-kulturi Ewropej hi parti importanti mill-wirt ħaj li jsostni l-iżvilupp sostenibbli tas-soċjetajiet tagħna u għalhekk għandhom ikunu salvagwardjati sabiex jibqgħu b’saħħithom fostna. Id-diversità fil-lingwi ssaħħaħ il-wirt kulturali fil-livell lokali, reġjonali u nazzjonali iżda hi wkoll valur intrinsiku Ewropew li jeħtieġ nagħrfu u nużaw tajjeb sabiex noħolqu opportunitajiet għalina u għall-ġenerazzjonijiet futuri. L-għarfien tal-lingwi jkabbar l-opportunitajiet ta’ xogħol għal kulħadd. Il-promozzjoni tal-lingwi kollha fl-Unjoni Ewropea, kemm dawk stabbiliti kif ukoll dawk fil-periklu, hi sfida importanti għalina. Il-lingwi jikkonfermaw l-għeruq tal-kultura Ewropea u tajjeb li dan l-għarfien ikun mifrux speċjalment fost iż-żgħażagħ biex b'hekk niddefendu dak li sawwar l-Ewropa mal-milja tas-sekli. Il-politika tal-Unjoni Ewropea dwar il-multilingwiżmu tinsisti dwar l-importanza li ċ-ċittadini Ewropej jitkellmu żewġ lingwi oħra minbarra l-lingwa materna tagħhom. Din hija sfida ambizzjuza. Għandna niffaċilitaw l-iskambji u l-opportunitajiet għall-istudenti tagħna biex jitgħallmu lingwi ġodda. Din l-opportunità għal ġenerazzjonijiet futuri żżid l-opportunitajiet ta' impjiegi u fl-istess ħin issaħaħ l-ekonomiji tagħna.
Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), în scris. − Diversitatea lingvistică și culturală constituie unul dintre principiile fundamentale ale Uniunii Europene, consfințit la articolul 22 din Carta drepturilor fundamentale: „Uniunea respectă diversitatea culturală, religioasă și lingvistică”. Deoarece decesul ultimului vorbitor al unei limbi echivalează, de regulă, cu dispariția limbii respective, consider că în mod deosebit autoritățile locale trebuie să adopte în acest sens măsuri de redresare, care pot schimba această situație.
Michel Dantin (PPE), par écrit. – Ce texte est généreux et contribue à soutenir une part du patrimoine culturel. La langue fait l'identité d'un peuple. C'est la raison pour laquelle les pères fondateurs de l'Europe ont préservé le multilinguisme en Europe, mais c'est aussi la raison pour laquelle la constitution française de la Cinquième République a doté la France d'une langue officielle. Je me suis abstenu.
Tamás Deutsch (PPE), írásban. − Már a Lisszaboni Szerződésben is kiemelt fontossággal szerepelt a tagállamok kulturális értékeinek megőrzése, tiszteletben tartva a nemzeti és regionális sokszínűséget. Napjainkban világszerte több száz nyelv hal ki, és Európában is vannak olyan nyelvek, melyeket már csak nagyon kevesen beszélnek. Ezek a nyelvek az európai kulturális örökség részét képezik.
Nem csak az a feladatunk tehát, hogy elismerjük ezeket a nyelveket, hanem hogy a tagállamok elkötelezzék magukat a nyelvi örökség gazdagságának megőrzése és megóvása mellett. A nyelvhasználat tekintetében pedig a közügyek intézése során ezen kihalással fenyegetett nyelveket beszélő egyének is egyenlő bánásmódban részesüljenek.
Üdvözlöm továbbá a veszélyeztetett nyelvek megmentésére nyújtott uniós támogatásokat, valamint az ilyen nyelvek szerepének erősítését szolgáló erőfeszítéseket a különböző tagállami oktatási rendszerekben és a helyi médiában.
Herbert Dorfmann (PPE), schriftlich. − Ich unterstütze den mit großer Mehrheit beschlossenen Bericht des Kollegen Alfonsi über den Schutz der vom Aussterben bedrohten Sprachen in Europa. Sprachen können, wenn sie nicht mehr zwischen den Generationen weitergegeben werden, der Gebrauch aus dem privaten oder öffentlichen Raum verbannt wird oder es an Lernunterlagen fehlt, aussterben. In meinen Abänderungsanträgen habe ich klar gemacht, dass wir von der Europäischen Kommission und den Mitgliedstaaten in der neuen Finanzperiode 2014-2020 dazu konkrete Maßnahmen verlangen. Weiters wollen wir die Ratifizierung der Charta der Regional- und Minderheitensprachen vorantreiben. Einige Mitgliedstaaten – allen voran Italien und Frankreich – haben die Charta aus dem Jahr 1992, die als Gradmesser für den Schutz von Minderheitensprachen gilt, noch nicht ratifiziert. Das Beispiel der ladinischen Sprache in meiner Heimatregion zeigt deutlich, dass Sprache nur dann eine Chance hat, wenn sie gezielt gefördert wird. Während es in Südtirol gelungen ist, das Ladinische lebendig zu halten, verschwindet es im ladinischen Teil von Belluno, wo nichts dafür getan wird, zunehmend.
Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − A diversidade linguística é parte do património europeu, como tal, deve ser preservada e promovida. Todas as pessoas têm o direito inalienável de falar a sua própria língua e cada uma é um conjunto separado de conhecimento histórico, social e cultural, bem como uma experiência humana. No entanto, um grande número de línguas faladas na Europa está seriamente ameaçado e algumas delas podem desaparecer neste século. A língua pode estar ameaçada por vários motivos, entre eles a dificuldade de transmissão da língua entre as gerações, a redução do número de falantes ou facto de uma língua estar circunscrita a um espaço geográfico reduzido e/ ou remoto. Por isso mesmo, defendo que todas as línguas europeias devem ser usadas, preservadas e promovidas, tal como se faz nesta casa.
José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − A diversidade linguística e cultural é um dos princípios basilares da União Europeia, consagrado no artigo 22.º da Carta dos Direitos Fundamentais, no qual se afirma que a União respeitará a diversidade cultural, religiosa e linguística. Todas as línguas da Europa são iguais em valor e dignidade e são parte integrante das respetivas culturas e civilizações, contribuindo para o enriquecimento da humanidade. As sociedades multilingues coesas que gerem a sua diversidade linguística de forma democrática e sustentável contribuem para a pluralidade, são mais abertas e apresentam melhores condições para integrarem a riqueza representada pela diversidade linguística. Todas as línguas, incluindo as que se encontram ameaçadas de extinção, refletem conhecimentos e saberes históricos, sociais e culturais, bem como uma mentalidade e um tipo de criatividade, que integram a riqueza e a diversidade da União Europeia e a base da identidade europeia. Por isso, apoio este relatório e exorto a União Europeia e os Estados-Membros a tomarem maior consciência da extrema ameaça que paira sobre o futuro de muitas línguas da Europa, classificadas como línguas em perigo, e a se comprometerem de forma empenhada na criação de uma política de salvaguarda e de fomento da diversidade ímpar do património linguístico e cultural da União.
Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne − Lisabonská zmluva vyslovuje podporu kultúrnemu a jazykovému dedičstvu Európskej únii v celej jeho rozmanitosti. Ohrozené jazyky by mali byť považované za súčasť európskeho kultúrneho dedičstva a nemali by byť nástrojom politických, etnických alebo územných ambícií. Som presvedčená, že všetky jazyky Európy sú neoddeliteľnou súčasťou európskych kultúr a civilizácií a prispievajú k obohateniu ľudstva ako celku. I preto sa v tomto kontexte domnievam, že je nesmierne dôležité, aby európske inštitúcie, ale tiež vlády a regionálne orgány členských štátov zaviedli programy na podporu tolerancie ohrozených jazykových alebo etnických spoločenstiev, rešpektovania ich jazykových a kultúrnych hodnôt a rešpektovania týchto jednotlivých spoločenstiev.
Lorenzo Fontana (EFD), per iscritto. − Con questa relazione s'invita la Commissione e il Consiglio a prevedere dei programmi e dei fondi specifici per sostenere le lingue in pericolo e la diversità linguistica dell'Unione. Altri contenuti che ritengo essere di particolare interesse sono: i principi di non discriminazione delle lingue regionali e l'importanza della loro sopravvivenza. Esprimo voto favorevole a questo testo in quanto dimostra quanto sia importante tutelare la cultura di una lingua.
Gaston Franco (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce texte. En effet, pour moi, les langues régionales sont une richesse en Europe, et peuvent dès le plus jeune âge permettre le bilinguisme et ainsi préparer les jeunes générations à l'apprentissage des langues. Il est important que les autorités locales et les populations sauvegardent ce patrimoine. Cependant, le texte est un rapport d'initiative, c'est pour cela que j'ai voté en faveur de l'intégralité du texte. Je ne suis pas favorable à la ratification par les États de la Charte des langues régionales et minoritaires qui peut être un facteur de communautarisme et de division au sein des États membres. Les États membres ont des traditions linguistiques qu'ils ont construites à travers l'histoire et qu'ils se doivent de conserver ou de faire évoluer à la lumière de leur destinée et non d'une cour administrative.
Mariya Gabriel (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce rapport car la diversité linguistique constitue un trésor du patrimoine européen qui doit être préservé. Le rapport a le mérite de proposer un certain nombre de mesures concrètes pour protéger les langues menacées de disparition dont le potentiel des nouveaux médias, de la numérisation des documents, en privilégiant les jeunes générations. La diversité linguistique est une richesse pour tous les citoyens européens, et c'est aussi s'engageant pour défendre ces trésors symboliques car l'Union européenne n'est pas qu'un grand marché. La diversité linguistique doit servir de levier à l'affirmation de l'identité européenne vis-à-vis du reste du monde, tout en veillant à ne pas désunir en son sein. Il s'agit-là du respect envers chacun mais aussi du respect envers notre culture européenne commune.
Kinga Gál (PPE), írásban. − A mai napon örömmel támogattam szavazatommal a veszélyeztetett nyelvekre vonatkozó európai parlamenti határozatot. Regionális, kisebbségi vagy veszélyeztetett nyelveket érintő jelentést 2003 óta nem fogadott el az EP, ezért is fontos a mai, nagy többséggel elfogadott határozat.
A jelentéshez leadott és megszavazott módosítóimban – amelyet számos esetben a kisebbségi magyar nyelvhasználatra, ezen belül is a csángók magyar nyelvhasználatára való tekintettel nyújtottam be – rámutattam arra, hogy az országoknak nem teherként, hanem értékként és lehetőségként kellene tekinteniük a területükön beszélt összes nyelvre.
Fontosnak tartottam kiemelni azt is, hogy egy nyelv egy bizonyos területet érintően is lehet veszélyeztetett, amennyiben az adott nyelv a területen történelmileg beszélt nyelvnek számított; ezért is fontos a népszámlálási adatok nyomon követése e tekintetben.
Továbbá a média és az új technológiák szerepének hangsúlyozását tartottam elhagyhatatlannak, hiszen ezek és ezek támogatása komoly szerepet játszhat a veszélyeztetett nyelvek fennmaradásában, megőrzésében, illetve a generációk közötti átörökítésben.
Az UNESCO adatai alapján az Európai Unióban több mint 100 veszélyeztetett nyelvet tartanak számon. Az Európai Uniónak és tagországainak külön-külön és együtt is kötelességük e nyelvek támogatása, megőrizve ezzel a nyelvi sokszínűségben rejlő értékeket. Amennyiben nem történik változás ezen a területen, további kisebbségi nyelvek és közösségek válhatnak veszélyeztetetté, ezért is fontos a közös cselekvés.
Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), per iscritto. − Questa relazione va - sul piano culturale - nella giusta direzione. La ricchezza dell'Unione sta nella varietà delle sue espressioni culturali e spetta a noi preservare questa ricchezza che è parte di una più grande identità europea. Sappiamo bene che purtroppo un buon numero di lingue parlate nell'EU risulta in pericolo, tanto che alcune di esse rischiano di scomparire nell'arco di questo secolo. È importante dunque che gli organismi dell’UE agiscano proprio per promuovere e salvaguardare questi giacimenti culturali. Un’azione che non deve essere attuata solo per il tramite dell’Unione ma, anzitutto, di politiche dedicate da parte degli Stati membri.
Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), par écrit. – Comme une immense majorité des députés européens, j'ai voté pour ce rapport. Ce texte fait suite au travail collectif, pendant tout le mandat, des députés de l'intergroupe "Langues minoritaires", dont je suis membre active. J'ai voté pour ce rapport car il prône une approche patrimoniale de la question des langues européennes menacées de disparition et de la diversité linguistique en Europe. Une langue est un patrimoine européen. Quand elle disparaît, le patrimoine européen est atteint. Or l'article 3, paragraphe 3, du Traité sur l'Union européenne affirme que l'UE "respecte la richesse de sa diversité culturelle et linguistique, et veille à la sauvegarde et au développement du patrimoine culturel européen." Il en va donc de la responsabilité de l'UE de préserver ses langues. Par ailleurs, le rapport appelle tous les États membres à ratifier la Charte européenne des langues régionales (seuls 16 l'ont fait). Il demande aussi des mesures concrètes à la Commission européenne pour la protection des langues menacées de disparition, et notamment plus de soutiens financiers. Ce texte est donc un pas en avant et un message clair du Parlement européen aux États membres, et notamment à la France qui doit ratifier la Charte sur les langues !
Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE), par écrit. – Je soutiens fermement ce rapport sur les "langues menacées et la diversité linguistique en Europe" car il y a urgence à relancer les aides aux langues régionales et au multilinguisme. Adopté à une très large majorité des députés, ce rapport vise à soutenir le patrimoine linguistique européen, aujourd'hui particulièrement menacé. Nous avons, en France, en Europe, un patrimoine culturel exceptionnellement riche qu'il faut promouvoir. Les langues régionales sont des éléments phares de cette richesse et ces langues sont aujourd'hui en train de s'éteindre, parce que les pouvoirs publics les ont trop longtemps négligées. Ce rapport va dans le bon sens.
Mathieu Grosch (PPE), schriftlich. − Die Sprachen und Kulturen sind Grundlage der föderalen Struktur Belgiens. Gerade diese Vielfalt und der Respekt der verschiedenen Kulturen kann der Reichtum Belgiens sein und Alleinstellungsmerkmal Europas. Dass gewisse Sprachen im internationalen Kontakt oder z. B. im Austausch von Forschung wichtig sind, steht keineswegs im Widerspruch zu Pflege und Anerkennung besonders von Sprachen von Minoritäten. Hier liegt nicht nur ihre Geschichte, sondern die Grundlage des Verständnisses, das man von einer Region und Kultur erhalten kann.
Sprachkenntnis kann integrierend wirken, hat demokratischen Mehrwert und birgt sogar wirtschaftliche Vorteile. Aus diesen Gründen unterstütze ich diesen Initiativbericht.
Françoise Grossetête (PPE), par écrit. - J'ai voté contre ce rapport d'initiative qui appelle à ratifier la Charte européenne des langues régionales et minoritaires. Les conséquences d'une ratification seraient en effet contraires aux objectifs louables de la promotion de la richesse du patrimoine français et de la diversité culturelle de ses régions.
Une fois la Charte ratifiée, tout citoyen parlant une langue minoritaire reconnue comme telle par le pays signataire sera en droit de saisir la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme pour se faire traduire les textes de loi et bénéficier de documents administratifs dans sa langue. Cela créerait une véritable usine à gaz!
La France ne reconnaît pas en son sein l’existence de minorités disposant en tant que telles de droits collectifs opposables dans son ordre juridique. Elle considère que l’application des droits de l’homme à tous les ressortissants d’un État, dans l’égalité et la non-discrimination, apporte normalement à ceux-ci, quelle que soit leur situation, la protection pleine et entière à laquelle ils peuvent prétendre. La ratification de la Charte est enfin contraire à la Constitution française qui précise dans son article 2 que "La langue de la République est le français".
Brice Hortefeux (PPE), par écrit. – La diversité des langues contribue à l'enrichissement des cultures et je défends bien entendu ce principe. Shakespeare, Goethe ou Voltaire n'auraient jamais si bien exprimé leur pensée s'ils avaient dû la restituer dans un autre langage. J'estime également que les langues régionales et les langues minoritaires font partie de ce patrimoine linguistique que nous devons protéger et conserver. Cependant, je suis un légaliste et ne souhaite donc pas qu'un rapport sur la diversité linguistique soit l'occasion de contourner les valeurs et les principes de notre République afin d'obtenir, par la pression européenne, ce que notre Conseil constitutionnel a déclaré incompatible. J'ai donc choisi de rejeter le rapport Alfonsi, qui contient des dispositions enjoignant les États membres à ratifier la Charte européenne des langues régionales ou minoritaires alors que, justement, le Conseil constitutionnel avait rendu un avis défavorable en 1999 au motif que ladite Charte comportait des dispositions susceptibles de remettre en cause les principes d'indivisibilité de la République, d'égalité devant la loi et d'unicité du peuple français. L'article 2 de la Constitution française dispose: "La langue de la République est le français." Nul autre que le peuple français n'a dès lors autorité pour le contester et pour décréter.
Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. − I was delighted to support my colleague Mr Alfonsiʼs report. After Donald Stewart was elected as an SNP Westminster MP in the 1970s he introduced the first ever Gaelic Language Bill at that place. When Winnie Ewing was a Member of this house in the 1980s she helped establish the minority languages intergroup. In the 1990s Michael Russell promoted a Gaelic Language Bill in the Scottish Parliament and finally, in the 21st century, we have an SNP Minister responsible for Gaelic and Scots. My party has campaigned for linguistic diversity for decades so I welcome this excellent report.
Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Pritariau siūlymui, nes Europos Sąjunga prisideda prie valstybių narių kultūrų klestėjimo gerbdama jų nacionalinę ir regioninę įvairovę. ES kalbinis paveldas vertinamas kaip Europos kultūros turtas, ir siekiama ne tik išsaugoti kalbų įvairovę, bet ir skatinama iniciatyva stiprinti ir puoselėti šį paveldą papildant valstybių narių įgyvendinamą kultūros politiką. Kalbų išsaugojimas vienija ES tautas. Kalbas, kurioms gresia išnykimas, reikėtų suvokti kaip Europos kultūros paveldo dalį, o ne kaip priemones politiniams, etniniams ar teritoriniams siekiams įgyvendinti. Siūlyme numatoma daug priemonių saugoti nykstantį kalbinį paveldą, daugiausia tautinių mažumų kalbas. ES ir valstybės narės raginamos daugiau dėmesio skirti ypač didelei grėsmei, su kuria susiduria daugelis Europos kalbų, priskiriamų kalbų, kurioms gresia išnykimas, kategorijai, ir visapusiškai įsipareigoti saugoti ir skatinti unikalią ES kalbų ir kultūrų paveldo įvairovę įgyvendinant plataus užmojo aktyvią atitinkamų kalbų gaivinimo politiką ir šiam tikslui skiriant pakankamai biudžeto lėšų. Komisija turėtų pasiūlyti konkrečias politikos priemones, skirtas kalboms, kurioms gresia išnykimas, apsaugoti. Reikia pritaikyti ES politikos sritis ir sudaryti programas taip, kad kalbos, kurioms gresia išnykimas, ir kalbų įvairovė būtų remiamos naudojant ES 2014–2020 m. laikotarpio finansinės paramos priemones.
Jarosław Kalinowski (PPE), na piśmie. − Różnorodność językowa to, obok różnorodności kulturowej i religijnej, jedna z fundamentalnych zasad funkcjonowania Unii Europejskiej, zapisana w Karcie praw podstawowych. To część dziedzictwa danego państwa członkowskiego, którego przetrwanie należy niezaprzeczalnie wspierać, gdyż prowadzi do rozwoju lokalnych społeczeństw i budowania tożsamości regionalnej. Niestety, coraz więcej języków zagrożonych jest wymarciem, często jest to język w jednym kraju uznany za mniejszościowy, a w innym za język urzędowy. Maleje liczba osób posługujących się nimi, nie rozwijają się, nie dostosowują się do nowych sposobów użycia języka i nowoczesnych kanałów komunikacji, brakuje materiałów do ich nauczania, a ich użytkownicy w końcu tracą wszelką motywację do ich regularnego wykorzystywania. A przecież przetrwanie języka jest równoznaczne z przetrwaniem posługującej się nim wspólnoty.
Dlatego powinniśmy podjąć stosowne kroki w celu ochrony języków zagrożonych wymarciem. Instytucje europejskie powinny opracować programy pomagające zachować zagrożone języki przy wykorzystaniu instrumentów wsparcia finansowego. Należy rozpowszechnić nauczanie tych języków z wykorzystaniem nowoczesnych technologii (cyfryzacja tekstów i nagrań, ich dostępność online), a wszystkie państwa członkowskie UE powinny podpisać i ratyfikować Europejską kartę języków regionalnych i mniejszościowych oraz Ramową konwencję na rzecz ochrony mniejszości krajowych. Niestety, w UE wciąż istnieją kraje, gdzie nawet niezagrożone wymarciem języki są dyskryminowane i nieakceptowane, czego przykładem jest sytuacja polskiej mniejszości narodowej na Litwie.
Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of protecting endangered languages within the EU Member States. Pro-active measures will lead to greater use of language across all levels of society. Even though the initiative might require additional financial commitments, I believe that it is important to implement increased usage of endangered languages in all aspects of daily life.
Giovanni La Via (PPE), per iscritto. − La lingua utilizzata da un determinato popolo è probabilmente la forma più palese e chiara d'identità culturale. All'interno dell'Unione europea, dove la diversità linguistica rappresenta uno dei principi fondamentali, vi sono molte lingue che rischiano l'estinzione. La diversità linguistica permette agli Stati europei di conoscere e comprendere le differenze culturali e sociali che coesistono all'interno dell'Unione, e la possibile perdita di queste fonti di tradizione andrebbe indubbiamente a ledere il ricco patrimonio culturale e linguistico dell'Unione europea. E' per questo motivo che ho votato favorevolmente, affinché si faccia un passo in avanti per la difesa e la promozione di tutte quelle lingue che rischiano di scomparire, eseguendo politiche di rilancio in seno alle comunità linguistiche interessate e destinando un bilancio sufficiente a tale scopo.
Agnès Le Brun (PPE), par écrit. – L’Unesco estime que plus de 100 langues sont en danger dans l'Union européenne. Le breton en fait malheureusement partie. La Charte du Conseil de l'Europe sur les langues régionales ou minoritaires n'a pas encore été ratifiée par la France. Il est donc très important que l’Union européenne et les États membres mettent en œuvre des mesures ambitieuses et concrètes pour mieux protéger la diversité linguistique et sauvegarder les langues menacées. Le rapport précise que « la notion de diversité linguistique de l'Union européenne recouvre tant les langues officielles [...], les langues régionales et les langues ne bénéficiant d'aucune reconnaissance officielle au sein des États membres ». Les financements européens doivent participer à la préservation de notre patrimoine linguistique. Ce texte a rassemblé les soutiens de députés européens issus de plusieurs groupes politiques et de différentes régions d'Europe, qui ont souhaité adresser un signal fort à l’Union européenne et aux États membres. J'ai voté en faveur de cette résolution et j’en appelle désormais au président de la République et au gouvernement pour qu'ils respectent leurs engagements et mettent tout en œuvre pour protéger les langues régionales en France.
George Lyon (ALDE), in writing. - President, today I voted in favour of the report on Endangered European languages and linguistic diversity. Considering, for example, the falling number of Scottish Gaelic speakers, I believe it is important to send a signal to Member States and the Commission that they should take measures to protect minority languages. I call on the Scottish Government to work closely with local government and private firms to maximise the drawdown of EU funds such as Regional Development funding, the European Social Fund and Rural Development Fund to support technological investment during the next multiannual period.
I believe that more can be done to increase the numbers of Gaelic speakers by focusing investment in areas where it will be most effective and by making the most of EU funds to support secondary and tertiary education systems. On the EU budget committee, despite deep cuts, I secured an increase in funding opportunities in the 2014-2020 budget for technology development and online learning, to reach out further to preserve the language and the culture of the communities.
David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because I believe that minority languages should be protected and promoted. Gaelic in Scotland for example, is an important part of our heritage and traditions. This report focuses on how best to use linguistic diversity as a way to stimulate creativity and innovation and I believe this is relevant to Scotland.
Véronique Mathieu Houillon (PPE), par écrit. – Concernant le rapport sur les langues menacées de disparition et la diversité linguistique au sein de l'UE, j'ai voté l'abstention car, bien que les langues régionales représentent une richesse culturelle pour l'Europe, le texte invite les États membres à ratifier la Charte européenne des langues régionales ou minoritaires, ce qui est contraire à l'article 2 de la constitution française, "La langue de la République est le français".
Iosif Matula (PPE), în scris. - Mă declar în favoarea protejării diversității unice a patrimoniului lingvistic și cultural al Uniunii Europene. Mai mult, supun atenției modelul românesc, un exemplu apreciat de colegi din acest for, chiar în cadrul intervențiilor lor în plen.
Consider că UE trebuie să adapteze programele comune, astfel încât să vină în sprijinul limbilor aflate cu adevărat în pericol. Pentru aceasta, avem la dispoziție o multitudine de instrumente financiare: programele privind documentarea acestor limbi, pentru educare și formare, integrare socială, pentru tineret și sport, cercetare și dezvoltare, programul pentru cultură și media sau fondurile structurale.
Insist asupra importanței noilor tehnologii și a platformelor de comunicare socială, care aduc schimbări în ceea ce privește paradigma comunicării. Însușirea a cel puțin două limbi, de la o vârstă fragedă, facilitează învățarea ulterioară și a altora, element ce vine în sprijinul societății globale și mobile în care trăim.
De asemenea, mă declar pentru intensificarea procesului de standardizare a limbilor care au preponderent un caracter oral, fapt care ar ajuta, ulterior, în procesul de predare a acelei limbi. Susțin, totodată, fără rezerve protejarea patrimoniului lingvistic în statele din vecinătatea Uniunii, cu atât mai mult cu cât aceste țări și-au exprimat opțiunea pentru un viitor în cadrul UE.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – Ce rapport préconise la ratification de la charte européenne des langues régionales et minoritaires du Conseil de l'Europe. D’inspiration clairement ethniciste, cette Charte a été reconnue contraire aux principes fondamentaux de la République française, et particulièrement à la laïcité, par le Conseil constitutionnel. Elle prévoit en effet de donner aux groupes parlant telle ou telle langue régionale des droits particuliers dans l’espace public, en particulier dans le fonctionnement des services publics ou de la justice. Cela rompt l’égalité des citoyens et compromet le libre exercice de la citoyenneté. Si ce système peut en effet convenir aux minorités nationales en Europe, il constitue un détournement de l'attachement aux langues et patois régionaux dans une République une et indivisible comme la France. Une telle référence est inacceptable : revendiquer des droits particuliers à une catégorie de la population au nom des différences est une atteinte à l’égalité républicaine. C'est pourquoi je vote contre.
Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. − O Tratado de Lisboa veio reforçar o objetivo da salvaguarda e da promoção do património cultural e linguístico da União Europeia em toda a sua diversidade. Assim a União Europeia e os Estados-Membros devem ter consciência da real ameaça que paira sobre o futuro de muitas línguas da Europa, classificadas como línguas em perigo, e comprometerem-se de forma empenhada na criação de uma política de salvaguarda e de fomento da diversidade ímpar do património linguístico e cultural da União. Devem assim ser apoiadas políticas ambiciosas de revitalização proativa dessas línguas, consagrando um orçamento razoável para esse fim. Era importante que os Estados-Membros elaborem planos de ação para a defesa das línguas ameaçadas de extinção com base no intercâmbio das boas práticas já existentes numa série de comunidades linguísticas na Europa. Daí o meu voto favorável.
Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − He votado a favor del presente informe porque comparto la necesidad de la defensa de la diversidad lingüística de la Unión Europea, recogida explícitamente en el Artículo 22 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. El informe insta a los Estados miembros de la Unión Europea a preservar y promover las lenguas minoritarias que existan dentro de su territorio, así como a ratificar diferentes acuerdos internacionales a diferentes niveles que impulsan una mayor protección de las lenguas minoritarias. El informe trata de incrementar las obligaciones de los Estados miembros en este ámbito, incluyendo su inclusión en la educación obligatoria y se manifiesta por la revitalización de la lengua en la completa diversidad que registra el continente europeo. He decido votar a favor del presente informe porque supone un avance en la defensa de las lenguas minoritarias.
Alajos Mészáros (PPE), írásban. − Ideje volt a veszélyeztetett nyelvek védelméről szóló parlamenti határozat elfogadásának, ezt mutatja az a tény is, hogy azt többséggel szavazta meg az Európai Parlament. Szükség volt erre a felhívásra a Bizottság és az Európai Unió tagállamai felé, elsősorban a több mint száz, uniós veszélyeztetett nyelv védelme és fennmaradása érdekében.
Erősebb eszközökkel kel biztosítani a nyelvi jogok védelmét az EU-ban. a kulturális és nyelvi sokszínűség olyan közös kincs, amelyet mind uniós, mind tagállami szinten hatékonyabban kell támogatni. Legyen lehetősége minden gyermeknek elsajátítani anyanyelvét, akkor is, ha az kisebbségi vagy veszélyeztetett nyelvként számontartott. A anyanyelv tanulása egyben identitásformálást is jelent, egy közösség elveszíti önazonosságát, ha nem beszéli elődei nyelvét.
Némely esetekben nehéz meghatározni, mit jelent a veszélyeztetett nyelv, illetve a nem kielégítő jogi körülmények és hiányzó anyagi támogatások következtében a ma még kisebbségi nyelvként besorolt nyelvek könnyen átkerülhetnek a veszélyeztetett kategóriába.
Remélem, hogy a jövőben megszületendő politikai döntések gátat szabnak a szórványban beszélt nyelvek kihalásának. A többnyelvűség érték, ezen gondolat mentén kell olyan projekteket támogatni, amelyek akár egy kis közösségen keresztül az európai sokszínűség megtartását segítik elő, ma minderre számtalan lehetőség nyílik az új technológiák segítségével is.
Louis Michel (ALDE), par écrit. – L’Union européenne compte de nombreuses langues régionales ou minoritaires qui semblent vouées à disparaître. Il est du ressort de l’Union européenne ainsi que de ses Etats membres de veiller à la sauvegarde de ce patrimoine culturel. La diversité culturelle est un élément fondamental de la construction européenne. Comme le dit le poète espagnol Miguel de Unamuno, « la langue est le sang de l’âme ». Elle permet d’associer un individu à son pays d’origine. La langue d'un pays ou d'une région renoue avec la culture de l’universel qui a fait sa grandeur. La promotion d’une langue est un gage d’une identité forte. Et une identité forte, structurée, est en retour un gage d’ouverture à l’autre. Plus la mondialisation progresse, plus la sauvegarde des langues nationales ou même régionales prend de l’ampleur. Il s'agit de savoir d’où on est pour mieux savoir où on va.
Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE), písomne − Jedným zo základných pilierov Európskej únie je jej jazyková a kultúrna diverzita, v ktorej každý jazyk má svoje miesto, hodnotu a vážnosť. Používanie jazyka je neoddeliteľnou súčasťou života každého z nás, súčasťou našej kultúry, histórie a predovšetkým dedičstva, ktoré je potrebné odovzdať budúcim generáciám. Slovenský jazyk je jedným z najťažších jazykov nielen v Európskej únii, ale vôbec, no je i jazykom krásnym a melodickým. Preto by som rád vyslovil vďaku za snahu podporiť zachovanie rozmanitosti európskych jazykov, ktoré je potrebné šíriť a chrániť. Tiež by som chcel upozorniť na fenomén, ktorý sa začal objavovať v mnohých krajinách, a tým je používanie pôvodom anglických slov ako slov vlastných (tzv. poangličťovanie). I týmto spôsobom sa rozmanitosť jazykov uberá zostupným smerom. Obhajujem teda názor o potrebe podporiť tento rozvoj prostredníctvom zvýšenia európskych prostriedkov, ktoré sa vyčleňujú na tieto jazyky, zvýšiť záujem o ich používanie prostredníctvom prekladanej literatúry, výučbou na školách a predovšetkým šírením jazykovej antidiskriminácie.
Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − Promoting all the languages of the Union as well as those that are endangered is a vital challenge that Europe must face for a true future promoting its richness and gathering new clients around its heritage among the young generation. It is also necessary to make the link between promotion of languages and free will, and culture should not be imposed by force. I am in favour.
Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. - Die Vielfalt der Kulturen und Sprachen in Europa und der EU stellt eine große Bereicherung für unseren Kontinent dar. Sie gilt es zu pflegen und zu erhalten. Es ist daher Aufgabe der Mitgliedstaaten, aber auch der EU, dafür Sorge zu tragen, dass auch Minderheiten in ihren jeweiligen Ländern ihre Muttersprache umfassend verwenden können. Dazu zählt die Möglichkeit der Verwendung im öffentlichen Bereich, in Medien, vor Ämtern und insbesondere auch in der Schule. Leider gibt es immer noch Staaten, wie z. B. Slowenien, die sich weigern, autochthonen Minderheiten diese Rechte vollständig zu gewähren. Hier muss die EU tätig werden und auf diese Staaten einwirken, um ein Umdenken zu erwirken. Die heutige Entschließung stellt einen Schritt in die richtige Richtung dar, weshalb ich dafür gestimmt habe.
Paul Murphy (GUE/NGL), i scríbhinn. − Tá éifeacht uafásach ag na beartais déine ar na pobail a labhraíonn teangacha mionlaigh agus teangacha atá i mbaol. In Éirinn, tá na scoileanna Gaeltachta ag fulaingt, le hardú cóimheas daltaí le múinteoir, ciorruithe i liúntais na múinteoirí, iompair scoile agus deontais eile. Is é an toradh air seo go bhfuil todhchaí na ndaltaí á chur i mbaol. Tá pobail na dteangacha mionlaigh ag fulaingt leis na ciorruithe sna seirbhísí poiblí, dífhostaíocht agus dúnadh tionscal áitiúil. Tá comhshreachailt ag teastáil ó na daoine ar fad atá buailte leis na beartais déine, chun deireadh a chur leis na ciorruithe agus le haghaidh plean infheistíochta poiblí chun creatlach a chur ar fáil i gcomhair ráthaíocht a thabhairt do chearta na ndaoine a labhraíonn teangacha mionlaigh.
Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea raportului. Vreau să arăt, totodată, că Uniunea Europeană ar trebui să fie în mod egal preocupată de limbile sau dialectele amenințate de dispariție în statele din vecinătatea Uniunii, un exemplu în acest sens fiind diferitele dialecte ale limbii române vorbite încă de comunități din țări ca Serbia. De asemenea, Parlamentul nu ar trebui să asiste pasiv la atacurile împotriva limbii române în provincii ale Republicii Moldova sau în Ucraina.
Franz Obermayr (NI), schriftlich. − In Europa gibt es einige Sprachen, welche ernsthaft bedroht sind, teilweise sogar vor dem Aussterben stehen. Weiterhin wird durch einige Staaten, auch Mitgliedstaaten der EU, eine nationale oder regionale Politik verfolgt, Sprachen durch offene oder verdeckte Maßnahmen zu unterdrücken. Europas größte Stärke ist aber auch seine Vielfalt. Das gilt auch für seine Sprachen. Das kulturelle Erbe in Europa, welches in Bezug auf Sprachen über Tausende von Jahren entstanden ist, wird in wenigen Dekaden zersetzt. Dem gilt es Einhalt zu gebieten. Im legislativen Vorschlag schlägt die Kommission eine Reihe von Maßnahmen vor, welche den Schutz der Sprachenvielfalt in Europa fördert. Ebenso werden Unterdrückungsversuche verurteilt und Forderungen gestellt, dies legislativ zu verbieten. Aufgrund der vorher aufgeführten Bedeutung, welche ich der europäischen Sprachenvielfalt zumesse, habe ich für den Vorschlag gestimmt – getreu dem Grundsatz: Vielfalt erfreut!
Raimon Obiols (S&D), por escrito. - La entrada en vigor del Tratado de Lisboa ha dado más fuerza al objetivo de salvaguardar, y también de promover, el patrimonio cultural y lingüístico de la Unión Europea en toda su diversidad. El presente informe es de suma importancia para concienciar y proteger la diversidad lingüística en la Unión y establecer intercambios de buenas prácticas y procedimientos de evaluación entre comunidades lingüísticas.
En su tramitación en la Comisión de Cultura se llegó a un compromiso sobre una enmienda que refuerza el sistema educativo de inmersión en Catalunya al establecerse que «como se ha demostrado científicamente, una política [lingüística] de promoción de dos o más lenguas beneficiaría a los niños y les ayudaría a aprender otras lenguas más adelante, además de fomentar la transmisión intergeneracional de las lenguas». El informe se aprobó en comisión por unanimidad.
Debemos felicitarnos por la aprobación de este informe, que reconoce el multilingüismo como una riqueza y una expresión de la diversidad europea.
Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – Dans une société dans laquelle les particularités et les différences disparaissent progressivement sous le poids des cultures et des langues dominantes, ce rapport souligne l’importance de préserver et de valoriser les langues régionales et minoritaires afin de promouvoir un réel multilinguisme dans l’Union européenne. Un multilinguisme qui ne reconnait pas uniquement les langues officielles de l'Union, mais reflétant et respectant l'ensemble des langues et de la richesse linguistique de l'Union européenne. Ce rapport appuie la ratification par les Etats membres de la charte européenne des langues régionales et minoritaires du Conseil de l'Europe. Les outremers français sont peuplés de langues différentes, dont le créole, il est indispensable de les défendre comme de les promouvoir, c'est pourquoi j’ai voté pour ce rapport.
Rolandas Paksas (EFD), raštu. − Balsavau už šį rezoliucijos projektą. Labai svarbu, kad ES tinkamai prisidėtų prie valstybių narių kultūrų klestėjimo gerbdama jų nacionalinę ir regioninę įvairovę. Pažymėtina, kad Sąjungos kalbinis paveldas vertinamas kaip Europos kultūros turtas, būtina ne tik išsaugoti kalbų įvairovę, bet ir stiprinti bei puoselėti šį paveldą papildant valstybių narių įgyvendinamą kultūros politiką. Atkreiptinas dėmesys į tai, kad kalbų išsaugojimas vienija Europos Sąjungos tautas. Kalbos, kurioms gresia išnykimas, turėtų būti laikomos Europos kultūros paveldo dalimi, o ne priemonėmis politiniams, etniniams ar teritoriniams siekiams įgyvendinti. Atsižvelgiant į tai, labai svarbu, kad ES didesnis dėmesys būtų skiriamas nykstančio kalbinio paveldo saugojimui. Turėtų būti nustatomos konkrečios politikos priemonės, skirtos kalboms apsaugoti ir tinkamam finansavimui užtikrinti.
Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − Europe is an extremely diverse linguistic community and linguistic diversity is respected by the European Union as one of its fundamental rights, yet aside from the most-spoken languages, there are many endangered languages spoken by small groups of citizens. To preserve, protect and promote these endangered languages is consistent with our common values, and necessary funding should be provided to support certain protective actions, including early-age teaching and distance learning of endangered languages, but not wider political agendas. Therefore, I voted in favour of this resolution to facilitate joint actions by Parliament, the Council and the Commission to properly protect the rights of linguistic and cultural minorities.
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente relatório sobre as línguas europeias ameaçadas de extinção e a diversidade linguística na União Europeia. A noção de diversidade linguística na União Europeia abrange, tanto as línguas oficiais, como as línguas cooficiais, as línguas regionais e as línguas que não são oficialmente reconhecidas pelos Estados-Membros. Com este relatório, alertam-se os governos e as autoridades regionais dos Estados-Membros para o facto de a sobrevivência de uma língua ameaçada de extinção prefigurar a sobrevivência e o desenvolvimento da comunidade que a utiliza e que, por conseguinte, para efeitos de formulação de políticas para a respetiva salvaguarda, devem ser tidos em conta não só os aspetos culturais e educativos, mas também as dimensões económica e social.
Phil Prendergast (S&D), in writing. − I voted for this report because I believe that endangered and lesser used languages must be supported to preserve the richness of our society. The specific objective of this report was to examine how best to use linguistic diversity as a way to stimulate creativity and innovation. Languages have the capacity to promote the local and regional heritage in the EU context, thus contributing to economic and social development and constituting an irreplaceable raw material for the cultural and creative industries. An increasing number of endangered languages are threatened or disappearing. This own-initiative report thus aims to examine the situation of these languages in Europe, to raise awareness at European level about the implications of their disappearance and the need to react and take measures to preserve Europeʼs rich linguistic heritage. As an Irish MEP I know all too well the importance of protecting lesser used languages and was happy to support this motion as a result.
Mitro Repo (S&D), kirjallinen. − äänestin tämän mietinnön puolesta, koska edustan itsekin pientä, tosin en uhanalaista kieliryhmää. Meitä suomalais-ugrilaisten kielten puhujia on maailmassa noin 23 miljoonaa. EU-maidenkin joukosta löytyy kolme suomalais-ugrilaista kansaa. Unkaria, suomea ja viroa puhuvia on yhteensä yli 16 miljoonaa, eivätkä nämä kielet ole onneksi uhanalaisia. Sen sijaan useat pienemmät suomalais-ugrilaiset kielet, kuten hanti, mansi, nenetsi, karjala ja vepsä, ovat vaarassa kuolla sukupuuttoon.
Kieli luokitellaan uhanalaiseksi, kun sen puhujat käyttävät sitä yhä harvemmissa tilanteissa tai lakkaavat kokonaan käyttämästä sitä. Tai mikä surullisinta, lakkaavat siirtämästä sitä isältä pojalle, äidiltä tyttärelle. Äidinkieli on tällöin menetetty.
On tärkeää, että Euroopan unionin tasolla nostetaan uhanalaisten kielien tilanne esiin. Uhanalaisille kielille tulisi kuitenkin ennen kaikkea antaa mahdollisuus kukoistaa kansallisella tasolla. Käytännössä tämä tarkoittaa esimerkiksi niin perusopetuksen kuin korkeakoulutuksenkin järjestämistä uhanalaisella kielellä sekä riittävien varojen varaamista radio-, televisio- ja lehdistötoimintaan. Yhtälailla tärkeää olisi myös paikallisen elinkeinoelämän tukeminen, jotta ihmisten ei tarvitsisi lähteä työn perässä muille kielialueille. Kaikki tämä kysyy poliittista tahtoa - löytyykö sitä?
Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), per iscritto. - In mattinata il Parlamento europeo, riunito in seduta plenaria, ha votato una relazione Alfonsi in merito alle lingue europee a rischio di estinzione. In un contesto di globalizzazione, come quello attuale, è cruciale promuovere e difendere la diversità linguistica, vero e proprio valore fondamentale e patrimonio culturale dell'Unione. Sostenere, non soltanto con inutili proclami, ma con risorse finanziarie ad hoc e concrete politiche proattive, il multilinguismo, è una sfida che, se vinta, porterà indubbi benefici alla coesione sociale e al generale arricchimento culturale dell'Unione.
La relazione va incontro, infine, alle mie aspettative di salvaguardia e difesa del napoletano, già riconosciuto come lingua a tutti gli effetti dall'UNESCO, ma troppo spesso denigrato nel contesto nazionale e comunitario. Quindi, non posso che esprimere il mio accordo su una risoluzione che, a mio avviso, va incontro non soltanto alle istanze dell'identità di ciascun popolo europeo, ma assume anche una rilevante dimensione locale nella preservazione della lingua napoletana.
Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), par écrit. – Pour. Le rapport sur les langues européennes menacées de disparition mis au vote aujourd'hui a été adopté à une écrasante majorité, ce dont je me félicite. L'Europe est un des continents où la diversité linguistique et culturelle est particulièrement riche. Ce patrimoine est composé des langues officielles mais aussi de plusieurs dizaines de langues aujourd'hui menacées de disparition, selon l'inventaire tenu par l'Unesco. Le traité de Lisbonne a élargi le champ de compétences de l'Union européenne pour contribuer à l'épanouissement des cultures nationales et régionales. Ce rapport d'initiative réenclenche une dynamique en faveur de la promotion et du soutien à la sauvegarde de ces langues. Quand une langue disparaît, c'est un pan du patrimoine européen qui disparaît. Il est donc de la responsabilité de l'Union d'agir pour sa sauvegarde! Ce rapport interpelle les États membres qui refusent encore de prendre les mesures nécessaires, à commencer par la ratification de la charte européenne des langues régionales et minoritaires. Il invite à relancer une politique européenne en faveur des langues en danger et à soutenir les programmes de sauvegarde de ces langues que mènent les communautés linguistiques concernées.
Νικόλαος Σαλαβράκος (EFD), γραπτώς. – Υπερψήφισα την έκθεση καθώς εκτιμώ ότι κάθε γλώσσα, συμπεριλαμβανομένων των γλωσσών που απειλούνται με εξαφάνιση, απηχεί μια ιστορική, κοινωνική, πολιτιστική γνώση, καθώς και ικανότητες και έναν τρόπο σκέψης και δημιουργίας που αποτελούν μέρος του πλούτου και της πολυμορφίας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και τη βάση της ευρωπαϊκής ταυτότητας. Συνεπώς, η γλωσσική πολυμορφία και η παρουσία γλωσσών που απειλούνται με εξαφάνιση σε μια χώρα θα πρέπει να θεωρείται πλεονέκτημα και όχι επιβάρυνση και ως τέτοιο θα πρέπει να υποστηρίζεται και να προωθείται και όχι ως εργαλείο για την προώθηση πολιτικών, εθνοτικών ή εδαφικών βλέψεων.
Marie-Thérèse Sanchez-Schmid (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce rapport sur la protection des langues minoritaires et la diversité linguistique. En effet, de nombreuses langues sont actuellement menacées de disparition en Europe. Nous demandons donc à la Commission et aux États membres de mieux protéger et de promouvoir la diversité linguistique, sous peine d’altérer et d’appauvrir le patrimoine et l'identité européenne. La résolution appelle notamment tous les États membres à ratifier la Charte européenne des langues régionales ou minoritaires de 1992. La France ne l'a pas encore fait malgré la promesse de François Hollande pendant sa campagne électorale. Un engagement politique fort est nécessaire pour que toutes les langues européennes continuent de vivre et que les jeunes générations puissent encore bénéficier de la richesse du multilinguisme.
Andreas Schwab (PPE), schriftlich. − Die europäischen Kulturen sind die Grundlage für die Vielfalt der Europäischen Union. Diese Vielfalt macht Europa zu einem einzigartigen Lebensraum in der Welt. Diese Vielfalt beruht insbesondere auf der Vielfalt der Sprachen, die in Generationen und Jahrhunderten Identifikation und Kultur vermittelt haben.
Es ist deshalb von großer Bedeutung, dass dieser Bericht deutlich macht, dass wir diese sprachliche Vielfalt dringend erhalten müssen.
Monika Smolková (S&D), písomne - Podporila som správu, ktorá jednoznačne poukazuje na ohrozenie európskych jazykov a jazykovej rozmanitosti v EÚ. Určite každý z nás vie pochopiť, že v čase finančno-ekonomickej krízy, narastajúcej nezamestnanosti , stagnácie hospodárskeho rastu a škrtov v rozpočte je veľmi ťažko požadovať navýšenie rozpočtových prostriedkov na záchranu ohrozených jazykov a jazykovej rozmanitosti. Ale určite každý z nás podporí výzvu pre Komisiu, aby sa zabezpečilo, že finančné prostriedky vyčlenené na ochranné opatrenia budú čo najľahšie prístupné a čo najjasnejšie, čím sa zaistí, že tí, ktorí majú záujem o ich využitie, budú môcť v stanovenom časovom rámci poskytnúť skutočnú pomoc ohrozeným jazykom. Za dôležitú tiež považujem výzvu, aby členské štáty venovali zvýšenú pozornosť vysokoškolskému vzdelávaniu a výskumu s osobitným zameraním na ohrozené jazyky.
Csaba Sógor (PPE), írásban. − A nyelvi sokszínűség kulturális öröksége az EU hagyománytisztelő egységének a záloga. Kötelezettséget róvott le a saját kezdeményezésű jelentés megszavazásával az EP, hiszen az utóbbi 10 évben - a szakemberek ismételt figyelmeztetése és az európai őslakos kisebbségi és regionális közösségek határozott igénye ellenére – nem sikerült az intézmény nevében állást foglalni megfelelő védelmük érdekében.
Az EU összlakosságának 10-12-a % őshonos kisebbségi vagy regionális nyelvet beszél. Ezen lélekszám nagyságrendje cselekvésre kötelez. Azok a tagállamok, amelyek még nem ratifikálták a regionális és kisebbségi nyelvekről szóló 1992. évi európai chartát és a nemzeti kisebbségek védelméről szóló 1995. évi keretegyezményt, minél hamarabb meg kellene tegyék.
Üdvözlöm, hogy a dokumentum – habár jogilag nem kötelező érvényű – felszólítja a tagállamok kormányait: ítéljék el mindazon gyakorlatokat, amelyek a nyelvi diszkrimináció vagy az erőltetett/rejtett asszimiláció révén a veszélyeztetett nyelvi közösségek identitása és nyelvhasználata, illetve kulturális intézményei ellen irányultak vagy irányulnak.
A magyar nyelv esetére vonatkoztatható, és az Unió területén élő magyar ajkú közösség szempontjából a jelentés fontos tétele, hogy leszögezi, a Bizottságnak figyelmet kell fordítania arra, hogy néhány tagállam és régió politikájával veszélybe sodorja a határain belüli nyelvek túlélését, akkor is, ha e nyelvek európai szinten nincsenek veszélyben. Ti. védettségüket tagállami hivatalos nyelv-státusuk „garantálja”.
Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce texte. Je comprends la volonté du rapporteur qui estime que l'Union européenne et les États membres doivent être plus attentifs à l'extrême menace qui pèse sur de nombreuses langues d'Europe considérées comme étant menacées de disparition, et à s'engager vigoureusement en faveur de la sauvegarde et de la promotion de l'exceptionnelle diversité du patrimoine linguistique et culturel de l'Union, en déployant des politiques ambitieuses et volontaristes de revitalisation des langues concernées et en consacrant un budget suffisant à cet objectif. Il recommande que ces politiques visent également à encourager une prise de conscience plus large, auprès des citoyens, de la richesse linguistique et culturelle que ces communautés incarnent. Nous encourageons les États membres à élaborer des plans d'action pour promouvoir les langues menacées de disparition sur la base des bonnes pratiques qui existent déjà dans plusieurs communautés linguistiques d'Europe.
Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − A diversidade linguística é uma parte importante do património cultural da União Europeia e constitui um elemento fundamental da nossa diversidade cultural. O relatório é unânime quanto à atenção particular que deve ser prestada à necessidade de a União e os Estados-Membros salvaguardarem o património cultural e preservarem a diversidade linguística. Por considerar que a diversidade linguística deve não só ser preservada, mas também promovida, votei a favor do presente documento.
Isabelle Thomas (S&D), par écrit. – J’ai soutenu et voté pour ce rapport. La diversité linguistique est une richesse pour notre continent mais elle constitue également un des principes démocratiques fondamentaux de l’Union. Ce rapport la défend en soutenant les diverses démarches de sauvetage et de promotion des langues menacées et en rappelant les mesures que l’Union européenne doit prendre pour les maintenir. Selon l’Unesco, une langue européenne sur deux est aujourd’hui menacée ; la disparition d’une seule langue ou d’une culture est une perte de diversité, de créativité et donc à terme de richesses pour l’Europe. Il faut donc agir. Ce rapport trace des pistes à mettre en œuvre (les mesures de la Charte des langues minoritaires, le recueil d’information, la promotion des bonnes pratiques et des initiatives locales, etc.). Nos territoires, nos citoyens et nos langues peuvent désormais s’appuyer sur ce vote pour exiger des actes et enrayer le rouleau-compresseur de l’uniformisation et mettre en application la devise européenne : l’unité dans la diversité.
Ruža Tomašić (ECR), napisan. − Koristim priliku kako bih poduprla izvješće o ugroženim europskim jezicima i jezičnoj raznolikosti u Europskoj uniji te prijedlog Rezolucije Europskog parlamenta o tom pitanju. Kao zastupnica iz Hrvatske gajim poseban senzibilitet prema ovom pitanju jer je i moj materinji jezik bio metom asimilacije i istrjebljenja. I danas nažalost postoje tendencije da ga se političkim inženjeringom strpa zajedno sa srpskim jezikom u nekakav hibridni „zajednički jezik“. Alarmantno je što su sve donedavno takve inicijative dolazile od visokih dužnosnika i zastupnika pojedinih zemalja članica EU pa izražavam duboko nadanje da će ovom rezolucijom ti pokušaji konačno nestati. Shvaćajući važnost čuvanja jezične specifičnosti, u potpunosti sam predana zaštiti drugih naroda i manjinskih zajednica od takvog kulturocida. Iskoristila bih priliku za istaknuti kako se Hrvatima u Bosni i Hercegovini još uvijek uskraćuje pravo na javni televizijski kanal na materinjem jeziku kao i pravo na javno školovanje na hrvatskom jeziku u većinski bošnjačkim i srpskim sredinama. S obzirom da se mahom radi o državljanima Republike Hrvatske, a time i Europske unije, u zemlji koja se nalazi u dugoročnim planovima za priključenje Uniji, tražim da poduzmemo sve moguće mjere kako bismo im osigurali jezičnu, kulturnu i političku ravnopravnost.
Derek Vaughan (S&D), in writing. − Coming from Wales, I know first hand how challenging it can be to preserve our traditional languages. I am heartened by the increase in the number of Welsh speakers in Wales, and support initiatives which could further safeguard the future of Europe’s languages. I strongly support the promotion of local and regional heritage in the EU context, and believe that the preservation of our diverse range of languages is integral to this. I am in favour of examining these various languages and raising awareness at European level of the implications of their disappearance.
Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), schriftlich. − Sprache ist zwar eine Selbstverständlichkeit für uns alle, schließlich nutzen wir sie täglich. Aber sie ist gleichzeitig auch ein Kulturgut und ein Identifikationsmerkmal von Bevölkerungsgruppen bzw. für eine Zugehörigkeit. Auch wenn es sich in einigen Fällen wohl um einen natürlichen Sprachwandel handelt, der in dem vom Berichterstatter gewünschten Ausmaß kaum aufzuhalten sein wird, so sind die Bemühungen und Bestrebungen zum Erhalt der Sprachenvielfalt in Europa dennoch unterstützenswert.
Iuliu Winkler (PPE), in writing. − I welcome the overwhelming majority recorded at the vote on the Alfonsi Report on endangered European languages and linguistic diversity in the EU. This is a strong endorsement given by all the political groups of the EP and a strong message to the European Commission and the Member States. The diversity of languages and cultures in Europe is nothing less than the living heritage which secures the sustainable development of European societies. I fully share the view that ‘teaching in people’s mother tongue is the most effective way of learning’ and I urge Member States to implement this principle in their education policies. The EC’s multilingualism policy has to be revitalised and properly funded in the next MFF. The new policy actions have to take into consideration the proposals formulated by the Minority Intergroup of the EP. Fully-respected linguistic diversity is a vital contribution to European soft power, enabling the EU to enforce its global significance. This House recently debated the cost-effectiveness of interpretation at the EP. While I support the sound financial management principles, I urge all of us to bear in mind that full multilingualism strengthens democracy in our Parliament.
Iva Zanicchi (PPE), per iscritto. − L'Unione europea e gli Stati membri devono prestare una attenzione particolare alle lingue in pericolo e tutelare la diversità linguistica in Europa. Per questo ho espresso il mio voto favorevole, sottolineando come la modifica di molti emendamenti che parlavano di "minoranze" e "lingue minoritarie" in un più generico riferimento alle "lingue in pericolo" abbia reso il testo presentato dall'on. Alfonsi più equilibrato e dunque condivisibile dai vari Gruppi politici.
Zbigniew Ziobro (EFD), na piśmie. − Pragnę podziękować sprawozdawcy za odniesienie się do kwestii języków europejskich zagrożonych wymarciem oraz różnorodności językowej w państwach członkowskich UE. Ważnym atutem jest ochrona i wspieranie języków mniejszościowych, które świadczą o wielokulturowości i różnorodności. Języki te posiadają również taką samą wartość oraz są niezaprzeczalnym dziedzictwem historycznym, społecznym, jak i kulturowym. Język przyczynia się do poznania własnej tożsamości, dlatego też tak ważne jest położenie nacisku na promocję i ochronę języków zagrożonych wymarciem.
Cieszy mnie fakt, iż podejmuje się działania zwalczające uprzedzenia i dyskryminację na tle językowym oraz tych, które nie zmierzają do ujednolicenia języka. Kluczowym przedsięwzięciem jest również wsparcie na szczeblu edukacji przedszkolnej, szkolnej oraz pozaszkolnej, jaką jest rodzina, gdzie dziecko zdobywa naturalną zdolność posługiwania się językiem. Wspieranie nauki języków zagrożonych wymarciem odgrywa istotną rolę w dorobku kulturowym samych wspólnot, jak i całej Europy. Promocja języków przyczynia się także do kształtowania postawy tolerancji wobec odrębnych grup etnicznych czy językowych oraz ma pozytywny wpływ nie tylko na wymiar kulturowy, ale również gospodarczy i społeczny.
Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Consideramos positivo o reconhecimento de que todas as línguas da Europa são iguais em valor e dignidade e que são parte integrante das respetivas culturas e civilizações, contribuindo para o enriquecimento do ser humano. Acompanhamos igualmente a consideração de que todas as línguas, incluindo as que se encontram ameaçadas de extinção, refletem conhecimentos e saberes históricos, sociais e culturais. Quando dizemos que a falar é que a gente se entende, o que afinal queremos dizer é que é com a língua que nós nos construímos ou desconstruímos - como indivíduos, como comunidades ou como povos. Sabemos que, não raramente, a língua tem-se constituído ela própria como um pilar fundamental de resistência a várias formas de opressão. Lembremos aqui o povo Rom que tem encontrado na sua língua um espantoso fator de unidade e de coragem que nem os campos de concentração do nazi-fascismo conseguiram esmagar. Entendemos, portanto, que não há línguas minoritárias - há línguas. O desaparecimento de qualquer uma torna-nos a todos mais pobres. Daí a urgência de serem adotadas medidas de revitalização linguística, acompanhadas de financiamento necessário, com vista a inverter a situação em que a morte do último falante de uma língua determina, normalmente, a extinção desse idioma.
6.2. Parliament's rights in the appointment procedure of future executive directors of the European Environment Agency (A7-0264/2013 - Matthias Groote)
Dichiarazioni di voto scritte
Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente relatório, considerando que, entre todas as Agências Europeias, a Agência Europeia do Ambiente é a única em que o Parlamento Europeu não é requisitado para dar sua opinião sobre a nomeação de seus diretores, sendo que este relatório vai no sentido de retificar esta situação, de modo a que a nomeação seja também previamente colocada à apreciação do Parlamento Europeu.
Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – J’ai voté pour ce rapport car celui-ci vise à aligner la procédure de nomination du directeur exécutif de l'Agence européenne pour l'environnement sur les procédures utilisées pour la nomination des directeurs exécutifs d’autres agences de l’Union européenne (exemple : l'Agence européenne des produits chimiques, l'Agence européenne des médicaments et l'Autorité européenne de sécurité des aliments). Il s’agit notamment d'accorder au Parlement européen, avant la nomination, le droit formel d'auditionner le candidat sélectionné pour le poste par le conseil d'administration de l'Agence européenne pour l'environnement.
Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį siūlymą dėl EP teisių skiriant Europos aplinkos agentūros (EAA) vykdomuosius direktorius. Siūlymo tikslas – keisti EAA vykdomojo direktoriaus paskyrimo procedūrą. Kol kas nėra įtraukti jokie reikalavimai kandidatui, atrinktam EAA valdybos, dalyvauti Europos Parlamento kompetentingo organo klausyme prieš jo paskyrimą. Kadangi toks reikalavimas yra taikomas kitoms agentūroms, pritariu siekimui suvienodinti EAA vykdančiojo direktoriaus paskyrimo procedūrą su procedūromis, taikomomis kitų agentūrų, priklausančių ENVI kompetencijai, vykdomiesiems direktoriams. Tokiu būdu Europos Parlamentui bus suteikta oficiali teisė išklausyti EAA valdybos atrinktą kandidatą prieš jį paskiriant į pareigas.
Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Sostengo col mio voto la relazione dell'on. Groote che tratta la procedura di nomina dei direttori esecutivi dell'Agenzia europea dell'ambiente (AEA), chiedendo di uniformarla a quelle in uso per i direttori esecutivi di altre agenzie europee.
Philippe Boulland (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce rapport qui vise à aligner la procédure de désignation du directeur de l'AEE avec la nomination des autres responsables des agences de l'UE. Désormais, le candidat sera soumis à une audition devant le Parlement Européen, et la procédure de nomination ressemblera à la procédure des autres agences de l'UE.
John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − I voted against this report as I am against Parliament and the EU Environment Agency having a right to do anything, even exist.
Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − Voto favoravelmente neste relatório porque acho que o Parlamento Europeu deverá ter o direito formal de proceder à audição do candidato selecionado para este cargo pelo Conselho de Administração da Agência Europeia do Ambiente antes da sua nomeação.
Rachida Dati (PPE), par écrit. – L’Agence européenne pour l’environnement a pour rôle de participer à la mise en place d’un avenir durable pour l’Europe. Il était donc évident qu’elle soit soumise aux mêmes exigences de contrôle démocratique que toutes les autres agences de l’Union. Ce texte, c’est donc une exigence de forme, pour mettre à niveau les pratiques déjà existantes avec les autres agences.
Christine De Veyrac (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce texte car il me semble notamment légitime que le Parlement européen puisse auditionner le candidat au poste de directeur exécutif de l'AEE, comme cela est le cas pour les autres agences relevant des compétences de la commission ENVI.
Tamás Deutsch (PPE), írásban. − Az Európai Környezetvédelmi Ügynökségről és az Európai Információs és Megfigyelő-hálózatról szóló rendeletnek az ügyvezető igazgató kinevezésére irányuló eljárás tekintetében történő módosítását támogatom.
Egyetértek annak alapvető céljaival, mely értelmében az igazgató kinevezésére irányuló eljárást összhangba kell hozni más ügynökségek ügyvezetői igazgatói posztjának betöltésére irányuló eljárásokkal annak érdekében, hogy az Európai Parlament illetékes szerve hivatalosan is jogosult legyen meghallgatni az ügyvezető igazgatói tisztségre az Európai Környezetvédelmi Ügynökség igazgatótanácsa által kiválasztott személyt még annak kinevezése előtt.
Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − Considero pertinente que o Diretor Executivo da Agência Europeia do Ambiente seja ouvido perante o Parlamento Europeu, como parte da dignificação deste Parlamento, razão pela qual voto favoravelmente este relatório.
José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − O objetivo do presente relatório consiste em solicitar à Comissão, com base no artigo 225.º do Tratado, que apresente uma proposta legislativa que modifique o artigo 9.º do Regulamento (CE) n.º 401/2009 relativo à Agência Europeia do Ambiente. O artigo 9.º, n.º 1, primeiro parágrafo, desse regulamento descreve o processo de nomeação do Diretor Executivo da AEA e não prevê, atualmente, qualquer requisito que estabeleça que o candidato selecionado pelo Conselho de Administração da AEA deva comparecer perante o organismo competente do Parlamento Europeu antes da sua nomeação. O requisito está, no entanto, presente nos regulamentos que instituem outras agências, nomeadamente a Agência Europeia dos Produtos Químicos, a Agência Europeia de Medicamentos e a Autoridade Europeia para a Segurança dos Alimentos, que também se enquadram no âmbito das competências da Comissão do Ambiente, da Saúde Pública e da Segurança Alimentar do Parlamento.
Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne − Predkladaná správa má za cieľ požiadať Komisiu, aby na základe článku 225 zmluvy predložila legislatívny návrh na zmenu článku 9 nariadenia (ES) č. 401/2009 o Európskej environmentálnej agentúre (EEA). V súčasnosti zmieňované nariadenie neobsahuje žiadne formálne požiadavky na kandidáta vybratého na pozíciu výkonného riaditeľa, ani nedefinuje, aby bol kandidát vypočutý príslušným orgánom Európskeho parlamentu pred jeho alebo jej vymenovaním. Táto požiadavka je však prítomná u ostatných agentúr. I preto sa od Komisie požaduje, aby vynaložila úsilie zosúladiť postup v prípade EEA s tými postupmi, ktoré sú aplikované u ďalších agentúr, ako napr. Európska chemická agentúra, Európska agentúra pre lieky či Európsky úrad pre bezpečnosť potravín.
Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), per iscritto. − L’aver allineato i criteri di nomina dei direttori esecutivi dell'agenzia europea dell'ambiente ai criteri validi per le altre autorità rappresenta un passo avanti sotto diversi punti di vista. Infatti si avvertiva la necessità di riportare al Parlamento europeo la funzione fondamentale di controllo. Non era possibile continuare a mantenere un’anomalia nel sistema delle agenzie europee, dovuta al fatto che il regolamento dell'agenzia per l'ambiente è precedente ai regolamenti istitutivi delle altre agenzie. Assegnare al Parlamento, l’istituzione rappresentativa dei cittadini europei, le dovute prerogative nella nomina dei futuri direttori esecutivi dell’A.E.A. mostra la volontà da parte dell’Unione di garantire una maggiore democraticità al proprio sistema.
Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report which seeks to correct an anomaly by which Parliament does not possess the formal legal right to require candidates for the post of European Environmental Agency (EEA) Executive Director to attend a hearing before the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety. I support the proposal to insert formally the requirement for a hearing in the EEAʼs Founding Regulation, in order to align the EEA with the procedures in the European Chemicals Agency, the European Medicines Agency and the European Food Safety Agency. I support any move towards greater accountability for the EU agencies, and Parliamentary hearings provide a rare opportunity to apply some scrutiny to these bodies.
Monica Luisa Macovei (PPE), în scris. − Astăzi am adoptat regulamentul care prevede că directorii executivi ai Agenţiei Europene de Mediu vor trebui să fie audiaţi de Parlamentul European înainte de a fi numiţi. Aceasta este o cerere pe care am făcut-o în calitatea mea de raportor pentru descărcarea de gestiune din 2010 a Agenţiei Europene de Mediu. Astăzi, cererea mea a fost îndeplinită şi, astfel, obiectivul meu a fost atins. Salut faptul că Agenţia Europeană de Mediu este acum în conformitate cu Agenţia Europeană pentru Siguranţa Alimentară, Agenţia Europeană pentru Medicamente şi Agenţia Europeană pentru Produse Chimice. Noi nu trebuie să ne oprim aici, ci trebuie să facem obligatorii pentru toate Agenţiile UE aceste audieri care se organizează înainte de numirea candidaţilor în funcţia de director executiv. Cu toate acestea, regret că, în temeiul articolului 1 din Regulamentul modificat, audierea va avea loc doar în faţa Comisiei pentru mediu, sănătate publică şi siguranţă alimentară. În opinia mea, acest lucru nu este suficient. Audierea ar trebui să aibă loc, de asemenea, în faţa Comisiei pentru control bugetar. Membrii din Comisia pentru control bugetar vor merge oricum la aceste audieri. Un director executiv trebuie să dovedească experienţă şi cunoştinţe manageriale, inclusiv în domeniul achiziţiilor publice. Să nu repetăm greşelile din trecut!
Véronique Mathieu Houillon (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur du rapport qui demande à la Commission européenne de présenter une proposition afin de mettre à jour le règlement de l'agence européenne de l'environnement, pour que celui-ci prévoie une audition par le Parlement du candidat au poste de directeur exécutif avant sa nomination par le Conseil d'administration.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – Le rapport Groote vise à augmenter les pouvoirs du Parlement européen dans la procédure de nomination du directeur exécutif de l’Agence européenne pour l’environnement (AEE). Ce dernier est pour l’instant nommé par le conseil d’administration de l’AEE sur proposition de la Commission (art. 9 du règlement (CE) n°401/2009). Il est ici proposé que le directeur exécutif de l’AEE soit choisi par le conseil d’administration de cette agence parmi une liste de candidats au poste proposée par la Commission et qu’il soit au préalable auditionné par le Parlement et par la commission de l’environnement, de la santé publique et de la sécurité alimentaire, après avoir présenté à cette dernière une feuille de route exposant sa stratégie sur la durée de son mandat. Ces modestes améliorations ne changent rien à étouffement démocratique de l'Union ni aux pouvoirs dérisoires du parlement. Je m'abstiens sur ce texte.
Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. − A nomeação de quem quer que seja para desempenhar funções ao nível das várias Agências que existem no espaço da UE deve ser transparente e pautar-se por regras bem claras. O Parlamento Europeu deve ter uma palavra a dizer no que respeita a essas nomeações. Este relatório pretende tão só permitir que o futuro nomeado para a Agência Europeia do Ambiente possa vir a ser ouvido pelo organismo competente do Parlamento Europeu, neste caso a Comissão do Ambiente.
Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − He votado a favor del presente informe porque comparto la idea de la necesidad de que el director ejecutivo de la Agencia Ambiental Europea deba presentarte ante las instancias competentes del Parlamento Europeo antes de su reclutamiento. Se trata de una expresión formal del control que debe ejercer el poder legislativo que representa el Parlamento sobre una importante decisión como la de contratar a los directores ejecutivos de las agencias de la Unión Europea. Este informe se presenta debido a que los reglamentos referentes a otras importantes agencias como la Agencia Europea de Seguridad Alimentaria, la Agencia Marítima Europea, etc. ya contemplan la obligación de que sus directores ejecutivos deban presentarse ante el Parlamento antes de su reclutamiento. Por ello he decidido votar a favor del presente informe.
Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The report requests that the Commission grant Parliament the formal right to hear the candidate selected for the post of the European Environment Agencyʼs Executive Director prior to his or her appointment. In favour.
Tiziano Motti (PPE), per iscritto. − Questa raccomandazione è tecnica e difficilmente spiegabile ai nostri concittadini. Me ne rammarico. Nondimeno, ha un valore politico importante. Il primo comma dell'articolo 9 del regolamento disciplina la nomina del direttore esecutivo dell'Agenzia europea dell'ambiente e attualmente non comprende il requisito che il candidato selezionato dal consiglio di amministrazione dell'Agenzia sia sentito dall'organo competente del Parlamento europeo prima di essere nominato. Tale requisito figura tuttavia nei regolamenti che istituiscono altre agenzie, in particolare l'Agenzia europea per le sostanze chimiche, l'Agenzia europea per i medicinali e l'Autorità europea per la sicurezza alimentare, che rientrano nelle competenze della commissione per l'ambiente, la sanità pubblica e la sicurezza alimentare (ENVI) del Parlamento. Di fatto, questa mancanza di un riferimento specifico all'audizione parlamentare è dovuta soprattutto al fatto che il regolamento che istituisce l'Agenzia europea dell'ambiente è precedente ai regolamenti che istituiscono le altre agenzie, poiché la sua versione originaria risale al 1990.
Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − The European Environment Agency (EEA) is an agency of the European Union that serves as a major information source on environmental issues. Regulations authorise the Parliament to appoint the Executive Director of EEA; however, whether candidates selected by the Member Board of EEA should be heard by the competent body of the Parliament is not specified, mostly due to the fact that the associated regulation is older than the regulations establishing other agencies, such as the European Chemical Agency and European Medicines Agency, which include this specific requirement. Therefore, I voted in favour of this request to submit a proposal in order to amend the regulations.
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − O objetivo do presente relatório consiste em solicitar à Comissão, com base no artigo 225.º do Tratado, que apresente uma proposta legislativa que modifique o artigo 9.º do Regulamento (CE) n.º 401/2009 relativo à Agência Europeia do Ambiente, uma vez que esse regulamento descreve o processo de nomeação do Diretor Executivo da AEA e não prevê, atualmente, qualquer requisito que estabeleça que o candidato selecionado pelo Conselho de Administração da AEA compareça perante o organismo competente do Parlamento Europeu antes da sua nomeação, o que tem que ser alterado. Por estes motivos dou o meu voto favorável.
Νικόλαος Σαλαβράκος (EFD), γραπτώς. – Υπερψήφισα τη συγκεκριμένη έκθεση καθώς ενισχύει τον ρόλο του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου στην διαδικασίας πρόσληψης διευθυντικού στελέχους στον Ευρωπαϊκό Οργανισμό Περιβάλλοντος. Προτείνεται ορθώς η διαδικασία διορισμού του εκτελεστικού διευθυντή του ΕΟΠ να ευθυγραμμιστεί σύμφωνα με τις διαδικασίες που εφαρμόζονται για τους εκτελεστικούς διευθυντές των άλλων οργανισμών που εμπίπτουν στο πεδίο αρμοδιότητας της επιτροπής ENVI.
Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce texte. Contrairement aux règlements plus récents établissant les autres agences, le règlement (CE) n° 401/2009, dans son article 9, ne précise pas que la Commission sélectionne le candidat au poste de directeur exécutif de l'AEE à la suite d'un appel à manifestation d'intérêt publié au Journal officiel de l'Union européenne et dans d'autres organes de presse ou sur des sites internet. Cela peut dès lors constituer une occasion de mettre à jour le règlement relatif à l'AEE afin de l'adapter à la pratique plus actuelle à cet égard.
Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − Este relatório pretende que, antes da nomeação de um Diretor Executivo para a Agência Europeia do Ambiente, o candidato seja ouvido no Parlamento, na comissão competente. Esta regra já está estabelecida para outras agências europeias. Além disso, esta posição deve também ser publicada no Jornal Oficial da União Europeia e noutros meios de comunicação social. Sou favorável a estas modificações e, por conseguinte, ao relatório.
Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), schriftlich. − Anhörungen sind essentiell, da sie ein wichtiges Instrument für die Transparenz gegenüber den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern darstellen. Besonders diese Agentur ist auch eine Informationsquelle für interessierte Bürger und die allgemeine Öffentlichkeit. Diesem Antrag ist in jedem Fall zuzustimmen, denn es handelt sich um ein sehr wichtiges Amt im Hinblick auf die zuverlässige und unabhängige Information über die Umwelt.
Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − A Agência Europeia do Ambiente é dirigida por um Diretor Executivo que o Conselho de Administração nomeia, tendo por base uma lista de candidatos proposta pela Comissão, na sequência de um convite de manifestação de interesse publicado no Jornal Oficial da União Europeia e noutros meios de comunicação escrita ou na Internet. O objetivo da proposta votada consiste em harmonizar o processo para a nomeação do Diretor Executivo da Agência Europeia do Ambiente com outros processos utilizados em outras agências. Assim, pretende-se atribuir ao Parlamento Europeu o direito formal de proceder à audição do candidato selecionado, dando-lhe a oportunidade de proferir uma declaração e sujeitando-o depois a um período de perguntas dos deputados. O envolvimento do Parlamento Europeu na nomeação deste cargo tornará seguramente o processo mais democrático, pelo que não nos opomos ao proposto neste relatório.
6.3. Draft amending budget No 2/2013 - Increase in forecasts concerning other revenue stemming from fines and penalties - Increase in payment appropriations (A7-0287/2013 - Giovanni La Via)
Dichiarazioni di voto scritte
Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente relatório, começando por relembrar que, no quadro das negociações do Quadro Financeiro Multianual da União Europeia 2014-2020, o Parlamento Europeu tornou claro que não consente um Quadro Financeiro, a não ser que tenha uma garantia absoluta de não existirem pedidos de pagamento pendentes e que estes sejam satisfeitos na totalidade, de modo a evitar um défice estrutural no orçamento da União Europeia em 2013. O novo Regulamento Financeiro, com as devidas alterações, irá permitir que o orçamento da União em 2013 sofra um aumento de 7,3 mil milhões de euros em pagamentos no momento imediato, enquanto insiste numa alteração extra no outono.
Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce texte technique qui vise à ramener à l'équilibre le budget voté en déficit pour l'année 2013. Le montant de 11,2 milliards d'EUR est un minimum pour couvrir les besoins réels d'ici à la fin de 2013 et nous demandons aux trois institutions européennes de trouver une solution.
Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį siūlymą dėl Taisomojo biudžeto projekto Nr. 2/2013. Pritariu siūlymo tikslui – Daugiametės finansinės programos atitinkamose išlaidų kategorijose 290 mln. EUR padidinti prognozes dėl pajamų iš baudų ir nuobaudų ir 11,2 mlrd. EUR padidinti mokėjimų asignavimus.
Philippe Boulland (PPE), par écrit. – Les négociations du budget européen 2014-2020 ont été conclues par un accord politique en juillet, il nous fallait prendre acte du projet de budget rectificatif proposé par la Commission et le Conseil et rectifier nos prévisions de crédits de paiement pour les sept prochaines années.
John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − Against. This report is little more than another ploy to take more taxpayers’ money – I therefore voted against it.
Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − Considerando que o Parlamento, o Conselho e a Comissão se comprometeram, numa declaração conjunta de dezembro de 2012, a cobrir todos os pedidos de pagamentos relativos a 2012 através de um orçamento retificativo no início de 2013 e que o Conselho se comprometeu formalmente a assumir, no quadro do acordo político relativo ao QFP 2014-2020 e na sequência do pedido expressamente formulado pelo Parlamento, no sentido de garantir igualmente a cobertura da segunda parcela de pagamentos por liquidar, o que irá permitir assegurar a liquidação dos pagamentos antes do início do novo QFP. Devido a estas indicações, votei favoravelmente no relatório em questão.
Lara Comi (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho votato a favore di questo progetto di bilancio rettificativo per dare sostegno al lavoro fatto dai colleghi durante le negoziazioni con il Consiglio.
Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − Tendo em consideração que o Parlamento, o Conselho e a Comissão se comprometeram, numa declaração conjunta, em dezembro de 2012, a cobrir todos os pedidos de pagamentos relativos a 2012 através de um orçamento retificativo no início de 2013, acompanho a posição do relator. Recordo, mais uma vez, a necessidade que existe em aprovar o próximo Quadro Financeiro Plurianual com a maior brevidade possível, tendo em conta todas as implicações que este impasse provoca, tanto a nível europeu como a nível nacional.
José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − O montante global dos pedidos de pagamento por liquidar no final de 2012 relativos à política de coesão (2007-2013) foi de 16, 2 mil milhões de euros. Este valor transitou para 2013, o que acarretou a redução do nível dos pagamentos disponível no orçamento de 2013 para cobrir as necessidades de pagamentos do ano em curso. Este orçamento retificativo n.º 2/2013 do orçamento geral de 2013 propõe um aumento de 290 milhões de euros das previsões de receitas provenientes de multas e sanções e um aumento de 11,2 mil milhões de euros das dotações de pagamento nas rubricas 1a, 1b, 2, 3a, 3b e 4 do quadro financeiro plurianual, a fim fazer face às necessidades de pagamentos até ao final do exercício. A Comissão propôs este aumento global de 11,2 mil milhões de euros para não pôr em causa o limite máximo dos pagamentos em 2013 e, assim, evitar uma revisão do atual QFP. No entanto este montante não é suficiente para cobrir todos os pedidos de pagamento apresentados até ao final de 2013.
Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne − Parlament, Rada a Komisia sa v súlade so spoločným vyhlásením z decembra 2012 zaviazali pokryť všetky zostávajúce žiadosti o platbu za rok 2012 prostredníctvom opravného rozpočtu na začiatku roku 2013. Politická dohoda, ku ktorej 27. júna 2013 dospeli na najvyššej politickej úrovni Parlament, predsedníctvo Rady a Komisia v súvislosti s viacročným finančným rámcom na obdobie 2014 – 2020, zahŕňala politický záväzok Rady prijať všetky nevyhnutné kroky a zaistiť, aby boli v plnom rozsahu splnené záväzky EÚ za rok 2013. Záväzky vyplývali zo snahy predísť akémukoľvek výpadku oprávnených platobných rozpočtových prostriedkov. Komisia je jedinou inštitúciou, ktorá môže poskytnúť rozpočtovému orgánu presné informácie, pokiaľ hovoríme o očakávaných platobných potrebách na základe žiadostí členských štátov. Zároveň je každý členský štát zodpovedný len za svoje vlastné údaje, a teda prípadné námietky môže vzniesť len voči týmto údajom.
Giovanni La Via (PPE), per iscritto. − Oggi ci siamo occupati dell'approvazione di alcuni Progetti Rettificativi di Bilancio, i cosiddetti DAB, di cui sono Relatore e che sono necessari durante l'esecuzione del bilancio per fronteggiare esigenze o eventi non previsti al momento dell'adozione dello stesso. Tra questi, il più importante, sia tecnicamente che politicamente, è il DAB n. 2/2013, pari ad un importo di 7.3 miliardi di euro, fondamentali per pagare le fatture di alcuni progetti e programmi europei quali, ad esempio, l'Erasmus e le misure per l'occupazione. Questa cifra, seppur considerevole, non sarà purtroppo sufficiente a coprire tutti i fabbisogni di spesa che si presenteranno nel corso dell'anno. Per questo motivo abbiamo chiesto con forza al Consiglio di impegnarsi formalmente al fine di assicurare la copertura dei 3.9 miliardi di euro mancanti. Durante la discussione in aula, ho inoltre ricordato che tale impegno rimane per il Parlamento una pre-condizione per il rilascio del consenso finale sul pacchetto MFF e per l'adozione del bilancio UE per il 2014.
George Lyon (ALDE), in writing. − Today I did not vote in favour of the DAB 2/2013. While I accept that the payment of outstanding costs of the 2013 Budget was a precondition for agreement of the MFF with the Council, I am not in favour of paying more money out of the EU Budget when Member States are tightening their belts and reining in spending.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – Ce rapport valide la nouvelle proposition du Conseil de rallonger de 11,2 milliards le budget 2013 de l'UE. Même si elle constitue une avancée par rapport à la rallonge initiale de seulement 7,3 milliards d'euros envisagée par le Conseil, cette proposition reste insuffisante pour couvrir les besoins de paiements existants. Je m'abstiens donc, je ne veux à la fois permettre cette augmentation des crédits de paiement et signifier son insuffisance. Cette rallonge est en effet censée couvrir l'ensemble des paiements en retard sur la programmation budgétaire 2007-2013, qui s'élèvent à plus de 16 milliards d'euros. L'insuffisance du budget rectificatif conduira donc à reporter de nouveaux paiements du budget 2013, au détriment de la prochaine programmation budgétaire 2014-2020 qui est déjà insuffisante. Cette contraction générale des budgets au nom de l'austérité va se faire au détriment des fonds européens pour l'aide aux plus démunis ou pour la recherche, par exemple. Gestion désordonnée ajoutée à l'austérité, c'est trop.
Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. − O presente projeto de orçamento retificativo pretende salvaguardar o futuro pagamento das verbas referentes à política de coesão (2007/2013), que deveriam ser pagas em 2012 e que transitarão para serem pagas em 2013. Esperemos que tais pagamentos estejam efetuados para não haver atrasos nas políticas de coesão.
Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − He votado a favor del presente informe porque supone un incremento de los recursos disponibles para el presupuesto del ejercicio financiero del año 2013. El informe recoge una rectificación para que el presupuesto pueda disponer de los fondos procedentes de la aplicación de multas y sanciones por parte de la Unión Europea a diferentes agentes económicos y políticos. La rectificación del presupuesto propuesta en el informe recoge un importante incremento en los créditos repartidos proporcionalmente entre las diferentes partidas del presupuesto, dando un potencial impulso a la actividad económica a través de la asignación de los citados ingresos por multas y sanciones. Además, se prevé que estos ingresos aumenten a lo largo del próximo ejercicio. Por ello he decidido votar a favor del presente informe.
Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − I am confident that the Council should agree to release now a first tranche of extra payment appropriations of EUR 7.3 billion. The Commission should also present in early autumn a further Draft Amending Budget 2013 to avoid any shortfall in payment appropriations by the end of 2013. The Council is committed politically to decide on this new amending budget without delay. I am in favour.
Rolandas Paksas (EFD), raštu. − Balsavau už šią Tarybos poziciją dėl taisomojo biudžeto. Visų pirma, be jokių išlygų turi būti įgyvendintas oficialus trijų institucijų įsipareigojimas. Labai svarbu, kad neatlikti mokėjimai iki 2013 m. pabaigos būtų įvykdyti dviem vienas po kito einančiais etapais. Be to, naujasis taisomasis biudžetas turi apimti ir Komisijos nustatytą likusį mokėjimų deficitą, kad būtų išvengta bet kokių nepagrįstų mokėjimų asignavimų trūkumų. Atkreiptinas dėmesys į tai, kad neįgyvendinus šių sąlygų iškils sunkumų siekiant kompromiso dėl ateinančios daugiametės finansinės programos ir naujojo biudžeto. Be to, nebus užtikrintas institucijų abipusis pasitikėjimas ir lojalus bendradarbiavimas.
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente relatório referente à posição do Conselho sobre o projeto de orçamento retificativo n.º 2/2013 da União Europeia para o exercício de 2013, Secção III – Comissão, em que o Parlamento Europeu declara tomar conhecimento do projeto de orçamento retificativo n.º 2/2013 proposto pela Comissão e da posição do Conselho sobre o mesmo, que reflete o compromisso político assumido pelo Conselho durante as negociações sobre o QPF 2014-2020. Entende o Parlamento Europeu que o aumento global de 11,2 mil milhões de euros originalmente propostos pela Comissão a este nível para não pôr em causa o limite máximo dos pagamentos em 2013 e, assim, evitar uma revisão do atual QFP, é uma boa medida, se bem que receie que não seja suficiente para cobrir todos os pedidos de pagamento apresentados até ao final de 2013.
Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Even though we (Greens/EFA) consider that this DAB will not be sufficient to cover the shortfall in payments – the Commission’s own calculations point to another shortfall of EUR 12 billion even in case of full adoption of DAB 2 at the end of the year – we nevertheless had to support it, even if we will only adopt a run-down amending budget. But EUR 7.3 billion for the EU budget is of course better than nothing.
Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente. Este orçamento retificativo visa aumentar a verba disponível para pagamentos no orçamento da UE, por forma a colmatar parte do défice de cerca de 11,2 mil milhões de euros, resultantes da implementação dos programas e projetos da UE no âmbito do Fundo Social Europeu, Fundo de Coesão e Fundo de Desenvolvimento Regional. Este orçamento retificativo corresponde à primeira tranche, 7,3 mil milhões de euros. Aguarda-se que o Conselho Europeu aprove a segunda tranche em outubro. A aprovação das duas tranches pelo Conselho Europeu é condição sine qua non para que o Parlamento Europeu pondere vir a dar o consentimento ao Quadro Financeiro Plurianual 2014-2020. É lastimável que, só no terceiro trimestre de 2013, o Conselho Europeu tenha tornado possível a disponibilização das verbas necessárias para colmatar os pedidos de reembolso pendentes dos Estados-Membros de 2012, podendo comprometer a implementação dos programas e projetos de 2013. Trata-se de dinheiro que é devido aos Estados Membros, para pagamento de despesas já efetuadas em medidas e programas de âmbito social.
Γεώργιος Σταυρακάκης (S&D), γραπτώς. – Υπερψήφισα την έκθεση σχετικά με το σχέδιο διορθωτικού προϋπολογισμού (ΣΔΠ) αριθ. 2 του 2013 για την αύξηση των πιστώσεων πληρωμών για να μπορέσει η Επιτροπή να πληρώσει τους εκκρεμείς λογαριασμούς του 2012 σε όλους τους τομείς πολιτικής του προϋπολογισμού της ΕΕ, ιδίως στο πλαίσιο των διαρθρωτικών ταμείων και του ταμείου συνοχής, που δεν μπορούσαν να καταβληθούν εγκαίρως λόγω της έλλειψης επαρκών πιστώσεων πληρωμών στον Προϋπολογισμό του 2012. Μετά από αρκετούς γύρους εντατικών διαπραγματεύσεων, μετά τη συνάντηση των Προέδρων των τριών θεσμικών οργάνων, συμφωνήθηκε το Συμβούλιο να αποδεσμεύσει την πρώτη δόση του ΣΔΠ 2/2013 ύψους 7,3 δισ. ευρώ και η Επιτροπή να υποβάλει στις αρχές του φθινοπώρου ένα επιπλέον ΣΔΠ για το 2013 για να αποφευχθεί η οποιαδήποτε έλλειψη στις πληρωμές μέχρι το τέλος της χρονιάς. Εμείς, ως Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο, έχουμε καταστήσει σαφές ότι η ΕΕ δεν θα πρέπει να καταλήξει με διαρθρωτικό έλλειμμα στον προϋπολογισμό της στο τέλος του 2013, το οποίο θα μεταφερθεί στη νέα δημοσιονομική περίοδο. Για αυτόν τον λόγο, αναμένουμε την πρόταση της Επιτροπής για ένα νέο ΣΔΠ και υπενθυμίζουμε ότι το Συμβούλιο έχει δεσμευτεί πολιτικά ότι θα αποφασίσει σχετικά με αυτόν τον νέο διορθωτικό προϋπολογισμό χωρίς καθυστέρηση.
Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – La Commission est la seule institution à pouvoir fournir à l'autorité budgétaire des données précises sur les besoins de paiement escomptés sur la base des demandes des États membres pour l'exercice N et de leurs estimations pour l'exercice N+1. Je souligne que le Conseil ne dispose d'aucune base objective pour remettre en cause les chiffres présentés par la Commission, qui se basent sur la compilation des données communiquées par les 27 États membres. Je rappelle également que chaque État membre n'est responsable que de ses propres données, qui sont par conséquent les seules qu'il puisse contester.
Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − Em 27 de junho de 2013, as instituições europeias chegaram a acordo sobre o Quadro Financeiro Plurianual (QFP) para o período 2014-2020, o que incluiu um compromisso político do Conselho no sentido de tomar todas as medidas necessárias para garantir que as obrigações de 2013 da UE sejam totalmente respeitadas. Foi ainda adotado o projeto de orçamento retificativo n.º 2/2013 num valor de 7,3 mil milhões de euros, bem como um novo projeto de orçamento retificativo, a propor pela Comissão no início do outono, que deve ser adotado com a máxima brevidade para evitar toda e qualquer carência de dotações de pagamento justificadas. Voto favoravelmente o presente relatório que recorda ao Conselho o facto de o Parlamento Europeu apenas aprovar o QFP para 2014-2020 quando o Conselho se comprometer a pagar o que está por liquidar até ao final de 2013, que, segundo estimativa da Comissão, são 11,2 mil milhões de euros.
Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Tal como é referido no relatório, o Parlamento, o Conselho e a Comissão comprometeram-se, em dezembro de 2012, a cumprir todos os pedidos de pagamentos relativos a 2012 através de um orçamento retificativo no início de 2013. Em 27 de junho deste ano, estabeleceu-se um acordo entre o Presidente do PE, a Presidência do Conselho e a Comissão sobre o QFP 2014-2020 e o cumprimento das obrigações pendentes relativamente ao ano em curso. Entretanto, faltam menos de quatro meses para o fim de 2013 e o atual orçamento retificativo continua a ser insuficiente face aos pagamentos expectáveis. A necessidade deste e de, pelo menos, mais um orçamento retificativo é consequência de um adiamento incompreensível e inaceitável da parte do Conselho, que não assumiu até agora a cobertura do défice do orçamento de 2013 (que inclui pagamentos em falta de 2012 e transitados para 2013). Estamos perante mais uma etapa num caminho que visa impor reduções nas transferências dos chamados contribuintes líquidos, os países mais beneficiados com o processo de integração da UE, com o mercado interno e o euro, com as políticas comuns. Pela nossa parte, votámos a favor deste orçamento retificativo para dar cobertura a pagamentos em falta, mas é visível que o rei - a UE - vai nu.
6.4. Draft amending budget No 3/2013 - Surplus resulting from the implementation of the budget year 2012 (A7-0284/2013 - Giovanni La Via)
Dichiarazioni di voto scritte
Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente relatório, tendo em conta que o orçamento de 2012 levou a um excedente baixo histórico de 1,023 mil milhões a entrarem no Orçamento de 2013. Este excedente, sendo resultante da despesa, do rendimento extra recebido em 2012 e das diferenças nas taxas de câmbio, reduz as contribuições a serem pagas pelos Estados-Membros a financiarem o orçamento de 2013. Deste modo é vital que este excedente passe para 2013 e impeça uma baixa de contribuições por parte dos Estados-Membros, principalmente numa época de crise e austeridade económica que os Estados-Membros economicamente mais débeis estão a enfrentar.
Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce texte financier qui permet un basculement de l'argent non dépensé en 2011 et 2012 vers le budget en déficit de 2013. En effet, les dépenses sous-exécutées se chiffrent à 244 millions d'EUR, dont 168 millions d'EUR correspondant à des crédits du budget 2012 et 76 millions d'EUR à des reports de 2011.
Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį siūlymą dėl taisomojo biudžeto Nr. 3/2013 projekto. Pritariu siūlymo tikslui įtraukti 2012 finansinių metų biudžeto perviršį, kuris siekia 1 023,3 mln. EUR, į 2013 m. biudžetą. Pagrindinės šio perviršio dalys yra nepanaudota išlaidoms numatyta 244,3 mln. EUR suma, didesnės nei planuota pajamos, siekiančios daugiau nei 719,1 mln. EUR, ir teigiami 59,9 mln. EUR valiutos keitimo kurso skirtumai.
Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Ho sostenuto col mio voto la relazione dell'on. La Via sul progetto di bilancio rettificativo n. 3/2013 che mira ad iscrivere a bilancio l’eccedenza derivante dall’esecuzione dell’esercizio 2012. In questo modo la contabilizzazione dell’eccedenza comporterà una diminuzione corrispondente del contributo globale degli Stati membri al finanziamento del bilancio UE con un risparmio per ogni singolo Paese.
Philippe Boulland (PPE), par écrit. – Les négociations du budget européen 2014-2020 ont été conclues par un accord politique en juillet, il nous fallait prendre acte du projet de budget rectificatif proposé par la Commission et le Conseil concernant les excédents résultant de l'exécution de l'exercice 2013. En 2012, l'UE est restée avec un excédent d'1 milliard d'euros, dont il nous fallait prévoir l'affectation dans l'exercice 2013.
John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − I abstained from voting in this case.
Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − A aprovação do presente projeto de orçamento retificativo irá reduzir a quota-parte da contribuição baseada no RNB dos Estados-Membros para o orçamento da União e, por conseguinte, compensar parcialmente a sua contribuição para o financiamento do orçamento retificativo n.º 2. Saliento, por conseguinte, que os dois dossiês estão sujeitos a um calendário comum de adoção, visto estarem estreitamente ligados de um ponto de vista político. Devido a estas indicações, votei favoravelmente no relatório em questão.
Lara Comi (PPE), per iscritto. − Questo progetto di bilancio rettificativo aiuta le economie degli Stati Membri dando loro un po' di ossigeno. Infatti, non avendo speso tutta la dotazione prevista nel 2012, il contributo degli Stati può essere leggermente ridotto per il 2013.
Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − O projeto de orçamento retificativo n.º 3 visa devolver aos Estados o excedente do ano passado, reduzindo proporcionalmente a sua contribuição para o orçamento da União do ano seguinte e aliviando a carga adicional que esta constitui para os orçamentos nacionais. Apoio obviamente essa devolução.
José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − Este projeto de orçamento retificativo nº 3/2013 visa inscrever no orçamento para 2013 o excedente do exercício de 2012, no valor de 1 023,3 milhões de euros. Os principais componentes desse excedente são constituídos por 244,3 milhões de euros de subexecução da despesa, 719,1 milhões de euros de diferenças positivas resultantes da execução da receita e 59,9 milhões de euros de diferenças cambiais positivas. Do lado da receita, o acréscimo resulta principalmente de restituições e contribuições ligadas a acordos e programas da UE (350 milhões de euros), de um aumento dos recursos próprios efetivamente cobrados em relação aos já orçamentados (231 milhões de euros) e de multas e juros de mora (159 milhões de euros), A subexecução da despesa ascende a 244 milhões de euros, dos quais 168 milhões de euros relativos a dotações do orçamento de 2012 e 76 milhões respeitantes a dotações transitadas de 2011.
Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne − Cieľom návrhu opravného rozpočtu č. 3/2013 je začleniť do rozpočtu na rok 2013 prebytok z rozpočtového roka 2012 vo výške 1 023,3 milióna EUR. Prebytok je tvorený hlavnými zložkami, ktorými sú nevyčerpané výdavkové rozpočtové prostriedky vo výške 244,3 milióna EUR, kladné výnosy z príjmov vo výške viac než 719,1 milióna EUR a kladný kurzový rozdiel vo výške 59,9 milióna EUR. Prijatím predkladaného návrhu opravného rozpočtu sa zníži podiel príspevkov členských štátov do rozpočtu Únie podľa výšky HND, a tým budú čiastočne vykompenzované ich príspevky na financovanie opravného rozpočtu č. 2/2013.
Giovanni La Via (PPE), per iscritto. − Il Progetto di bilancio rettificativo n. 3/2013, pari a 1 023,3 milioni di EUR, è relativo all'eccedenza di bilancio (il cosiddetto surplus), derivante dall'esecuzione dell'esercizio 2012, e fa parte di un pacchetto di proposte di modifica del bilancio 2013. Con il bilancio rettificativo numero 3 si ridurrà la quota del contributo RNL degli Stati membri al bilancio dell'Unione, contribuendo a compensare, pro quota, parte del loro contributo al finanziamento del DAB 2/2013, anch'esso approvato oggi a larga maggioranza.
David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour with this report because we need additional financing to cover programmes under the cohesion policy for 2007-2013, the closure of programmes from 2000-2006 and payments for various other headings.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – Ce rapport valide la proposition du Conseil d’affecter au budget 2013 un excédent de plus d’un milliard d’euros résultant de l’exécution du budget 2012. Alors que les impayés accumulés par l’UE atteignent 16 milliards d’euros, il est absurde que l’Union ait dégagé un tel excédent budgétaire en 2012. Cela traduit une mauvaise gestion budgétaire par la Commission au détriment du respect des engagements financiers de l’UE vis-à-vis des bénéficiaires de fonds européens. Je m’abstiens pour ne pas priver le budget 2013 de cet abondement, sans pour autant cautionner cette mauvaise gestion austéritaire.
Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. − O presente relatório pretende registar e transferir determinada verba respeitante ao exercício de 2012, e não executado, para o exercício de 2013. O orçamento retificativo n.º 3 irá reduzir a quota-parte da contribuição baseada no RNB dos Estados-Membros para o orçamento da União e, por conseguinte, compensar parcialmente a sua contribuição para o financiamento do orçamento retificativo n.º 2, aprovado no relatório A7-0287/2013.
Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − He votado a favor del presente informe porque supone un incremento de los recursos disponibles para el presupuesto del ejercicio financiero del año 2013, debido a que durante 2012 se ha gastado menos de lo ingresado por la Unión. El informe recoge una rectificación para que el presupuesto pueda disponer de los fondos procedentes del excedente del presupuesto de la Unión Europea para el pasado ejercicio de 2012. En un contexto de crisis económica, la Unión ha estado llevando a cabo una absurda política de austeridad, en lugar de tratar de impulsar su actividad económica a través del empleo de sus fondos. Los citados recursos, que exceden escasamente los mil millones de euros, son una fuente necesaria para el impulso de todo tipo de políticas que sirvan para atenuar la crisis europea. Por ello he decidido votar a favor del presente informe.
Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The execution of the 2012 budget led to a historically low surplus of EUR 1.023 billion to be entered in the 2013 budget. The surplus is the sum of the underspend in 2012 (EUR 0.24 billion), extra income received in 2012 (EUR 0.71 billion) and exchange rate differences (EUR 0.05 billion). Introducing changes is necessary of course; however, this is to define the main reasons for such unprofessional work. I am in favour.
Rolandas Paksas (EFD), raštu. − Pritariu rezoliucijos projekte išdėstytai pozicijai. Labai svarbu, kad 2012 finansinių metų biudžeto perviršis būtų įtrauktas į 2013 m. biudžetą, Atkreiptinas dėmesys į tai, kad priėmus šį taisomojo biudžeto projektą ir šį perteklių įrašius į biudžetą atitinkamai sumažės bendras valstybių narių įnašas į ES biudžeto finansavimą.
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente relatório referente à posição do Conselho sobre o projeto de orçamento retificativo n.º 3/2013 da União Europeia para o exercício de 2013, Secção III – Comissão, em que se visa inscrever no orçamento para 2013 o excedente do exercício de 2012, no valor de 1 023,3 milhões de euros, o que irá reduzir a quota-parte da contribuição baseada no RNB dos Estados-Membros para o orçamento da União.
Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − Against. Legally, we have to adopt this DAB, but in the current circumstances, where the Council does not respect any deal made with Parliament on amending budgets on the expenditure side, we should clearly postpone its adoption as long as possible. At least, until the Council agrees to pay for the second tranche of DAB 2 (see related briefing) later during the year. In the report, both issues are linked, but by adopting the surplus DAB next week, this link will disappear as is no prospect of having a quick adoption of the second tranche of DAB 2. Therefore, we have voted against the report, not for reasons of substance, but for reasons of timing.
Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Este orçamento retificativo visa integrar no orçamento da União para 2013 o montante de EUR 1 023.3, remanescente de 2012. Este excedente corresponde a uma verba de EUR 244.3 milhões que não foi implementada, um montante de EUR 719.1 milhões que corresponde a multas cobradas por infrações do quadro legal europeu e um montante de EUR 59.9 milhões que resultam de taxas de câmbio positivas. Este excedente irá colmatar parte dos pedidos de reembolso dos Estados Membros pendentes até ao final do ano corrente. Votei, obviamente, a favor.
Γεώργιος Σταυρακάκης (S&D), γραπτώς. – Υπερψήφισα την έκθεση σχετικά με το σχέδιο διορθωτικού προϋπολογισμού (ΣΔΠ) αριθ. 3 του 2013 που αφορά την εγγραφή στον Προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ του 2013 του πλεονάσματος που προκύπτει από την εκτέλεση του Προϋπολογισμού του οικονομικού έτους 2012. Η εκτέλεση του προϋπολογισμού για το 2012 παρουσίασε το ιστορικά χαμηλό πλεόνασμα ύψους 1,023 δισ. ευρώ, το οποίο επομένως εγγράφεται ως έσοδο στον Προϋπολογισμό του 2013 και θα μειώσει αντίστοιχα τη συνολική συνεισφορά των κρατών μελών στη χρηματοδότηση του προϋπολογισμού της ΕΕ. Δεν μπορώ παρά να υπογραμμίσω το παράδοξο του ζητήματος, δηλαδή το ότι, από τη μια μεριά, στον προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ υπάρχει έλλειμμα στις πληρωμές και η Επιτροπή δυσκολεύεται να πληρώσει τους λογαριασμούς της και, από την άλλη, το όποιο πλεόνασμα που έχει προκύψει από την εκτέλεση του προϋπολογισμού του περασμένου έτους, αντί να πάει στη χρηματοδότηση του προϋπολογισμού για να καλυφθεί το έλλειμμα, επιστρέφει στα κράτη μέλη. Ωστόσο, το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο αποδέχεται αυτήν την προσέγγιση, καθώς η έγκριση του ΣΔΠ 3/2013 θα μειώσει το μερίδιο της συνεισφοράς των κρατών μελών βάσει του ΑΕΕ τους στον προϋπολογισμό της ΕΕ και θα αντισταθμίσει εν μέρει τη συμβολή τους στη χρηματοδότηση του ΣΔΠ 2/2013.
Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – Il faut souligner que l'excédent se compose essentiellement des éléments suivants: une sous-exécution des dépenses de 244,3 millions d'EUR, une exécution en recettes positive de plus de 719,1 millions d'EUR et une différence de taux de change positive équivalente à 59,9 millions d'EUR. Nous devons considérer que, pour les recettes, l'augmentation résulte principalement de remboursements et de contributions découlant d'accords et de programmes de l'Union (350 millions d'EUR), de ressources propres effectivement collectées d'un montant supérieur à celui qui était inscrit au budget (231 millions d'EUR) ainsi que d'amendes et d'intérêts de retard (159 millions d'EUR).
Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − I voted in favour of Amending Budget No 3, as this is a surplus resulting from the implementation of the budget year 2012. Generally, all outstanding payments should be honoured in order to start a new ‘cleanʼ financial year. This way, Europeʼs budget view will be ‘free of chargeʼ and its budgetary task (theoretically) completed.
Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Este orçamento retificativo é exclusivamente dedicado à orçamentação do excedente de 2012, num montante de 1 023,3 milhões de euros, o qual irá reduzir a quota-parte da contribuição baseada no RNB dos Estados-Membros para o orçamento da União Europeia, com essa compensação parcial a ser feita através da sua contribuição para o orçamento retificativo nº 2/2013. As grandes potências e os chamados contribuintes líquidos impõem um caminho em que os programas e as políticas financiadas pelo orçamento da UE são cada vez mais desenhadas para ir ao encontro dos seus interesses e dos interesses dos seus monopólios, e vão criando expedientes políticos e financeiros com vista à redução da sua contribuição para o orçamento da UE. Em vez de se proceder a uma redução das contribuições dos países de acordo com a sua repartição proporcional e tendo em vista introduzir alguns elementos de efetiva solidariedade, o remanescente deveria ser alocado ao orçamento do ano seguinte, particularmente a programas específicos de apoio à produção nacional e de criação de emprego com direitos a eles associados nos países que enfrentam maiores dificuldades económicas.
6.5. Draft amending budget No 4/2013 - Staff of the European GNSS Agency - Staff of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) - Staff of the Court of Justice of the European Union (Rule 138) (vote) (A7-0285/2013 - Giovanni La Via, Derek Vaughan)
Dichiarazioni di voto scritte
Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente Relatório, sendo o objetivo do Orçamento Retificativo nº4/2013 reforçar os planos de estabelecimento da Agência GNSS, da Agência EACEA e do Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia. Penso que um orçamento de 2013 deve ser concluído sem défice estrutural e sem pedidos de pagamento sem serem pagos. A este respeito, o Parlamento Europeu continuará a ser intransigente.
Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – Ce texte technique vise à permettre l'embauche de 20 nouvelles personnes au sein de cette agence. J'ai voté en faveur de ce texte qui prévoit que l'augmentation du personnel de l'agence du GNSS européen sera compensée par la baisse des effectifs de la Commission européenne en conséquence afin de maintenir un équilibre budgétaire.
Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį siūlymą dėl taisomojo biudžeto Nr. 4/2013 projekto, susijusio su Europos GNSS agentūros, Švietimo, garso ir vaizdo bei kultūros vykdomosios įstaigos (EACEA) ir Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismo personalu. Pritariu siūlymo tikslui papildyti Europos GNSS agentūros personalą 20 naujų etatų atsižvelgiant į agentūrai pavestas naujas užduotis, o Švietimo, garso ir vaizdo bei kultūros vykdomosios įstaigos personalą atitinkamai papildyti 2 laikinaisiais darbuotojais ir 13 pagal sutartis dirbančių darbuotojų, o Teisingumo Teismo personalo planą papildyti 7 etatais.
Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Appoggio la relazione degli onn. La Via e Vaughan sul progetto di bilancio rettificativo n 4/2013 relativo all'assunzione di nuovo personale per le agenzia del GNSS europeo (GSA) - Personale dell'Agenzia esecutiva per l'istruzione, gli audiovisivi e la cultura (EACEA) - Personale della Corte di giustizia dell'Unione europea. Queste nuove assunzioni non incideranno sul bilancio ma permetteranno a queste agenzie di funzionare in modo più efficiente.
Philippe Boulland (PPE), par écrit. – Les négociations du budget européen 2014-2020 ont été conclues par un accord politique en juillet, il nous donc fallait prendre acte du projet de budget rectificatif proposé par la Commission et le Conseil. Il est à noter que l'agence du GNSS européen et de la Cour de Justice verront leur personnel augmenter, tandis que celui de la Commission diminuera tout au long du prochain CFP.
John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − Against. This report is little more than another ploy to take more of the taxpayers’ money and another attempt to reinforce EU judicial power – I therefore voted against it.
Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − Considerando que o presente orçamento retificativo retoma apenas uma parte do pedido inicial do Tribunal de Justiça, baseado na Declaração n.º 38, não tendo em conta os 9 referendários solicitados pelo Tribunal, votei favoravelmente o presente relatório.
Lara Comi (PPE), per iscritto. − Come per la relazione dell'on. Fernandes, di cui questo provvedimento è il volto contabile, ritengo opportuna la solidarietà nei confronti dei Paesi dell'UE colpiti da calamità naturali.
Rachida Dati (PPE), par écrit. – L’Europe spatiale, c’est l’Europe de l’ambition, des grands projets : nous sommes à la pointe en matière d’industrie spatiale, et nous devons le rester, il en va de notre compétitivité, de nos emplois. L’agence du GNSS a un rôle important à jouer à cette fin, et je soutiens donc ce projet de budget rectificatif qui permettra d’ajuster ses capacités à ses nouvelles missions.
Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − Trata-se de um projecto de retificação neutra do ponto de vista orçamental, não merecendo, por isso, comentário particular, senão que os movimentos e quadros de pessoal devem ser claramente entendíveis. Desejo que o aumento do quadro de pessoal da Agência Europeia do GNSS e do Tribunal de Justiça se reflita positivamente nas suas capacidades de exercer as competências que lhe são confiadas e de cumprir os respetivos objetivos.
José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − O orçamento retificativo n.º 4/2013 visa modificar os quadros do pessoal da Agência Europeia do GNSS, acrescentando-lhe 20 lugares, devido às novas tarefas de que a Agência foi incumbida, da agência de execução EACEA, acrescentando lhe 2 agentes temporários e 13 agentes contratuais, devido ao alargamento do seu mandato, e do Tribunal de Justiça, acrescentando-lhe 7 lugares que são necessários para o novo advogado-geral do Tribunal. Estes reforços propostos são apresentados como não tendo incidência orçamental, uma vez que deverão ser totalmente compensados por reduções equivalentes na secção Comissão do orçamento e, no que se refere ao Tribunal de Justiça, por dotações disponíveis na sua própria secção. O provimento dos 20 lugares propostos para a Agência Europeia do GNSS é urgente para que a Agência possa preparar-se para as novas tarefas que lhe incumbem a partir de janeiro de 2014.
Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne − Cieľom návrhu opravného rozpočtu č. 4/2013 je zmena plánu pracovných miest Agentúry pre európsky GNSS, v ktorej vznikne 20 nových pracovných miest, výkonnej agentúry EACEA, v ktorej vzniknú nové dve miesta dočasných zamestnancov a 13 miest pre zmluvných zamestnancov z dôvodu rozšírenia jej mandátu, a Súdneho dvora, kde bude vytvorených sedem nových pracovných miest pre dodatočného generálneho advokáta Súdu. Predkladaný návrh posilnenia stavu je rozpočtovo neutrálny a vychádzajúc z existujúcich zámerov má byť plne kompenzovaný zodpovedajúcim znížením v rozpočtovom oddiele Komisie a v prípade Súdneho dvora dostupnými viazanými rozpočtovými prostriedkami v rámci jeho vlastného oddielu.
Giovanni La Via (PPE), per iscritto. − Con questo bilancio rettificativo, di cui sono relatore insieme al collega on. Vaughan, la Commissione intende rafforzare gli organigrammi dell'Agenzia del GNSS europeo, che si occupa di attività relative ai programmi europei di posizionamento e navigazione via satellite, dell'Agenzia esecutiva per l’istruzione, gli audiovisivi e la cultura (EACEA), e della Corte di Giustizia. La proposta della Commissione, che abbiamo approvato a larga maggioranza, è neutrale da un punto di vista prettamente di bilancio, in quanto i rafforzamenti nell'organico sono compensati da corrispondenti riduzioni nel budget della Commissione e all'interno delle risorse disponibili per la Corte di Giustizia.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – Ce rapport valide un ensemble de transformations de postes au profit des agences GNSS (Agence du système global de navigation par satellite Galileo) et EACEA (Agence exécutive Education, audiovisuel et culture) ainsi que de la Cour de Justice. Je m’abstiens afin de ne pas compromettre l’exécution des missions rendant ces postes nécessaires. Je note néanmoins que les besoins de la Cour de Justice ne sont que partiellement satisfaits alors que ceux des agences le sont. Et je déplore l’opacité qui résulte du transfert à des agences de multiples missions d’intérêt général européen. Ces acteurs sont donc encore moins responsables devant le Parlement européen que la Commission elle-même. Ces postes sont créés dés 2013. Mais ils ne sont compensés par des réductions d’effectifs de la Commission elle-même qu'en 2020. Cela montre qu’on se trouve en face de fausses transformations de postes et mauvaises manipulation. Ce montage est révélateur de la volonté bureaucratique de la Commission de conforter systématiquement ses effectifs même quand elle délègue des missions à des agences.
Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. − O presente relatório relativo ao orçamento retificativo n.º 4/2013 visa modificar os quadros do pessoal da Agência Europeia do GNSS, acrescentando-lhe 20 lugares, devido às novas tarefas de que a Agência foi incumbida, da agência de execução EACEA, acrescentando-lhe 2 agentes temporários e 13 agentes contratuais, devido ao alargamento do seu mandato, e do Tribunal de Justiça, acrescentando-lhe 7 lugares que são necessários para o novo advogado-geral do Tribunal. Tem, no entanto, que ser salvaguardada no futuro a correspondente redução de pessoal na Comissão para compensar as atuais admissões.
Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − He votado a favor del presente informe porque supone un incremento de los puestos de trabajo dentro de las citadas agencias de la Unión Europea. Considero fundamental que dichas agencias dispongan de los efectivos y de la capacidad suficiente para poder desempeñar eficazmente las tareas que el mandato político les da, y a esto obedece este informe. Las diferentes agencias se verán reforzadas por la incorporación de nuevos trabajadores con objeto de cumplir los diferentes mandatos políticos asignados. Se trata de 20 nuevos puestos que respetan los créditos dispuestos por el presupuesto, sin modificar ninguna partida, ya que los nuevos contratos respetan los fondos asignados por la Comisión a dichas agencias. Por ello he votado a favor del presente informe.
Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The proposed reinforcements (20 additional posts for the global navigation satellite system, 15 posts for the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, 1 Advocate General and 7 staff members for the Court of Justice) are presented as budget neutral since they are intended to be fully offset by corresponding reductions in the Commissionʼs section of the budget, and for the Court of Justice by available appropriations within its own section. I think that the current budget is balanced at the expenses of the own resources, therefore I am in favour.
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente relatório referente à posição do Conselho sobre o projeto de orçamento retificativo n.º 4/2013 da União Europeia para o exercício de 2013, Secção III – Comissão, Secção IV – Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia, em que o Parlamento Europeu manifesta a sua preocupação quanto à apresentação enganosa da redução do pessoal no que se refere ao quadro de pessoal da Comissão e observa que os 13 agentes contratuais e os 2 lugares libertados nos serviços diretos da Comissão são acrescentados ao quadro do pessoal da agência de execução EACEA. Ora, uma vez que todas as agências de execução fazem parte da administração da Comissão, nada é subtraído ao orçamento da Comissão - contrariamente ao que é afirmado. O Parlamento está ciente de que o pessoal das agências de execução é inteiramente remunerado a partir de fundos operacionais.
Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − Since the European GNSS agency is in urgent need of new staff in order to prepare for its new task in January 2014, it is reasonable to amend the budget so that the Agency can add 20 posts entrusted to the new task. However, the original request to add nine new law clerks to the Court is unrealistic considering the associated costs, though recruitment is admittedly necessary for reinforcement. I therefore voted for the approval of the Council position on Draft Amending Budget No 4/2013 and to meet the demand for staff for the GNSS Agency, the EACEA Executive Agency, and partially for the Court.
Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. Plenary voted on this draft report on DAB 4, which the Commission adopted on 29 April to reinforce the establishment plans of the GNSS decentralised agency, of the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) and of the Court of Justice. The Commission’s proposal is budgetary neutral. We supported this DAB.
Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente. Este pedido de orçamento retificativo por parte destas estruturas da União é, do ponto de vista orçamental, neutro. Tem como objetivo a alteração dos planos de estrutura de pessoal das Agencias Europeias de Supervisão do Sistema Global de Navegação por Satélite (GNSS) e da Educação, Audiovisual e Cultura e do Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia, em conformidade com as suas novas competências.
Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – Je soutiens ce projet et tiens à préciser que, lors de la procédure budgétaire pour l'exercice 2014, la création des postes supplémentaires de la Cour de justice doit être mis en exergue car la Commission les a oubliés dans le présent projet.
Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − O orçamento retificativo n.º 4/2013 visa modificar os quadros do pessoal da Agência Europeia do GNSS, acrescentando-lhe 20 lugares, devido às novas tarefas de que a Agência foi incumbida, assim como da Agência de execução EACEA, acrescentando-lhe 2 agentes temporários e 13 agentes contratuais, devido ao alargamento do seu mandato, e do Tribunal de Justiça, acrescentando-lhe 7 lugares que são necessários para o novo advogado-geral do Tribunal. Entendo que o recrutamento de novos elementos será positivo para atenuar o volume de trabalho suplementar a que o Tribunal tem de fazer face devido à incapacidade do Conselho de aprovar, até à data, um sistema que permita aumentar o número de juízes do Tribunal e que estes lugares figurem no projeto de orçamento apresentado pela Comissão para 2014. Sou assim favorável ao presente relatório que visa aumentar a eficácia e eficiência das agências europeias e do Tribunal.
Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − Draft Amending Budget No 4 refers to the amounts needed for staff expenses at the European GNSS Agency, the Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Some of the European agencies received new operating mandates in order to perform the tasks delegated to them and to achieve the set goals and objectives new staff positions are needed.
Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − O orçamento retificativo nº 4/2013 visa alterar os quadros de pessoal da Agência Europeia do GNSS, acrescentando-lhe 20 lugares, supostamente devido às novas tarefas de que foi incumbida, da agência de execução EACEA, devido ao alargamento do seu mandato, sendo-lhe atribuídos mais 15 lugares, e do Tribunal de Justiça, acrescentando-lhe mais 7 lugares para o novo advogado-geral do Tribunal. As suas incidências orçamentais são nulas, afirma a Comissão, já que os lugares agora criados são compensados por reduções equivalentes na secção Comissão. A nossa abstenção justifica-se pelas dúvidas que temos em relação às opções políticas que enquadram esta decisão, nomeadamente em relação à Agência Europeia do GNSS e aos impactos práticos de dedicar mais funcionários a projetos como o Sistema Global de Navegação por Satélite (GNSS na sua sigla em inglês), cuja versão europeia é o GALILEO e do qual não estão excluídas valências para o processo de militarização da UE e a sua articulação com a NATO. Dúvidas tanto mais justificadas quanto os novos lugares criados pressupõem a extinção de outros cujo impacto se desconhece.
6.6. Mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund: flooding in Slovenia, Croatia and Austria in autumn 2012 (A7-0283/2013 - José Manuel Fernandes)
Dichiarazioni di voto scritte
Luís Paulo Alves (S&D), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente o presente Relatório, uma vez que este dá luz verde para a mobilização do Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia para a Croácia, a Eslovénia e a Áustria, decorrente das inundações que atingiram estes Estados-Membros em outono de 2012. Para além disso, é de salientar a apresentação por parte da Comissão de um Orçamento Retificativo de modo que este pagamento entre nas apropriações e compromissos de pagamentos de 2013.
Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – L'Union européenne a créé un Fonds de solidarité de l'Union européenne (ci-après le "Fonds") pour exprimer sa solidarité à l'égard de la population de régions touchées par des catastrophes pour un montant annuel maximal d'un milliard d'euros. La Slovénie, la Croatie et l'Autriche ont présenté des demandes de mobilisation du Fonds à la suite d'inondations et j'ai voté en faveur de ce texte.
Zoltán Bagó (PPE), írásban. - Támogattam az Európai Szolidaritási Alap igénybevételét Szlovénia, Horvátország és Ausztria javára, mely államok a 2012. október végén és november elején bekövetkezett heves esőzések nyomán kérelmezték az alap igénybevételének lehetőségét.
Az eset során több folyó kilépett medréből, így fennált az a helyzet, melynek elhárítására az Európai Unió létrehozta az alapot. Az alap rendelkezésre bocsájtása a katasztrófa sújtotta régiók lakossága iránti szolidaritás kifejezése.
Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį siūlymą dėl Europos Sąjungos solidarumo fondo panaudojimo potvynių Slovėnijoje, Kroatijoje ir Austrijoje, įvykusių 2012 m. rudenį, nuostoliams padengti. Siūlymu siekiama mobilizuoti 14 607 942 EUR sumą minėtoms šalims paremti. Itin gausios liūtys, kilusios 2012 m. pabaigoje, sukėlė potvynius, pridariusius daug žalos minėtų valstybių privatiems ir viešiems pastatams, vandens ir nuotekų infrastruktūrai, įmonėms ir žemės ūkio paskirties žemei bei miškams. Visa potvynio padaryta žala vertinama 359,535 mln. EUR Slovėnijoje, 11,463 mln. EUR Kroatijoje ir 9,6 mln. EUR Austrijoje.
Regina Bastos (PPE), por escrito. − A União Europeia criou o Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia (Fundo) para manifestar a sua solidariedade para com a população das regiões afectadas por catástrofes. As disposições que permitem a eventual mobilização do Fundo encontram-se estabelecidas no Regulamento (CE) nº 2012/2002. As chuvas intensas ocorridas entre final de outubro e início de novembro de 2012 causaram o transbordamento dos rios e a inundação de vastas áreas dos rios Sava, Kupa, Mura e Drava na Eslovénia e das bacias dos rios Mura, Drava e Lavante na Áustria, bem como do território da Croácia. No seguimento destas catástrofes, a Eslovénia, a Croácia e a Áustria apresentaram pedidos para a mobilização do Fundo. O pedido em questão respeita os critérios de elegibilidade do referido regulamento, pelo que apoiei o presente relatório que propõe a mobilização do Fundo de Solidariedade da UE numa quantia de 14 607 942 EUR a favos dos três países em questão.
Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Ho sostenuto col mio voto la relazione Fernandes per la mobilizzazione del Fondo di solidarietà dell'Unione europea a favore delle regioni austriache slovene e croate duramente colpite dalle inondazioni tra fine ottobre e inizio novembre 2012.
Biljana Borzan (S&D), napisan. − ova odluka je posljedica intenzivnih oborina koje su izazvale ozbiljnu štetu krajem listopada i početkom studenoga 2012. u Sloveniji, Hrvatskoj i Austriji. Razmjeri nepogode se vide u procjeni ukupnog iznosa štete. Ovim će se sredstvima pomoći financiranje troškova hitnih mjera koje su hrvatske vlasti uspješno poduzele. Hrvatska je dosad u tri navrata aplicirala za sredstva iz Fonda solidarnosti. Prvi puta u lipnju 2010. sa Republikom Mađarskom, a drugi puta u rujnu iste godine sa Slovenijom, U oba slučaja su nam odobrena sredstva. Od svog osnutka, Fond je odgovorio na 52 katastrofe širom Europe. Njegov značaj je neupitan. Zato želim skrenuti pozornost na započete pozitivne reforme koje ce ubrzati i pojednostavniti postupke dobivanja sredstava, jasno utvrditi kriterije, uvesti mogućnost predujma te doprinijeti prepoznatljivosti Fonda.
Philippe Boulland (PPE), par écrit. – Les pluies diluviennes d'octobre-novembre 2012 ont provoqué des débordements de cours d'eau importants en Slovénie, Croatie et Autriche. Une demande d'octroi de fonds de solidarité (FSE) a été envoyée à la Commission, qui a proposé un montant total de 14 millions d'euros pour aider ces pays en état de catastrophe naturelle. Afin de faire preuve de solidarité avec les populations locales, j'ai voté en faveur du déblocage de ces fonds européens.
John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − Against. While I sympathise with those who suffered the awful consequences of the flooding in Slovenia, Croatia and Austria, I simply do not believe that taxpayers in other Member States should have to fund these countries’ recovery.
Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − Tendo em conta o Acordo Interinstitucional de 17 de maio de 2006 entre o Parlamento Europeu, o Conselho e a Comissão sobre a disciplina orçamental e a boa gestão financeira (1), nomeadamente o ponto 26, tendo em conta o Regulamento (CE) n.º 2012/2002 do Conselho, de 11 de Novembro de 2002, que institui o Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia (2), votei favoravelmente o presente relatório.
Lara Comi (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho votato a favore di questo provvedimento perché sono convinta che, anche in tempi di austerità, si debba manifestare la solidarietà dell'UE a quei Paesi in difficoltà a causa di una calamità naturale.
Vasilica Viorica Dăncilă (S&D), în scris. − Clădiri private și publice, infrastructura de aprovizionare cu apă și de evacuare a apelor reziduale, dar şi întreprinderi și terenuri agricole și păduri au fost afectate de inundațiile provocate în zone extinse ale bazinelor râurilor Sava, Kupa, Mura și Drava în Slovenia și în bazinele râurilor Mura, Drava și Lavant în Austria, precum și pe teritoriul Croației, în 2012. Ca atare, este benefică mobilizarea Fondului de solidaritate pentru a sprijini eforturile autorităţilor locale şi regionale şi ale persoanelor private şi societăţilor comerciale pentru îndepărtarea efectelor acestor inundaţii, pentru a demonstra solidaritate cu toţi cetăţenii afectaţi de catastrofe naturale.
Rachida Dati (PPE), par écrit. – Grâce au fonds de solidarité de l’UE, nous pouvons mettre nos moyens en commun pour aider, de façon coordonnée, les pays qui souffrent de catastrophes naturelles, comme les inondations qui ont frappé la Slovénie, la Croatie et l’Autriche en automne 2012. Je soutiens la mobilisation du Fonds pour permettre aux citoyens de ces pays de se remettre rapidement des destructions et pertes auxquelles ils ont fait face.
Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − As inundações de outubro e novembro de 2012 afetaram gravemente regiões da Áustria, da Eslovénia e da Croácia. A solidariedade europeia justifica-se plenamente dada a dimensão dos prejuízos verificados. O Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia é o instrumento adequado para contribuir para lhes fazer face. Como tenho dito por diversas vezes, mais do que “unidos na diversidade”, os europeus devem demonstrar estar unidos na adversidade. Este é mais um exemplo disso mesmo.
José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − As chuvas intensas, ocorridas entre o final de outubro e o início de novembro de 2012, causaram o transbordamento dos rios e a inundação de vastas áreas dos rios Sava, Kupa, Mura e Drava na Eslovénia e das bacias dos rios Mura, Drava e Lavant na Áustria, bem como do território da Croácia. As inundações causaram danos em edifícios públicos e privados, infraestruturas de distribuição de água e de tratamento de águas residuais, empresas e terrenos agrícolas e florestais. Posteriormente, a Eslovénia apresentou um pedido de assistência financeira do Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia ao abrigo do critério relativo a catástrofes de grandes proporções, tendo os pedidos da Croácia e da Áustria sido apresentados ao abrigo do denominado critério do país vizinho. Após a verificação de que o pedido em apreço respeita os critérios de elegibilidade do Regulamento (CE) n.º 2012/2002 do Conselho, a Comissão propôs a mobilização do Fundo de Solidariedade da UE numa quantia total de 14 607 942 EUR. A Eslovénia recebe 14 081 355 euros, a Croácia 286 587 euros e a Áustria 240 000 euros. Volto a insistir que a mobilização do Fundo de Solidariedade deveria ser célere, o que infelizmente não acontece.
Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne − Európska únia zriadila Fond solidarity Európskej únie v snahe prejaviť solidaritu s obyvateľstvom v regiónoch postihnutých katastrofou. Mobilizácia fondu je v rámci ročného stropu možná až do výšky 1 mld. EUR. Slovinsko, Chorvátsko a Rakúsko predložili žiadosti o mobilizáciu fondu v súvislosti s povodňami. Schválená pomoc pre tieto krajiny bola vypočítaná vychádzajúc z odhadu celkových škôd, ku ktorým záplavami došlo. Je nanajvýš opodstatnené financie vyčlenené na tento účel z fondu uvoľniť tak, aby aspoň z časti došlo k náhrade škôd, ktoré povodňami boli spôsobené.
Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), per iscritto. − La Commissione propone di mobilizzare il Fondo di solidarietà dell'Unione europea a favore della Slovenia, della Croazia e dell'Austria, Tale accordo consente la mobilizzazione del Fondo nei limiti di un massimale annuale di 1 miliardo di EUR. Parallelamente a questa proposta di mobilizzazione del Fondo di solidarietà a favore della Slovenia, della Croazia e dell'Austria, la Commissione ha presentato un progetto di bilancio rettificativo (PBR n. 5/2013 del 2 maggio 2013) per iscrivere nel bilancio 2013 i corrispondenti stanziamenti d'impegno e di pagamento, come previsto dal punto 26 dell'AII. Come si può essere contrari? Come Parlamento europeo dobbiamo però domandarci se l'Unione agisce con effettiva equità nei confronti di tutti gli Stati membri, oppure se il tema delle catastrofi naturali vede l'applicazione di doppi pesi e doppie misure, a seconda dei casi.
Michał Tomasz Kamiński (ECR), in writing. − I voted for the mobilisation of the European Union Solidarity Fund for areas affected by flooding in autumn 2012, specifically Slovenia, Croatia, and Austria. The Commissionʼs proposal to provide assistance is in line with the Regulation, and I support the use of the Solidarity Fund to provide aid based on estimates of total damage. My heart goes out to all those individuals who lost their homes during this natural disaster.
David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because it will provide vital funding to areas very badly affected by recent flooding. This fund is very important and Scotland may need to take advantage of it in the future.
Véronique Mathieu Houillon (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de la mobilisation du Fonds de solidarité en faveur de la Slovénie, la Croatie et l'Autriche suite aux pluies diluviennes qui ont provoquées le débordement des cours d'eau fin 2012, entrainant de nombreux dommages directs.
Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. − A UE é um espaço de solidariedade, tendo criado o Fundo de Solidariedade para ajudar os Estados-Membros que se confrontem com catástrofes originadas pela natureza. Já no passado este fundo foi utilizado para ajudar várias regiões afetadas por esse tipo de catástrofe. Neste caso, em concreto a Eslovénia, a Croácia e a Áustria apresentaram pedidos de mobilização do Fundo relativamente a uma catástrofe causada por inundações, que deram origem a pesados prejuízos para as populações.
Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − He votado a favor del presente informe debido a que defiende el apoyo financiero de la Unión para tratar de ayudar a las poblaciones de Eslovenia, Croacia y Austria que fueron afectadas por las graves inundaciones del otoño del año pasado. Las citadas inundaciones han sido una catástrofe natural que ha producido numerosos daños en los tres países. La Unión Europea constituyó el Fondo de Solidaridad para ayudar a la reconstrucción de los Estados miembros ante todo tipo de catástrofes. Para ayudar a los citados pueblos se movilizan más de 14 millones de euros para diferentes proyectos de reconstrucción de los daños causados por las graves inundaciones. Por ello he votado a favor.
Louis Michel (ALDE), par écrit. – Tout d’abord, je voudrais exprimer toute ma solidarité aux personnes qui ont été touchées par les inondations, survenues à l’automne 2012 en Slovénie, en Croatie et en Autriche. Mes pensées sont avec elles et avec leurs familles. Je salue l'élan de solidarité que cette catastrophe a engendré et félicite tous ceux qui leur ont porté secours. S'il n’est malheureusement pas possible de prévoir ce genre de catastrophe naturelle, il est, par contre, possible de réagir encore plus efficacement et plus rapidement. A cet égard, l'accord sur la Mobilisation du Fonds de solidarité de l’Union européenne est essentiel. Il représente un symbole fort de solidarité entre les Etats membres de l’Union, - et au-delà entre les citoyens de l'UE -, indépendamment de tout différend ou de toute polémique dans d'autres domaines. Comme l'a très bien dit Jean Rey, "l'Europe n'est pas seulement celle des gouvernements des Parlements ou des administrations. Ce doit être aussi celles des peuples, celles des travailleurs, celle de la jeunesse, celle de l'homme".
Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The report gives the green light to mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund in Croatia, Slovenia and Austria for a total amount of EUR 14.6 million in commitments and payments. I voted in favour.
Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. - Jedesmal, wenn Menschen durch schreckliche Katastrophen in Not geraten, ist es auch Aufgabe der EU, den Schmerz zu lindern und durch finanzielle Unterstützung beim Wiederaufbau zu helfen. Dieses Mal haben Überschwemmungen Slowenien, Kroatien und Österreich heimgesucht. Im Sinne europäischer Sollidarität habe ich für den Bericht gestimmt, obwohl er eher unverhältnismäßig für Kroatien und Österreich nur je 250 000 Euro, für Slowenien aber gleich 14 Millionen Euro vorsieht.
Katarína Neveďalová (S&D), písomne − Intenzívne zrážky koncom októbra a začiatkom novembra 2012 spôsobili vyliatie riek z korýt a následné zaplavenie značných oblastí pozdĺž toku riek Sáva, Kupa, Mura a Dráva v Slovinsku, ako aj v povodí riek Mura, Dráva a Lavant v Rakúsku a na území Chorvátska. Povodne spôsobili škody na súkromných a verejných budovách, vodohospodárskej infraštruktúre vrátane infraštruktúry v oblasti nakladania s odpadovými vodami, na podnikoch, poľnohospodárskej pôde a lesných porastoch. Komisia dospela k záveru, že škody spôsobené povodňami, ktoré boli uvedené vo všetkých troch žiadostiach, boli dôsledkom tých istých meteorologických podmienok, a preto ich považuje za jednu udalosť. Podľa odhadov slovinských, chorvátskych a rakúskych orgánov dosahujú celkové priame škody 359,535 milióna EUR v prípade Slovinska, 11,463 milióna EUR v prípade Chorvátska a 9,6 milióna EUR v prípade Rakúska. Pokiaľ ide o Slovinsko, katastrofa sa v súlade s nariadením Rady považuje za „veľkú prírodnú katastrofu“. Keďže pochádzam z krajiny, ktorá často krát čelí povodniam, som si plne vedomá drvivých následkov, ktoré je tento prírodný živel schopný napáchať. Preto plne podporujem návrh Komisie mobilizovať Fond solidarity Európskej únie v celkovej výške 14 607 942 EUR.
Siiri Oviir (ALDE), kirjalikult. − Toetasin Euroopa Liidu Solidaarsusfondist vahendite eraldamist Sloveeniale, Horvaatiale ja Austriale, mis on käesoleval aastal esimene ettepanek fondi kasutuselevõtmiseks. 2012. aasta oktoobri lõpu ja novembri alguse suurte üleujutuste tõttu kandsid nimetatud riigid eesotsas Sloveeniaga suuri kahjusid oma taristule ning solidaarne on neid ka hädas aidata. Mind teeb nõutuks vaid asjaajamise väga aeglane kiirus. Üleujutused toimusid juba ligi aasta tagasi ning alles nüüd – 11 kuud hiljem – on EL jõudnud abi andmiseni oma kahju kannatanud liikmesriikidele. Komisjoni abikõlblikkuse kriteeriumite kontroll peaks olema kiirem ja efektiivsem.
Rolandas Paksas (EFD), raštu. − Pritariu pasiūlymui mobilizuoti Europos Sąjungos solidarumo fondo lėšas nuo potvynių nukentėjusių Slovėnijos, Kroatijos ir Austrijos reikmėms. Potvyniai šiose šalyse sukėlė itin dideles neigiamas pasekmes. Šalys, nukentėjusios nuo šių gaivalinių nelaimių, neturi galimybių savarankiškai pašalinti padarytą žalą, todėl mes turime parodyti solidarumą ir suteikti paramą stichinių nelaimių ištiktų šalių gyventojams. Pažymėtina, kad solidarumo fondas yra pagrindinė priemonė, skirta Sąjungos solidarumui parodyti ir operatyviai padėti nuo nelaimės nukentėjusiems gyventojams ir valstybėms. Tik suteikus reikiamą finansinę pagalbą šios šalys galės greičiau atsigauti ir atsikurti. Be to, tokiu būdu bus sumažinta našta viešiesiems finansams.
Aldo Patriciello (PPE), in writing. − In November 2012, intense rainfall caused major flooding in Slovenia, causing EUR 359 535 of damage. The neighbouring countries of Austria and Croatia were also affected. The flooding has met the ‘major disaster criterionʼ in accordance with relevant Council regulations. In order to support disaster relief in the territory, I decided to vote for the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund.
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − A Comissão propõe a mobilização do FSUE a favor da Eslovénia, da Croácia e da Áustria nos termos do ponto 26 do Acordo Interinstitucional de 17 de maio de 2006. O Acordo Interinstitucional permite a mobilização do Fundo até um limite máximo anual de mil milhões de euros. Esta é a primeira proposta de mobilização do Fundo em 2013. As chuvas intensas, ocorridas entre o final de outubro e o início de novembro de 2012, causaram o transbordar dos rios e a inundação de vastas áreas de vários rios na Eslovénia e na Áustria, bem como do território da Croácia. As inundações causaram danos em edifícios públicos e privados, infraestruturas de distribuição de água e de tratamento de águas residuais, empresas e terrenos agrícolas e florestais. A Eslovénia apresentou um pedido de assistência financeira do FSUE ao abrigo do critério relativo a catástrofes de grandes proporções, tendo os pedidos da Croácia e da Áustria sido apresentados ao abrigo do denominado critério do país vizinho. A análise da Comissão mostrou que os danos causados foram causados por uma única situação meteorológica, podendo ser aceites como um acontecimento único. Atenta a aprovação da Comissão dos Orçamentos, votei favoravelmente o presente relatório.
Crescenzio Rivellini (PPE), per iscritto. − Oggi in seduta plenaria è stato stabilito lo stanziamento del Fondo di solidarietà europeo a favore di Slovenia, Croazia e Austria. Questi paesi hanno infatti registrato gravi danni a seguito delle inondazioni del 2012 e per questa ragione rientrano a pieno titolo tra i beneficiari del suddetto Fondo, istituito nel novembre del 2002 proprio per aiutare le vittime di disastri naturali nelle regioni che hanno bisogno di sostegno finanziario.
In virtù di tale aiuto finanziario i tre beneficiari riceveranno 14.600.000 € dalla Unione Europea affinché si ponga rimedio ai danni causati dalle gravissime inondazioni nel 2012. Il totale sarà ripartito differentemente tra i tre Stati beneficiari, la maggior parte (14.000.000€) sarà infatti destinata alla Slovenia che è stata maggiormente danneggiata dalle inondazioni.
Γεώργιος Σταυρακάκης (S&D), γραπτώς. – Υπερψήφισα την έκθεση και καλωσορίζω την κινητοποίηση του Ταμείου Αλληλεγγύης της ΕΕ για τις πλημμύρες εξαιτίας των έντονων βροχοπτώσεων, οι οποίες το φθινόπωρο του 2012 προκάλεσαν ζημιές σε κτίρια, υποδομές ύδρευσης και αποχέτευσης, επιχειρήσεις, γεωργικές εκτάσεις και δάση. Οι αρχές της Σλοβενίας, της Κροατίας και της Αυστρίας εκτιμούν ότι οι συνολικές άμεσες ζημίες ανέρχονται σε 359,535 εκατ. ευρώ για τη Σλοβενία, 11,463 εκατ. ευρώ για την Κροατία και 9,6 εκατ. ευρώ για την Αυστρία. Προτεραιότητα από εδώ και στο εξής αποτελεί η όσο το δυνατόν ταχύτερη αποκατάσταση των κανονικών συνθηκών διαβίωσης των πολιτών και η ανάκαμψη της οικονομικής δραστηριότητας στις πληγείσες περιοχές. Το Ταμείο Αλληλεγγύης καταδεικνύει, για μια ακόμα φορά, τη σημασία του στην αντιμετώπιση μειζόνων φυσικών καταστροφών παρέχοντας χρηματοδοτική ενίσχυση στα πληγέντα κράτη. Ωστόσο, δεν μπορώ παρά να μην εκφράσω την λύπη μου για το γεγονός ότι χρειάστηκε να περάσει σχεδόν ένας χρόνος για να ολοκληρωθεί η διαδικασία κινητοποίησης του Ταμείου. Για αυτόν τον λόγο θα πρέπει και τα τρία θεσμικά όργανα να εργαστούν ώστε να καταστούν οι παρεμβάσεις του Ταμείου ταχύτερες και πιο ευέλικτες. Με αυτόν τον τρόπο θα μπορέσει να διασφαλιστεί η πραγματική προστιθέμενη αξία του εν λόγω μέσου.
Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur du texte. Selon une estimation des autorités slovènes, croates et autrichiennes, le total des dommages directs causés par les inondations s'élève à 359,535 millions d'EUR pour la Slovénie, à 11,463 millions d'EUR pour la Croatie et à 9,6 millions d'EUR pour l'Autriche. Pour la Slovénie, les inondations sont qualifiées de "catastrophe naturelle majeure", conformément à l'article 2, paragraphe 2, du règlement (CE) n° 2012/2002 du Conseil. Pour la Croatie et l'Autriche, elles ont été qualifiées de catastrophe "d'origine naturelle". Les inondations qui ont frappé la Croatie et l'Autriche ont toutefois la même origine que celles qui ont entraîné la catastrophe naturelle dont la Slovénie a été victime. La Commission considère donc comme remplie la condition énoncée à l'article 2, paragraphe 2, deuxième alinéa, du règlement (CE) n° 2012/2002 du Conseil, selon laquelle un pays qui a été touché par la même catastrophe qu'un pays voisin peut exceptionnellement bénéficier d'une intervention du Fonds de solidarité.
Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − A União Europeia criou o Fundo de Solidariedade com o intuito de manifestar a sua solidariedade para com a população das regiões afetadas por catástrofes. O Acordo Interinstitucional de 17 de maio de 2006 permite a mobilização do Fundo até um limite máximo anual de mil milhões de Euros. Voto favoravelmente o presente relatório que visa mobilizar o Fundo de Solidariedade a favor da Eslovénia, da Croácia e da Áustria para fazerem face às catástrofes causadas pelas inundações. Num momento em que a solidariedade entre Estados-Membros deve ser aprofundada, entendo que este apoio de 14 607 942,00 euros representa o ideal do projeto europeu, nomeadamente no facto de, nos momentos de dificuldades, os países europeus estarem disponíveis para contribuírem ativamente na diminuição das catástrofes verificadas. Aproveito ainda para felicitar o meu colega José Manuel Fernandes pelo trabalho realizado que muito contribui para aumentar a solidariedade entre os países europeus.
Ruža Tomašić (ECR), in writing. − I voted in favour of the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity Fund, as a new MEP representing Croatia I belive the result of todays vote is a true expression of the European Union solidarity. The amount of funding proposed will help to offset the financial burden that Croatia have incurred in restoring infrastructure and in taking emergency measures. It will help these affected regions to get back on their feet. We must now work to ensure that every necessary action is taken straight away by the Croatian government to get this aid to those regions where lives have been devastated by the flooding and which were the one most affected by it.
Gino Trematerra (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho votato a favore della relazione sulla proposta di regolamento del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio che istituisce la mobilizzazione del Fondo di solidarietà dell'Unione europea in seguito alle inondazioni nell´autunno del 2012 in Slovenia, in Croazia e in Austria. Tale proposta prevede 1 miliardo di euro da assegnare ai Paesi colpiti. Si tratta di una catastrofe naturale grave ai sensi dell'articolo 2, paragrafo 2, del regolamento (CE) n. 2012/2002 del Consiglio. Il Fondo servirà alla ricostruzione dei territori maggiormente colpiti e agli aiuti umanitari. Si tratta, dunque, di un dovere morale da parte dell´UE nei confronti dei Paesi membri colpiti dalla catastrofe.
Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the mobilisation of funds from the European Solidarity Fund. These amounts will be mobilised in order to help people in Austria, Slovenia and Croatia after they were hit by major natural disasters – in this case severe floods. I do not think that anybody should vote against mobilisation of this Fund, as this Fund was created and its major objective is to help European citizens who suffer because of different catastrophic events (including floods, forest fires, earthquakes, storms and drought).
Inês Cristina Zuber (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Demos o nosso acordo à decisão do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho de mobilizar o Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia para as populações da Eslovénia, da Croácia e da Áustria, regiões afetadas pelas chuvas intensas, ocorridas entre o final de outubro e o início de novembro de 2012, que causaram o transbordamento dos rios e a inundação de vastas áreas dos rios Sava, Kupa, Mura e Drava na Eslovénia e das bacias dos rios Mura, Drava e Lavant na Áustria, bem como do território da Croácia. Os prejuízos diretos das inundações foram estimados em 359 535 milhões de euros para a Eslovénia, 11 463 milhões de euros para a Croácia e 9 600 milhões de euros para a Áustria. A Comissão, após a verificação de que o pedido respeita os critérios de elegibilidade do Regulamento (CE) 2012/2002 do Conselho, propôs a mobilização do Fundo de Solidariedade da UE numa quantia total de 14 607 942 euros. Consequentemente, é proposta a inscrição deste montante na rubrica orçamental, criada com vista à mobilização do fundo em questão. Apoiámos. Por último, chamamos a atenção para a necessidade de agilizar este tipo de assistência financeira. Com efeito, esta catástrofe ocorreu há 11 meses.
6.7. Draft amending budget No 5/2013 - Mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund following flooding in Slovenia, Croatia and Austria in 2012 (A7-0286/2013 - Giovanni La Via)
Dichiarazioni di voto scritte
Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de ce texte qui couvre l'intervention du Fonds de solidarité de l'Union européenne (FSUE) pour un montant de 14 607 942 EUR en crédits d'engagement et de paiement, à la suite des graves intempéries et des inondations survenues à l'automne 2012 en Slovénie, en Croatie et en Autriche;
Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį siūlymą dėl Europos Sąjungos solidarumo fondo panaudojimo potvynių Slovėnijoje, Kroatijoje ir Austrijoje, įvykusių 2012 m. rudenį, nuostoliams padengti. Siūlymu siekiama mobilizuoti 14 607 942 EUR sumą minėtoms šalims paremti. Itin gausios liūtys, kilusios 2012 m. pabaigoje, sukėlė potvynius, pridariusius daug žalos minėtų valstybių privatiems ir viešiems pastatams, vandens ir nuotekų infrastruktūrai, įmonėms ir žemės ūkio paskirties žemei bei miškams. Visa potvynio padaryta žala vertinama 359,535 mln. EUR Slovėnijoje, 11,463 mln. EUR Kroatijoje ir 9,6 mln. EUR Austrijoje.
Nora Berra (PPE), par écrit. – Le Fonds européen de solidarité a été créé pour venir en aide financièrement aux zones touchées par des catastrophes naturelles. A l’automne 2012, la Slovénie, la Croatie et l’Autriche ont été touchées par de graves inondations entraînant des dégâts importants. Dans un effort de solidarité envers ces pays, le Parlement européen a adopté une résolution, à laquelle j’ai apporté mon soutien, débloquant une aide de 14,6 millions d’euros.
Mara Bizzotto (EFD), per iscritto. − Sostengo col mio voto questa relazione che predispone il progetto rettificativo del bilancio al fine di coprire la mobilizzazione del Fondo di solidarietà dell'Unione europea per sostenere le regioni di Austria, Slovenia e Croazia duramente colpite da inondazioni tra fine ottobre e inizio novembre 2012.
Philippe Boulland (PPE), par écrit. – Les pluies diluviennes d'octobre-novembre 2012 ont provoqué des inondations importantes en Slovénie, Croatie et Autriche. Une demande d'octroi de fonds de solidarité (FSE) a été envoyée à la Commission, qui a proposé un montant total de 14 millions d'euros pour aider ces pays en état de catastrophe naturelle. Afin de faire preuve de solidarité avec les populations locales, j'ai voté en faveur du déblocage de ces fonds européens.
John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − Against. While I sympathise with those who suffered the awful consequence of the flooding in Slovenia, Croatia and Austria, I simply do not believe that taxpayers in other Member States should have to fund these countries’ recovery.
Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − Considerando que o projeto de orçamento retificativo n.º 5/2013 diz respeito à mobilização do Fundo de Solidariedade da UE (FSUE) correspondente a uma verba de 14 607 942 euros em dotações de autorização e de pagamento na sequência da precipitação intensa e das inundações subsequentes na Eslovénia, na Croácia e na Áustria no outono de 2012), votei favoravelmente.
Lara Comi (PPE), per iscritto. − Come per la relazione dell'on. Fernandes, di cui questo provvedimento è il volto contabile, ritengo opportuna la solidarietà nei confronti dei Paesi dell'UE colpiti da calamità naturali.
Rachida Dati (PPE), par écrit. – Je soutiens la mobilisation du Fonds de solidarité de l’UE pour venir en aide aux Slovènes, aux Croates et aux Autrichiens qui ont souffert d’importantes intempéries et inondations, pour leur permettre de se remettre rapidement des pertes et destructions qu’ils ont subies.
Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − O projeto de orçamento retificativo visa inscrever formalmente no orçamento os montantes mobilizados pelo Fundo de Solidariedade destinados a assistir financeiramente a Áustria, a Eslovénia e a Croácia, fustigadas por gravíssimas inundações em outubro e novembro de 2012. Creio que quer a inscrição formal no orçamento quer o apoio substancial da União se justificam plenamente.
José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − Este orçamento retificativo n.º 5/2013 diz respeito à mobilização do Fundo de Solidariedade da UE (FSUE) correspondente a uma verba de 14 607 942 euros em dotações de autorização e de pagamento na sequência da precipitação intensa e das inundações subsequentes na Eslovénia, na Croácia e na Áustria no outono de 2012. Tem a finalidade de inscrever formalmente este ajustamento orçamental no orçamento de 2013.
Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne − Návrh opravného rozpočtu č. 5/2013 sa týka mobilizácie Fondu solidarity EÚ (FSEÚ) vo výške 14 607 942 EUR vo viazaných a platobných rozpočtových prostriedkoch, ktoré majú byť použité v súvislosti so záplavami, ku ktorým došlo ešte na jeseň 2012 v Slovinsku, Chorvátsku a Rakúsku. Považujem za neodkladne potrebné a dôležité, aby bola promptne poskytnutá finančná pomoc spomenutým štátom postihnutým touto prírodnou katastrofou. Je nanajvýš na mieste, aby sa tak udialo prostredníctvom Fondu solidarity Európskej únie, ktorý bol zriadený práve pre tieto účely.
Juozas Imbrasas (EFD), raštu. − Pritariau tam, kad iš Europos Sąjungos solidarumo fondo (ESSF) būtų mobilizuota 14 607 942 EUR įsipareigojimų ir mokėjimų asignavimų didelėms liūtims ir po to kilusiems dideliems potvyniams, nuo kurių 2012 m. rudenį nukentėjo Slovėnija, Kroatija ir Austrija. Taip pat pritariau tam, kad reikia nedelsiant leisti panaudoti paramą, teikiamą iš ESSF, šalims, nukentėjusioms nuo šios gaivalinės nelaimės.
Giovanni La Via (PPE), per iscritto. − Il Progetto di bilancio rettificativo n. 5/2013, che fa parte di un pacchetto di proposte di modifica del bilancio 2013 approvato oggi e di cui sono relatore, insieme al collega on. Fernandes, riguarda la mobilitazione del Fondo di solidarietà dell'UE, per 14,6 milioni di euro, a seguito dei disastri causati da intense piogge e conseguenti alle alluvioni che nell'autunno 2012 hanno colpito la Slovenia, la Croazia e l'Austria. Si tratta di uno dei tanti esempi che dimostra l'importanza della solidarietà in Europa e che testimonia la vicinanza, anche in termini di aiuto e supporto economico alle vittime ed ai soggetti danneggiati da questi eventi naturali.
Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), na piśmie. - Sprawozdanie posła La Via było poddane pod głosowanie razem ze sprawozdaniem posła Fernandesa. Dały one zielone światło dla uruchomienia istniejącego od 2002 Funduszu Solidarności Unii Europejskiej, mającego na celu wsparcie regionów dotkniętych klęskami, aby wspomóc, w tym przypadku Słowenię, Chorwację i Austrię w zwalczaniu skutków zeszłorocznych powodzi. Największym sukcesem jest fakt, że 14,6 miliona euro, które zostały przeznaczone dla tych trzech krajów, pochodzić będzie z nowych środków, ta kwota nie zostanie natomiast pokryta kosztem innych priorytetów politycznych.
George Lyon (ALDE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the mobilisation of the Solidarity Fund following flooding in Slovenia, Croatia and Austria in 2012. I feel it is important to support vital funds to rebuild the affected areas.
Véronique Mathieu Houillon (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur de la mobilisation du Fonds de solidarité en faveur de la Slovénie, la Croatie et l'Autriche suite aux pluies diluviennes qui ont provoquées le débordement des cours d'eau fin 2012, entrainant de nombreux dommages directs.
Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. − Foi aprovado através do relatório A7-0286/2013 a mobilização do fundo de solidariedade para fazer face às inundações na Eslovénia, Croácia e Áustria. Em paralelo com a presente proposta de mobilização do Fundo de Solidariedade a favor da Eslovénia, Croácia e Áustria, a Comissão apresentou um projeto de orçamento retificativo (POR n.º 5/2013, de 2 de maio de 2013), a fim de inscrever as correspondentes dotações de autorização e de pagamento no orçamento de 2013, como previsto no ponto 26 do Acordo Interinstitucional. É esse orçamento retificativo que agora aprovamos.
Willy Meyer (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − He votado a favor del presente informe debido a que propone la modificación del presupuesto de la Unión Europea para permitir la movilización de recursos financieros para ayudar a las poblaciones de Eslovenia, Croacia y Austria afectadas por las graves inundaciones producidas durante el otoño del año pasado. Las citadas inundaciones han sido una catástrofe natural que ha producido numerosos daños en los tres países. La Unión Europea constituyó el Fondo de Solidaridad para ayudar a la reconstrucción de los Estados miembros ante todo tipo de catástrofes. Este informe modifica el presupuesto para subsanar los daños causados por las graves inundaciones. Por ello he votado a favor.
Maria do Céu Patrão Neves (PPE), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente a resolução do Parlamento Europeu, de 11 de setembro de 2013, referente à posição do Conselho sobre o projeto de orçamento retificativo n.º 5/2013 da União Europeia para o exercício de 2013, Secção III – Comissão, que confirma a proposta da Comissão sem alterações, assegurando deste modo que o orçamento retificativo n.º 5 seja coberto por novas dotações, fazendo face assim à urgência de libertar a assistência financeira através do FSUE para os países atingidos por esta catástrofe natural.
Raül Romeva i Rueda (Verts/ALE), in writing. − In favour. DAB 5/2013 concerns the mobilisation of the EU Solidarity fund in favour of Croatia, Slovenia and Austria following the disasters caused by the intense rainfalls and consequent floods in autumn 2012, which affected large parts of these countries. Council approved the DAB without modification. We supported this DAB.
Alda Sousa (GUE/NGL), por escrito. − Votei favoravelmente. Este orçamento retificativo, bem como o relatório que fundamenta este pedido, têm como objetivo, viabilizar a mobilização do Fundo de Solidariedade Europeu, num montante total de EUR 14 607 942, em autorizações de crédito e em pagamentos. Este montante irá providenciar assistência financeira à Eslovénia, à Croácia e à Áustria, em resposta às graves inundações que ocorreram em outubro e novembro do ano transato. Lamentável o facto de só um ano depois de ocorridos os factos o Conselho Europeu ter finalmente possibilitado a mobilização do Fundo.
Γεώργιος Σταυρακάκης (S&D), γραπτώς. – Υπερψήφισα την έκθεση σχετικά με το σχέδιο διορθωτικού προϋπολογισμού (ΣΔΠ) αριθ. 5/2013 για την κινητοποίηση του Ταμείου Αλληλεγγύης της ΕΕ λόγω των έντονων βροχοπτώσεων και των επακόλουθων καταστροφών που προκλήθηκαν από τις πλημμύρες που έπληξαν τη Σλοβενία, τη Κροατία και την Αυστρία το φθινόπωρο του 2012. Είναι θετικό το ότι το Συμβούλιο επιβεβαίωσε την πρόταση της Επιτροπής χωρίς τροπολογίες, διασφαλίζοντας με αυτόν τον τρόπο ότι το ΣΔΠ αριθ. 5 θα χρηματοδοτηθεί με φρέσκο χρήμα. Σε αυτό το σημείο, ωστόσο, πρέπει να σημειωθεί το μεγάλο πρόβλημα της έλλειψης πιστώσεων πληρωμών για το 2013 που εκ των προτέρων απέκλειε την εξεύρεση πόρων για το ΣΔΠ αριθ. 5 μέσω της ανακατανομής πόρων. Τέλος, είναι σημαντικό να τονιστεί η ανάγκη έγκαιρης αποδέσμευσης της οικονομικής βοήθειας μέσω του Ταμείου Αλληλεγγύης προς τις χώρες που επλήγησαν από τη φυσική αυτή καταστροφή. Για αυτόν τον λόγο είναι δυσάρεστο το γεγονός ότι, για μια ακόμη φορά, το Συμβούλιο αποφάσισε να μην περιορίσει για λόγους κατεπείγοντος, όπως προβλέπει το άρθρο 4 του Πρωτοκόλλου 1 της Συνθήκης, τις οκτώ εβδομάδες για την ενημέρωση των εθνικών κοινοβουλίων πριν από την έγκριση της θέσης του για τον συγκεκριμένο διορθωτικό προϋπολογισμό.
Marc Tarabella (S&D), par écrit. – Il est urgent de débloquer l'aide financière du FSUE destinée aux pays touchés par cette catastrophe naturelle. Je déplore que le Conseil ait de nouveau refusé de raccourcir, pour motif d'urgence, comme le prévoit explicitement l'article 4 du protocole nº 1 du traité, le délai de huit semaines requis pour l'information des parlements nationaux à observer avant que le Conseil n'adopte une position sur le budget rectificatif.
Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. − A União Europeia criou o Fundo de Solidariedade da União Europeia com o intuito de manifestar a sua solidariedade para com a população das regiões afetadas por catástrofes. O Acordo Interinstitucional, de 17 de maio de 2006, permite a mobilização do Fundo até um limite máximo anual de mil milhões de EUR. Voto favoravelmente o presente relatório que visa mobilizar 14 607 942,00 euros do Fundo de Solidariedade a favor da Eslovénia, da Croácia e da Áustria para fazerem face às catástrofes causadas pelas inundações. Defendo ainda que é urgente a disponibilização de verbas para os países atingidos pela catástrofe natural, não se devendo suceder o mesmo que aconteceu com a catástrofe de 20 de fevereiro de 2012, verificada na Região Autónoma da Madeira, em que a ajuda demorou demasiado tempo a chegar à população afetada. Considero ainda incrível e profundamente lamentável que o Conselho tenha decidido, uma vez mais, não abreviar, por motivo de urgência e em conformidade com o previsto no artigo 4.º do Protocolo n.º 1 do Tratado, o prazo de oito semanas para informação dos Parlamentos nacionais antes da adoção da sua posição relativamente ao presente orçamento retificativo.
Angelika Werthmann (ALDE), in writing. − I voted in favour of the mobilisation of funds from the European Solidarity Fund. These amounts will be mobilised in order to help people in Austria, Slovenia and Croatia after they were hit by major natural disasters – in this case severe floods. I do not think that anybody should vote against mobilisation of this Fund, as this Fund was created and its major objective is to help European citizens who suffer because of different catastrophic events (including floods, forest fires, earthquakes, storms and drought).
6.8. Fuel quality directive and renewable energy directive (A7-0279/2013 - Corinne Lepage)
Dichiarazioni di voto scritte
Χαράλαμπος Αγγουράκης (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Πίσω από τις φιλο-περιβαλλοντικές κορώνες της έκθεσης και της οδηγίας, κρύβονται για ακόμη μια φορά οι ανταγωνισμοί των ευρωενωσιακών μονοπωλίων όσον αφορά το κομμάτι που θα αποσπάσουν από την ενεργειακή πίτα της ΕΕ και τις σχετικές επιδοτήσεις από τα κοινοτικά ταμεία. Η ΕΕ αντιμετωπίζει τη μείωση των εκπομπών αερίων του θερμοκηπίου σαν μία ακόμη ευκαιρία για «πράσινες» επιχειρηματικές δράσεις, ώστε να βρουν διέξοδο τα υπερσυσσωρευμένα κεφάλαια σε τομείς στους οποίους θεωρεί ότι έχει συγκριτικό πλεονέκτημα έναντι των ανταγωνιστών της. Η έκθεση και οι τροπολογίες αφορούν τα τμήματα του κεφαλαίου στον ενεργειακό τομέα που θα πάρουν μεγαλύτερα κομμάτια από την πίτα, και εκείνα που θα περιορίσουν την απώλεια κερδών από την αλλαγή πολιτικής. Ο συμβιβασμός της έκθεσης, που διατηρεί την παραγωγή βιοκαυσίμων μειώνοντας το ποσοστό τους, δεν λύνει αλλά, αντιθέτως, διαιωνίζει το πρόβλημα, συνιστά προσωρινή ισορροπία μεταξύ μονοπωλιακών μερίδων χωρίς καμία σχέση με τα λαϊκά συμφέροντα και την προστασία του περιβάλλοντος. Αναδεικνύεται κι εδώ το ζήτημα των δύο δρόμων ανάπτυξης και της εξουσίας, ώστε γενικώς σωστές από επιστημονικοτεχνική άποψη προτάσεις, π.χ. για παραγωγή βιοκαυσίμων μηδενικών ρύπων ή βελτίωση της ενεργειακής απόδοσης ή χρήση ανανεώσιμων πηγών στο όλο ενεργειακό μείγμα, να αποκτήσουν φιλολαϊκό περιεχόμενο και να μην αποτελούν μέσο αύξησης της μονοπωλιακής κερδοφορίας σε βάρος του λαού και του περιβάλλοντος.
Sophie Auconie (PPE), par écrit. – Je me félicite de l’adoption de ce rapport qui permet une réorientation progressive et raisonnable de la politique des biocarburants. A travers le plafond fixé de 6% de biocarburants conventionnels (produits à partir de matières agricoles) et l’objectif de 2,5% de biocarburants avancés pour 2020 ainsi que d’autres mesures de ce texte, nous nous assurons que les biocarburants contribuent à la lutte contre le changement climatique, soutiennent le revenu de nos agriculteurs, sans remettre en cause les investissements programmés et sans fragiliser le marché alimentaire mondial. J’espère que cette approche équilibrée pourra être conservée lors des négociations qui vont maintenant avoir lieu avec le Conseil des ministres.
Zigmantas Balčytis (S&D), raštu. − Balsavau už šį pranešimą, kuriuo siekiama priimti naujas taisykles, kuriomis būtų apribota tradicinių biodegalų gamyba ir būtų paspartintas perėjimas prie naujų šios kuro rūšies gamybos būdų, t. y. panaudojant atliekas arba jūros dumblius. Šios naujos taisyklės padėtų mažinti šiltnamio efektą sukeliančių dujų išmetimą, sukeliamą didėjančio žemės naudojimo į biodegalus perdirbamoms kultūroms auginti. Pritariu išdėstytiems siūlymams nustatyti, kad iki 2020 m. pirmos kartos biodegalų dalis, kuri gaminama iš maistinių augalų, neturėtų viršyti 5,5 proc. transporto sektoriuje suvartojamo energijos kiekio, o pažangiųjų biodegalų dalis turėtų sudaryti bent 2 proc. minėto kiekio. Taip pat svarbu atsižvelgti į tai, kad maisto gamybą keičia biodegalų gamyba, nes žemė vis labiau naudojama minėto kuro kultūrų auginimui, kartu didinant šiltnamio efektą sukeliančių dujų išmetimą. Todėl netiesioginis žemės paskirties keitimas gali iš dalies pakirsti aplinkosauginius biodegalų privalumus. Taip pat pritariu Energetikos komiteto siūlymui, kad pirmos kartos biodegalų dalis turėtų būti ne didesnė nei 6,5 proc.
Francesca Barracciu (S&D), per iscritto. − Con il voto di quest'oggi il Parlamento europeo ha definito la propria posizione per mettere fine agli evidenti effetti collaterali della legislazione europea, impegnandosi ad evitare che la produzione di biocarburanti e di energie rinnovabili sottragga terre all'agricoltura e, dunque, all'alimentazione, soprattutto in quei Paesi che, più dell'Unione europea, hanno bisogno di terreno agricolo e di generi alimentari. Il risultato del voto non è lineare come il Gruppo Socialisti e Democratici avrebbe voluto, ma è importante che adesso arrivi una risposta chiara e veloce dagli Stati membri per correggere la rotta intrapresa negli anni passati nella produzione di biocarburanti e dare, al tempo stesso, un quadro normativo certo alle aziende che in questo settore hanno investito. In seconda lettura lavoreremo per correggere gli errori prodotti in Aula dalla maggioranza di centrodestra. Nella mia Regione, con progetti di cosiddetta "chimica verde", abbiamo saputo trovare un buon equilibrio destinando alla produzione industriale solo coltivazioni realizzate su terreni ormai abbandonati perché non più remunerativi e ritengo che questa sia la strada lungo la quale debba incamminarsi anche l'Europa.
Ivo Belet (PPE), schriftelijk. − We hebben zonet het licht op groen gezet voor een grondige bijsturing van het beleid voor biobrandstoffen, waardoor we definitief het pad inslaan van de geavanceerde biobrandstoffen, die de landbouw niet belasten, de voedselprijzen niet omhoog jagen en de ontbossing tegengaan. De tekst is niet perfect maar wel een flinke stap vooruit. Door het plafond van 6% krijgen de producenten van de conventionele biobrandstoffen, die recent belangrijke investeringen hebben gedaan, de tijd om over te schakelen. En met deze hervorming stimuleren we uiteraard ook het elektrisch rijden (op basis van hernieuwbare energie), wat prima is.
Jean-Luc Bennahmias (ALDE), par écrit. – Plafonnement des biocarburants de première génération à 6%, objectif de 2.5% d'agrocarburants avancés en 2020 et prise en compte des facteurs CASI (changement d'affectation des sols indirect) en 2020 sur la base d'une révision de la méthodologie par la Commission européenne en 2016 : le texte voté à la majorité du PE est un pas en avant vers la réorientation de notre politique européenne d'agrocarburants. C'est justement pour cela que les conservateurs du Parlement ont obtenu le report des négociations avec le Conseil. Résultat: un bon texte mais nous n'aurons pas de législation d'ici la fin de la mandature. C'est un coup manqué et nous pouvons fortement le regretter. Clarifier la politique européenne, passer progressivement de la première génération de biocarburants à la seconde, renforcer la prise de conscience des effets CASI au sein de l'Union et prévoir la prise en compte de ces facteurs dans la législation à l'horizon 2020: tels étaient les objectifs de la rapporteur Corinne Lepage. Sans renier les investissements réalisés en Europe et l'importance des filières biodiesel et bioéthanol, il faut aujourd'hui faire évoluer notre politique d'agocarburants pour en faire un réel outil de contribution aux objectifs de lutte contre le changement climatique.
Fabrizio Bertot (PPE), per iscritto. − La direttiva sulle energie rinnovabili stabilisce l'obiettivo di raggiungere entro il 2020 la quota del 20% di energia rinnovabile nel consumo energetico totale dell'UE e del 10% di energia rinnovabile nel settore dei trasporti. Parallelamente, la direttiva sulla qualità dei carburanti ha introdotto l'obiettivo vincolante di ridurre del 6% l'intensità delle emissioni di gas a effetto serra dei carburanti destinati ai trasporti stradali e alle macchine mobili non stradali. L'accelerazione del passaggio ai biocarburanti avanzati, che gode di un ampio consenso, costituisce uno degli obiettivi della proposta. È indispensabile dare all'industria un segnale chiaro dell'orientamento dell'Unione europea verso i biocarburanti avanzati onde favorire gli investimenti a lungo termine. Per questo motivo ho votato a favore di questa direttiva.
Sebastian Valentin Bodu (PPE), în scris. − Utilizarea biocombustibililor a înregistrat o creștere constantă de-a lungul ultimilor zece ani ca urmare a politicii UE care urmărește limitarea impactului pe care îl au transporturile asupra mediului și reducerea dependenței Europei de combustibilii pe bază de petrol.
Parlamentul European a recunoscut importanța promovării energiei din surse regenerabile. Directiva 2009/28/CE privind promovarea utilizării energiei din surse regenerabile și Directiva 98/70/CE privind calitatea benzinei și a motorinei vizează combaterea schimbărilor climatice și reducerea dependenței UE de surse externe de energie. Cu toate acestea, scopul principal al celor două directive se află în pericol de a fi subminat de efectul schimbării indirecte a utilizării terenurilor, care poate anula reducerea emisiilor de gaze cu efect de seră aferentă biocombustibililor individuali în raport cu combustibilii fosili pe care îi înlocuiesc.
Activitățile științifice arată că emisiile rezultate din schimbarea indirectă a utilizării terenurilor pot varia în mod substanțial de la o materie primă la alta în raport cu combustibilii fosili pe care îi înlocuiesc și că emisiile de gaze cu efect de seră legate de schimbarea indirectă a utilizării terenurilor sunt semnificative și ar putea anula, total sau parțial, reducerile de gaze cu efect de seră generate de biocombustibilii individuali.
Philippe Boulland (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté contre le rapport présenté par la rapporteure, puisque celui-ci ne reflétait pas les positions de notre groupe et ne satisfaisait au final aucun parti politique au sein du Parlement. Sur ce dossier, le Parlement européen a été très divisé, deux conceptions se sont opposées, et nous avons adopté un compromis a minima qui ne satisfait aucune des parties. Devant cette division claire du Parlement, nous n'avons pu confier mandat à la rapporteure pour commencer les négociations avec le Conseil, puisque la position adoptée n'est, au final, pas représentative de la position du Parlement. Le texte repart donc au Conseil pour une seconde lecture, laissant plus de temps au Parlement pour adopter une position claire et tranchée.
Arkadiusz Tomasz Bratkowski (PPE), na piśmie. − Podczas głosowania opowiedziałem się przeciwko przyjętej przez parlament rezolucji ustawodawczej. Omawiany dokument w zasadniczy sposób ograniczałby udział biokomponentów pochodzenia rolniczego z 10% do 6%, przy czym pozostałe 4% miałoby się składać z 2,5% biopaliw zaawansowanych oraz 1,5% biopaliw z innych źródeł odnawialnych. Jestem zdania, iż przyjęcie przez Radę rezolucji Parlamentu Europejskiego w jej obecnej formie w znaczący sposób podważy stabilność prawną, co w konsekwencji oznaczałoby nie tylko utratę zaufania grup producenckich czy inwestorów, ale i przyczyniłoby się do zmniejszenia zatrudnienia w tym sektorze. Produkcją biopaliw z biokomponentów zajmują się w szczególności małe firmy, dla których radykalna zmiana profilu produkcji na paliwa zaawansowane może okazać się zbyt trudna. Nie należy zapominać, iż zaproponowane przez Parlament Europejski zmiany mogłyby mieć wpływ na wszystkie sektory gospodarki, w tym na ostateczne ograniczenie produkcji globalnej. W wątpliwość podaję opieranie nowych założeń na mało wiarygodnym i niesprawdzonym czynniku ILUC (pośrednia zmiana użytkownika gruntu). Szczególnie, że wykorzystuje on niepewne dane i skomplikowaną metodologię, przez co w każdym instytucie daje on inny wynik.
Mając na uwadze przedstawione argumenty, wierzę, że omawiany dokument w trakcie drugiego czytania może zostać poprawiony na tyle, by w ostatecznej formie współgrać z interesami nie tylko Polski, ale i całej Unii Europejskiej.
John Bufton (EFD), in writing. − Against. My party is against the vast majority of measures central to this Directive – greenhouse gas emissions, carbon capture, the 2020 targets, the use of biofuels, the pseudo-calculation of CO2 life cycles and the introduction of more targets and restrictions, to name but a few. In particular, we are against the use of subsidies and this report aims to facilitate the use of EU taxpayers’ money to subsidise industries which, quite simply, would not exist under free market conditions.
Alain Cadec (PPE), par écrit. – J'étais en faveur d'un seuil à 6,5% d'utilisation de biocarburants d'ici à 2020 proposés par la commission de l'industrie, de la recherche et de l'énergie. Le rapport Lepage précise que la quantité importante de gaz à effet de serre dégagée par les biocarburants s'explique en raison d'un phénomène appelé changement d'affectation des sols indirects (CASI). La méthode de calcul sur laquelle sur base le CASI pour mesurer la quantité de CO2 émise semble, en l'état actuel des choses, scientifiquement non maîtrisée, défaillante et donc inapplicable. Ainsi, j'ai voté contre tous les amendements proposés par la commission et repris par le rapport Lepage proposant d'inclure des facteurs liés au CASI. J'ai voté contre la proposition amendée car je ne souhaite pas de calcul du facteur CASI au niveau européen. En revanche, j'ai voté en faveur de la résolution législative de façon à avoir une 1ère lecture claire du Parlement européen et de continuer le travail sur ce rapport tout au long de la deuxième lecture.
Antonio Cancian (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho votato a favore della relazione presentata dalla collega on. Lepage perché ritengo indispensabile che, al progredire delle tecniche e delle scoperte scientifiche nel campo dei carburanti, debba conseguire un parallelo ammodernamento legislativo. Ritengo che il Parlamento avrebbe dovuto puntare ad un obiettivo più ambizioso per quanto riguarda il sostegno ai biocarburanti di seconda generazione, adottando una percentuale più bassa per definire il limite del contributo dei biocarburanti di prima generazione al raggiungimento della soglia complessiva. Penso inoltre che dovremmo prestare maggiore attenzione nel conteggio dell'effettiva riduzione delle emissioni di CO2 data dalle tecnologie più avanzate.
Maria Da Graça Carvalho (PPE), por escrito. − A promoção dos biocombustíveis tem sido um dos elementos essenciais da política da UE pois não só aumentam a sustentabilidade dos transportes como também melhoram a segurança do aprovisionamento energético e apoiam o desenvolvimento económico. A alteração da Diretiva Energias Renováveis pretende minimizar o impacto das alterações indiretas do uso do solo nas emissões de gases com efeito de estufa. Congratulo-me com o acordo alcançado que apoia uma transição gradual dos biocombustíveis convencionais para os avançados, desde que os progressos tecnológicos o permitam, minimizando, ao mesmo tempo, os efeitos prejudiciais para a indústria europeia.
Minodora Cliveti (S&D), în scris. − În prezent s-a ajuns în situaţia în care dezvoltarea industriei biocombustibililor de primă generaţie are drept efect sacrificarea terenurilor agricole destinate produselor de consum alimentar. Totodată, multiplicarea emisiilor de gaze cu efect de seră rezultate din utilizarea tot mai mare a terenurilor agricole pentru producţia de biocombustibili anulează multe dintre beneficiile aduse de biocombustibili. Acesta este un semnal clar că atenţia şi eforturile trebuie să se concentreze pe biocombustibilii avansați. De aceea, salut votul Parlamentului European în favoarea limitării utilizării biocombustibililor tradiţionali şi tranziţia mai rapidă spre biocombustibilii avansaţi obtinuţi din surse alternative, cum ar fi alegele marine şi deşeurile. Prin textul adoptat, Parlamentul European doreşte să limiteze biocombustibilii de primă generaţie, respectiv cei proveniţi din recolte agricole, la 6% din consumul final de energie din sectorul transporturilor, până în 2020, spre deosebire de ţinta de 10% din legislaţia existentă. Biocombustibilii avansaţi, generaţi din alge marine sau din deşeuri, vor trebuie să reprezinte cel puţin 2,5% din consumul de energie din sectorul transporturilor. Propunerea legislativă are importante implicaţii economice şi etice şi este esenţială pentru integritatea politicii UE de combatere a schimbărilor climatice.
Lara Comi (PPE), per iscritto. − La direttiva proposta dalla Commissione modifica le precedenti direttive sulla qualità dei carburanti e sulla promozione delle energie rinnovabili per tenere conto del fattore ILUC, ovvero delle emissioni associate al cambio d'uso dei terreni coltivati per produrre biocarburanti, le quali riducono i vantaggi per l'ambiente. La proposta ILUC mira, quindi, a limitare il ruolo dei biocarburanti derivati da colture agricole nella contabilizzazione ai fini dell'obiettivo del 10% di energie rinnovabili nei trasporti entro il 2020. Condivido gli obiettivi della proposta legislativa presentata dalla Commissione, che mira a premiare i biocarburanti più virtuosi, in termini di emissioni di CO² rispetto al combustibile fossile di riferimento e di non competitività col mondo agricolo per l'uso del terreno. D'altro canto va evidenziato che la percentuale del 5% per l'utilizzo di biocarburanti e bioliquidi prodotti a partire dai cereali e da altre colture amidacee, zuccherine od oleaginose penalizza di fatto gli investimenti già intrapresi. Inoltre, l'introduzione del conteggio quadruplo potrebbe avere effetti distorsivi sul mercato, oltre al rischio di frodi. Ad ogni modo, ritengo che i dati proposti in relazione ai fattori emissivi derivanti dal cambio indiretto di uso del suolo debbano essere supportati da studi internazionali in merito.
Andrea Cozzolino (S&D), per iscritto. − La direttiva affronta un problema di importanza primaria, che incide a fondo sulle prospettive di sviluppo, in particolare delle aree meno sviluppate del globo. Non possiamo nasconderci, infatti, l'incidenza della produzione di biocarburanti sulle scorte alimentari; una incidenza tanto maggiore laddove di più le popolazioni risentono di endemiche carenze di beni primari. Allo stesso tempo, però, non è pensabile ignorare l'entità degli investimenti già fatti o programmati per i prossimi anni dai produttori di biocarburanti. Era necessaria una sintesi che tenesse conto di questo aspetto, ma che non precludesse lo sviluppo ulteriore della seconda generazione di biocarburanti che, senza dubbio, producono impatti negativi minori. L'Unione deve assolutamente promuovere il passaggio - sicuramente graduale, evitando ingiuste penalizzazioni - alla seconda generazione, dal momento che non sono più ammissibili le conseguenze che ha prodotto l'attuale sistema. La sottrazione di terreni alla produzione alimentare, con conseguente innalzamento dei prezzi delle derrate, la corsa indiscriminata all'accaparramento di pezzi di terra hanno prodotto effetti negativi sulle popolazioni, che hanno pagato un prezzo elevato che l'Europa non può più consentire. Sappiamo che si poteva osare di più e trovare il coraggio per iniziative che garantissero più benefici ai cittadini e al sistema globale.
Michel Dantin (PPE), par écrit. – Le texte devra trouver une majorité en deuxième lecture. C'est heureux car en l'état, il repose sur des modèles théoriques trop incertains et des plafonnements artificiels. En ces temps de tensions économiques, il pouvait mettre en danger les investissements déjà réalisés et les emplois créés à la suite de choix récents. L'agriculture européenne trouve ici un débouché d'appoint qui contribue à une certaine stabilisation des marchés, les biocarburants ne pouvant de toutes les façons s'accommoder de prix élevés des matières premières
Rachida Dati (PPE), par écrit. – Je pense qu’il est encore trop tôt pour fixer dans le marbre du droit communautaire des facteurs de calcul des changements d’utilisation des sols, alors même que leur mode de calcul ne réunit pas un accord large au sein de la communauté scientifique, et que nous venons à peine de fixer des objectifs pour les biocarburants en 2009. Les entreprises et l’ensemble des acteurs de la filière ne comprendraient pas cette instabilité.
Mark Demesmaeker (Verts/ALE), schriftelijk. - Vandaag stellen we voor biobrandstoffen van de eerste generatie te beperken. We zetten daarmee een verkeerd beleid recht. Dergelijke biobrandstoffen werden 10 jaar geleden onthaald als dé oplossing voor hernieuwbare energie in transport. Ondertussen blijkt dat er weinig ‘bio’ is aan vele van deze brandstoffen. Vaak is het totale effect op het milieu zelfs negatief. Bovendien ben ik opgetogen dat er strengere criteria komen om te bepalen welke biobrandstoffen duurzaam zijn en welke niet, en dat er vanaf 2020 rekening wordt gehouden met de indirecte gevolgen die het telen van biobrandstoffen op het milieu uitoefent. In Vlaanderen zijn in het verleden grote investeringen gedaan voor de productie van biobrandstoffen, onder andere in de haven van Gent. Met deze nieuwe voorstellen van het Europees Parlement komen deze investeringen niet in gevaar. Investeringszekerheid is voor mij cruciaal. Het kan niet de bedoeling zijn dat ondernemers het slachtoffer zijn van een Europees beleid dat van verkeerde inschattingen is uitgegaan. Bestaande projecten kunnen dus blijven bestaan, maar er wordt wel een signaal gegeven om toekomstige investeringen in een meer duurzame richting te sturen. Daardoor ontstaat ruimte voor nieuwe investeringen, onder andere voor geavanceerde biobrandstoffen, afkomstig uit afval of algen, en dat is goed nieuws.
Tamás Deutsch (PPE), írásban. − Az energiahatékonyság növelésének az Európai Unió az utóbbi időben kiemelt szerepet szán, és kétségkívül minden tagállam azon dolgozik, hogy az erre vonatkozó kötelező százalékos célértéket teljesíteni tudja 2020-ra.
Ennek érdekében fontosnak tartom, hogy odafigyeljünk a közlekedési ágazat energiaigényére, mely növekvő tendenciát mutat, nehezítve ezzel az energiahatékonyságra vonatkozó célkitűzések elérését.
Emellett az üvegházhatásúgáz-kibocsátás további csökkentésének érdekében további szabályozásra van szükség. A nulla vagy alacsony UHG-kibocsátású bioüzemanyagok kerüljenek felhasználásra a közlekedés során, és egyetértek azzal a célkitűzéssel, mely szerint a bioüzemanyag-termelést tovább kell ösztönözni.
Ioan Enciu (S&D), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur des projets de directive sur la qualité du carburant et de directive sur les énergies renouvelables que le groupe socialiste et démocrate a cherché à adapter de manière à répondre plus efficacement aux défis environnementaux et alimentaires à venir. La production de biocarburants issus de cultures alimentaires contribue à la volatilité des prix, raison pour laquelle la demande croissante de biocarburants dans l'Union européenne a notamment pour conséquence néfaste une restriction de l'accès à l'alimentation de certaines populations. Cette situation est très préoccupante. Il est indispensable que les populations vivant dans la pauvreté ne souffrent pas d'un manque de nourriture dû à la multiplication de politiques visant à accorder la priorité à la production de biocarburants. Selon l'OCDE et la FAO, les prix des denrées alimentaires de base vont probablement continuer à augmenter, entre 2015 et 2019, d'au moins 27 % pour le blé, de 48 % pour le maïs et de 36 % pour les graines oléagineuses, par rapport aux niveaux de 1998 à 2002. L'impact potentiel de la production de biocarburants sur les prix des matières premières alimentaires devrait ainsi être davantage pris en compte par l'Union.
Diogo Feio (PPE), por escrito. − A Diretiva relativa às energias renováveis estabeleceu como objectivo atingir até 2020 uma quota global de 20% de energia proveniente de fontes renováveis na UE e uma quota de 10% desse tipo de energia no setor dos transportes. Tais metas são ambiciosas mas necessárias à consolidação de uma maior independência face aos combustíveis fósseis. Hoje aprovamos um texto equilibrado que, sem pôr em causa os objectivos em matéria de energia limpa, também não sobrecarrega demasiado a indústria europeia.
José Manuel Fernandes (PPE), por escrito. − Com esta votação, o Parlamento Europeu defende que a quota de energia proveniente de biocombustíveis clássicos ou de primeira geração, produzidos a partir de cereais e outras culturas ricas em amido e culturas açucareiras, oleaginosas e outras culturas energéticas cultivadas em terra, não deve ser superior a 6% do consumo final de energia nos transportes em 2020. Atualmente, o objetivo para 2020 está fixado nos 10%. A quota de energia dos biocombustíveis avançados ou de segunda geração, como os produzidos a partir de algas ou resíduos, deve representar, pelo menos, 2,5% do consumo final de energia no setor dos transportes em 2020. Defendo que sejam tidas em conta as emissões de gases com efeito de estufa que resultam da crescente utilização de terrenos agrícolas para a produção de biocombustíveis.
Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne − Súhlasím s potrebou znižovania emisií v odvetví dopravy a plnením cieľov Európa 2020. Kľúčovým prvkom predkladanej predmetnej smernice však je 5 % ohraničenie pre konvenčné biopalivá vyrábané z poľnohospodárskych plodín. S týmto opatrením nemôžem súhlasiť, keďže v SR bolo v dôsledku implementovania smernice 2009/28/EC o OZE investované značné množstvo finančných prostriedkov na vybudovanie moderných prevádzok na výrobu biopalív. Zároveň bolo Slovensko jednou z krajín zasadzujúcou sa počas rokovaní za prísnejšiu kontrolu surovín pre výrobu biopalív novej generácie v snahe zamedziť možnému zámernému znečisťovaniu a podvodom. I preto v danej súvislosti podporujem vytvorenie systému kontroly aj na európskej úrovni. Pri jeho zavádzaní je však potrebné vynakladať úsilie, aby bolo možné predísť nadmernej administratívnej záťaži s tým súvisiacej. Súčasne, aby bola zabezpečená dlhodobá konkurencieschopnosť priemyselných odvetví založených biopalivách, domnievam sa, že by mali byť uprednostňované východiskové suroviny z biomasy, ktoré nemajú vysokú ekonomickú hodnotu pri inom použití než ako biopalivo.
Gaston Franco (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai souhaité voter en faveur d'éléments réalistes lors de cette séance. En effet, le texte proposé, qui est essentiellement technique, proposait de remettre en question les investissements et la politique environnementale des biocarburants en Europe. J'ai donc soutenu un taux de 6,5% d'incorporation de biocarburant contre les 5% de la Commission européenne et contre les 6% finalement adoptés. Alors même que j'adhère à la philosophie du calcul des factures CASI, je n'ai pas souhaité les appliquer dans cette directive puisque la méthode de calcul est trop incertaine. On n'applique pas à un malade un traitement lourd par prévention. La proposition que j'ai soutenue prévoyait l'émergence des biocarburants de 2ème génération ce qui permettait de répondre aux critiques de la sécurité alimentaire et de la sécurité énergétique de l'Europe. J'ai cependant voté positif au vote final puisque cela permet d'avancer vers une seconde lecture.
Elisabetta Gardini (PPE), per iscritto. − Grazie al voto della plenaria di oggi i cittadini europei hanno ottenuto una doppia garanzia. Da un lato, l´introduzione di una soglia massima pari al 6 % per l´utilizzo dei biocarburanti di prima generazione rappresenta un elemento positivo a tutela della sicurezza alimentare. Nel decennio scorso la spinta ai biocarburanti quale soluzione all´eccessiva dipendenza energetica ha portato ad un´eccessiva competizione tra colture ad uso alimentare e quelle destinate ai biocarburanti, innescando una spirale di crescita dei prezzi degli alimenti. Nonostante il calo del 9 % registrato dalla Banca Mondiale a Febbraio 2013, il livello internazionale dei prezzi rimane tuttora elevato. Dall´altro lato, il raggiungimento, entro il 2020, di una soglia minima per il consumo di energia prodotta dai biocarburanti avanzati consentirà di preservare gli investimenti già intrapresi nel settore e di incentivare la ricerca di soluzioni alternative per la produzione di energia. Purtroppo, la bassa percentuale prevista per tale soglia, pari al 2,5 %, rappresenta un´occasione perduta per favorire una reale innovazione nel settore. Comunque auspico il raggiungimento, da parte del Consiglio, di una posizione comune vicina a quella votata oggi in plenaria, al fine di garantire il prima possibile ai nostri cittadini una strategia energetica sostenibile nel lungo periodo.
Adam Gierek (S&D), na piśmie. − W poprzedniej kadencji Parlament Europejski przyjął kontrowersyjny pakiet klimatyczno-energetyczny, ale życie wykazało, że się myliliśmy. Myślę, że obecne sprawozdanie należy traktować jako początek odchodzenia od nieprzemyślanego do końca i szkodliwego dla gospodarki UE pakietu. Okazuje się bowiem, że biopaliwa pierwszej generacji – bioetanol dodawany do benzyny, biodiesel (ester metylowy) – które miały zastąpić minimum 10% energii zawartej w paliwach, zwiększają łączną emisję CO2. Uważam, że do 2020 roku nie uda się zastąpić 10% paliw tradycyjnych i osiągnąć zarazem sześcioprocentową obniżkę emisji CO2. A to dlatego, że w produkcji bioetanolu nie uwzględniono emisji CO2 podczas fermentacji oraz agrarnych skutków pośrednich i faktu, że odwodniony spirytus zawiera mniej energii niż benzyna i trzeba go użyć dwa razy więcej, co powoduje wzrost zużycia paliwa przez silniki benzynowe, czyli wzrost emisji CO2. Bioestry metylowe z kolei także zawierają ok. 20% mniej energii od zwykłej ropy Chcąc uzyskać stosowną moc silników, zwiększymy zużycie paliwa i emisję CO2 oraz cząstek stałych do atmosfery.
Mimo że polscy inwestorzy stracą gospodarczo, bo dostosowali się już do poprzednich regulacji, to popieram to sprawozdanie. Czynię to dlatego, że mam nadzieję, iż także w sprawie innych elementów pakietu klimatyczno-energetycznego nastąpią stosowne zmiany. W przeciwnym razie straty będą katastrofalne w skutkach.
Catherine Grèze (Verts/ALE), par écrit. – Nous venons de donner un coup de frein aux agrocarburants afin de réduire leur impact négatif sur la déforestation, l’accaparement des terres et la sécurité alimentaire dans les pays en développement. Il était indispensable de voter pour un plafonnement des agrocarburants de première génération (le taux retenu est plus élevé qu’espéré, 6 % de l'énergie finale consommée dans les transports), produits à base de cultures alimentaires. « On veut nourrir les hommes pas les voitures ». Il était également fondamental d’inclure des facteurs CASI (ILUC), dans la comptabilité des gaz à effet de serre, reflétant l’impact climatique des agrocarburants dû au déplacement de la production alimentaire de différentes matières premières. C’était le minimum nécessaire permettant de prendre des mesures concrètes pour lutter contre les conséquences négatives (changement climatique, insécurité alimentaire et les conséquences sociales dues au déplacement de la production alimentaire) de la politique actuelle de l’UE en matière d’agrocarburant. Il est cependant très regrettable que la rapporteure n’ait pas obtenue le mandat de négociation avec le Conseil, ce qui reporte un éventuel accord à la prochaine législature. Une première étape a été franchie mais la bataille est donc loin d'être gagnée.
Françoise Grossetête (PPE), par écrit. - J'ai voté contre ce rapport car les mesures proposées auraient comme conséquence de pénaliser injustement les filières européennes de biocarburant.
La directive propose en effet de prendre en compte les émissions de gaz à effet de serre liées au changement d'affectation des sols utilisés pour la production de biocarburants. Cette méthode de calcul repose cependant sur des valeurs non scientifiquement établies. Le rapport stigmatise l'ensemble des biocarburants alors qu'il est important de maintenir le développement de cette filière intéressante pour l'agriculture.
Je considère, enfin, que nous devons mieux prendre en compte les sources n'entrant pas en concurrence avec la production alimentaire, comme les algues ou les résidus ligno-cellulosiques d'origine forestière, qui représentent un gisement non négligeable dans les États membres.
Andrzej Grzyb (PPE), na piśmie. − Parlament przyjął zły projekt, oparty na złych założeniach przedłożonych przez Komisję Europejską. Cel zawartości biopaliw w końcowym zużyciu energii w transporcie został ustalony 5 lat temu. Nie można go zmieniać wtedy, kiedy przedsiębiorcy, opierając się na uchwalonym prawie, są w trakcie realizacji inwestycji, w tym wielu współfinansowanych przez fundusze unijne, również te, które za warunek uczestnictwa miały trwałość przedsięwzięcia. Takie zachowanie podważa zaufanie do prawa i instytucji Unii Europejskiej. Dlatego też od początku byłem przeciwny zmianom proponowanym przez Komisję. Mam nadzieję, że w trakcie drugiego czytania zostaną usunięte główne wady tego projektu, które mogą doprowadzić do dezintegracji całego sektora biopaliw w Europie.
Sylvie Guillaume (S&D), par écrit. – Des agrocarburants de première génération qui engendrent pauvreté et insécurité alimentaire dans les pays du Sud? C'est pour en finir avec cette situation que, à la différence d'une droite qui défend uniquement le lobby industriel, j'ai voté en faveur de ce rapport afin de réduire l'usage de ces biocarburants qui n'ont de bio que le nom. Pour éviter de répéter les erreurs du passé, j'estime que nous devons plafonner les biocarburants de première génération à 5,5 % et promouvoir des biocarburants avancés, issus notamment de déchets et d'algues. Je suis également favorable à l'inclusion du facteur ILUC ("changement d'affectation des sols") dans les critères de durabilité des carburants car cela permettra d'avoir à l'avenir une réelle image de l'empreinte carbone d'un biocarburant afin d'être mieux à même d'évaluer le plus en amont possible si leur production doit ou non être poursuivie. Enfin, j'ai soutenu la protection des investissements déjà réalisés afin de préserver l'activité de certaines industries qui se sont engagées dans des actions de modernisation.
Mikael Gustafsson (GUE/NGL), skriftlig. - Jag har röstat för direktivet. Direktivet behandlar EU:s biodrivmedelspolicy. 2008 tog parlamentet ställning till förmån för att inkludera indirekt ändrad markanvändning (ILUC) av vilka minskningar av växthusgasutsläppen som kan tillräknas biodrivmedlen. Direktivet förhindrar att mark omvandlas från livsmedelsproduktion till energigrödor, vilket är positivt både ur klimathänseende och matförsörjningshänseende. Jag välkomnar miljö- och klimatkrav på biodrivmedlen, men samtidigt är det många andra verksamheter som har effekt på klimatet och markanvändningen. Jag beklagar att processrester från massa- och pappersindustrin såsom svartlut, råsulfatsåpa, råtallolja och tallbeck ej inkluderas i förteckningen över avancerade biodrivmedel.
András Gyürk (PPE), írásban. − Magyarország az utóbbi évtizedben az EU egyik legnagyobb bioetanol-termelőjévé vált. A bioetanol-gyártás nemcsak biztos piacot jelent a hazánkban megtermelt kukoricának, és ezzel stabil jövedelmet biztosít a gazdáknak, hanem hozzájárul ahhoz, hogy alapanyag helyett magas hozzáadott-értékű ipari terméket tudjunk exportálni.
A hagyományos bioüzemanyagok visszaszorítását megcélzó jelentés a magyar gazdák szempontjából hátrányos és veszélyes precedenst teremthet a megújuló energiák támogatása, illetve az EU energiafüggetlenségének biztosítása terén. A javaslat elfogadása esetén több ezer munkahely kerülne veszélybe, és jelentős beruházások hiúsulnának meg. Ezért szavazatommal nem támogattam, hogy az Unió korlátozza a hagyományos bioüzemanyagok termelését.
Gunnar Hökmark (PPE), skriftlig. − Förslaget om nya regler för biobränslen innehöll mycket detaljregler för skogen. Restprodukter från skogs- och massaindustrin utgör en stor potential att minska utsläppen av växthusgaser. Europaparlamentet tog i omröstningen inte tydligt avstånd från utskottets diskriminerande hållning mot biobränslen från skogen. Vi moderater såg oss därför tvingade att säga nej till Europaparlamentets position, trots att vi lyckades få bort flera av de värsta delarna i utskottets förslag. Skogspolitiken är och ska fortsätta vara en kompetens för de enskilda medlemsstaterna.
Sandra Kalniete (PPE), rakstiski. − Es balsoju pret šo priekšlikumu ierobežot tradicionālo biodegvielas ražošanu un pāriet uz jauniem biodegvielas ražošanas veidiem no atjaunojamiem resursiem. Es atbalstu mērķi samazināt siltumnīcefekta gāzu emisijas, bet uzskatu, ka konkrētais priekšlikums uzliks jaunu slogu Eiropas un Latvijas zemniekiem, kuru intereses es aizstāvu Eiropas Parlamentā. Jāņem vērā, ka Eiropas Savienība ir līderis dažādu piesārņojumu samazināšanā, bet mums ir jādomā arī par mūsu cilvēkiem, kuriem ir nepieciešamas darba vietas un mums ir jādomā arī par jaunu darba vietu radīšanu. Tāpēc aicinu Eiropas Komisiju un Parlamenta Vides komitejas deputātus tālākajās sarunās ieņemt līdzsvarotāku pozīciju un ņemt vērā, ka KLP reformas dēļ Eiropas zemniekiem tuvāko gadu laikā nāksies ieviest virkni jaunu prasību.
Krišjānis Kariņš (PPE), rakstiski. − Es atbalstīju Parlamenta apstiprināto tekstu šim likumprojektam, jo uzskatu, ka Eiropas Savienība nedrīkst mainīt spēles noteikumus spēles laikā attiecībā uz biodegvielu ražošanas mērķiem. Pieņemot lēmumus, ir jārēķinās ar jau veiktajiem ieguldījumiem biodegvielu ražotnēs. Ja tiks pārmērīgi samazināti mērķi, kurus pati Eiropas Savienība ir izvirzījusi, tad ieguldījumi daudzās pirmās paaudzes biodegvielu rūpnīcās būs bijuši veltīgi. Tāpēc mērķu samazinājums bija jānosaka atbilstoši esošajai situācijai un plānotajiem ieguldījumiem biodegvielu ražotnēs, proti, tas nekādā gadījumā nedrīkstēja būt mazāks par jau darbojošos un plānoto rūpnīcu jaudu. Apstiprinot šo likumprojekta redakciju, Eiropas Parlaments ir apliecinājis, ka atbildīgi attiecas pret uzņēmējdarbības vidi Eiropas Savienībā.
Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE), in writing. – I voted in favour of the final report, although I have many reservations. However, we need to improve the current situation. This report provides the bare minimum: we voted to include Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) factors reflecting the climate impact due to displacement of food production of different feedstocks on greenhouse gas accounting from 2020, and adopted a cap of 6 % on land-based biofuels including energy crops as a safeguard for 2020. My Group opposed the 10 % biofuels target when it was first proposed, but found no majority in the EP. We have now seen the damage that the current target is doing in terms of removing land for food production and transferring its use to fuel production. I deeply regret the attitude of some Members, who have sought to weaken the Commission’s proposal and who now seek to delay agreement with a view to weakening Parliament’s position and doing in negotiations what they could not do in the vote.
Agnès Le Brun (PPE), par écrit. – L’objectif de cette directive est de promouvoir le développement de biocarburants "avancés". Ces biocarburants, qui sont par exemple produits à partir de résidus agricoles ou d’algues, ont un moindre impact sur l’environnement car ils n'entraînent ni la destruction de zones naturelles, ni la conversion de terres agricoles. L'augmentation de la production de biocarburants pose en effet deux problèmes: des terres agricoles consacrées initialement aux cultures alimentaires sont converties en terres pour la production de biocarburants, et des zones naturelles sont converties en terres agricoles, ce qui conduit à une réduction de la biodiversité et à une augmentation des émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Nous avons donc décidé d'augmenter la part de biocarburants avancés à 2,5% de la consommation finale de carburant. J’ai soutenu cette directive car nous devons encourager l’innovation afin de rendre les biocarburants moins polluants et pour éviter que leur développement ne menace les cultures alimentaires. Ce vote aidera également l'Union européenne à atteindre l’objectif d’utiliser 10% d’énergie renouvelable dans les transports d'ici à 2020.
Corinne Lepage (ALDE), par écrit. – En 2008, l’UE s’était fixée un objectif ambitieux : d'ici à 2020, 10% du carburant utilisé pour les transports devaient être produits à partir d’énergies renouvelables. Dans ce domaine, l’UE comptait beaucoup sur les biocarburants. Cependant, les travers des biocarburants dits de « première génération », c’est à dire, ceux issus des céréales, des sucres ou des oléagineux ont obligé l’UE à réagir. D'après certains, la culture toujours plus importante des agrocarburants impliquerait la déforestation de forêts vierges en Indonésie ou au Brésil. Cette déforestation génèrerait plus de gaz à effet de serre que les énergies fossiles.
Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D), in writing. − I support an EU biofuels policy which prevents the unintended promotion of polluting biofuels as well as the distortion of crop prices on a global level that encourages poverty. From my point of view, we should ensure appropriate market penetration of innovative and less harming biofuels that do not compete for land needed to grow crops. However, I would like to underline that the voting was only to amend the proposal but not on the legislative resolution.
Astrid Lulling (PPE), par écrit. – L'affirmation selon laquelle la production de biocarburants en Europe serait responsable de la déforestation de forêts vierges est insensée. Depuis 2004, le Brésil a doublé sa production de biocarburants tandis que la déforestation de forêts vierges a pu être réduite de 75 % dans le même laps de temps. Le critère ILUC/CASI sur l'utilisation indirecte des surfaces agricoles pour évaluer, de manière scientifiquement correcte, les aspects environnementaux de la production de biocarburants en Europe présente de sérieuses lacunes méthodologiques, ce qui a également été reconnu par la Commission européenne. Les commissions de l'agriculture et de l'industrie du Parlement européen ont très justement souligné que la culture de colza en Europe se répercute même de façon positive sur les critères ILUC/CASI. La grenaille de colza est utilisée comme produit de fourrage, réduisant ainsi le recours au soja à raison d'environ deux millions de tonnes. Pour toutes les raisons susmentionnées, je suis convaincue que l'on ne devrait agir avec impétuosité, ce que nous avons bien trop souvent fait, et attendre que la discussion scientifique sur la production de biocarburants arrive à maturité. Voilà pourquoi j'ai voté pour les propositions raisonnables des commissions de l'agriculture et de l'industrie et contre le rapport farfelu de la commission de l'environnement.
George Lyon (ALDE), in writing. – In today’s vote on the fuel quality directive and renewable energy directive I supported double counting on cooking oil and animal fats. I firmly believe that these substances should come under the 2.5 % sub-target, as completely excluding them from the target would be a missed opportunity to further help with tackling environmental issues in Scotland.
I voted in favour of the 6 % cap on biofuels as I feel that this strikes a balance between a smooth transition for those who have already made investments and development opportunities in the sector.
I understand the need to slowly move towards new forms of biofuels, which is why I supported a 2.5 % target for advanced biofuels.
David Martin (S&D), in writing. − I voted in favour of this report because legislation regarding biofuels needs to be updated. There are some challenges associated with the increased use and growing of biofuels, but this report addresses these and will make the spread of biofuels more sustainable.
Véronique Mathieu Houillon (PPE), par écrit. – J'ai voté en faveur d'une limite d'incorporation de biocarburant de 1ère génération à 6,5% dans la transports, au lieu des 5% proposé. J'ai voté contre les dispositions relatives à "Iluc" car la fiabilité des facteurs pour prendre en compte les émissions de gaz à effet de serre des biocarburants dans l'utilisation des terres agricoles n'est pas avérée.
Linda McAvan (S&D), in writing. − Labour MEPs voted in favour of measures to limit the use of biofuels from food crops and for ILUC factors to be introduced to ensure that only sustainable biofuels count towards EU targets. Whilst the outcome of the vote did not go as far as Labour MEPs would have wanted, we nevertheless supported the final vote because Parliament did agree to ILUC factors (though later than we wanted) and to a 6 % cap. However, we are extremely disappointed that Parliament did not give a mandate to the rapporteur to enter into negotiations with the Council so that MEPs and Ministers could finalise this important law quickly. Delays make it extremely difficult to conclude this legislation before the 2014 elections. Conservative MEPs joined other right-wing groups in Parliament in blocking a negotiating mandate, despite the position of their own government which was in favour of a cap and ILUC factors. Once again they have let the country down on environmental issues. Labour MEPs would like to thank the thousands of constituents who contacted them about this important vote and are only sorry it did not have a better outcome.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – Ce rapport a un grand mérite.Il instaure une limite à l'utilisation des agrocarburants de 1ères générations et à un niveau plus bas que celui souhaité par les lobbys. Ce rapport ne clos pas le débat sur les agrocarburants. Je continue de défendre l'interdiction pure et simple des ces agrocarburants de première génération qui entrent en concurrence avec les productions agricoles à usage alimentaire. Je vote contre les lobbys qui s'agitent honteusement contre ce texte et je veux défendre les progrès indispensables qu'il contient. Je vote pour. Cependant ce texte n'affirme pas clairement l'objectif de réduction drastique des énergies carbonées et préconise certaines solutions très discutables comme des technologies de stockage de CO2.
Nuno Melo (PPE), por escrito. − A Diretiva relativa às energias renováveis estabeleceu como objetivo atingir até 2020 uma quota global de 20% de energia proveniente de fontes renováveis na UE e uma quota de 10% desse tipo de energia no setor dos transportes. Em simultâneo, a diretiva relativa à qualidade dos combustíveis define um objetivo vinculativo de 6% de redução da intensidade de gases com efeito de estufa dos combustíveis utilizados nos transportes rodoviários e em máquinas móveis não rodoviárias. Estas duas diretivas são de extrema importância para conseguirmos atingir os objetivos estipulados até 2020.
Louis Michel (ALDE), par écrit. – Je salue la prise en compte par le Parlement européen des changements indirects dans l’affectation des sols. Les énergies dites renouvelables, et par conséquent celles bénéficiant de subventions publiques, devront ainsi prendre en compte les effets directs et indirects dans le calcul du taux d’émission de gaz à effet de serre. De plus, le Parlement européen a établi un cadre permettant de limiter la transition de cultures destinées au secteur alimentaire vers le secteur énergétique. Néanmoins, je regrette le manque d’ambition du compromis. La course vers de nouvelles terres agricoles à des fins énergétiques a des conséquences sociales et écologiques désastreuses. Plafonner le biocarburant à 6% de la consommation totale en énergie reste un compromis minimaliste et l'application prévue en 2020 est fort tardive.
Alexander Mirsky (S&D), in writing. − The EU biofuels policy should prevent the unintended promotion of polluting biofuels as well as the global distortion of crop prices that fuels poverty while at the same time protecting existing investments. I am sure that the market in innovative and less polluting biofuels which do not compete with food crops for land should develop.
Andreas Mölzer (NI), schriftlich. - Die Debatte über Biokraftsstoffe und Energie aus erneuerbaren Quellen wurde sehr unsachlich und ideologisch nach dem Motto „Tank oder Teller“ geführt. Das ist bedauerlich. So einfach kann man es sich nicht machen. Im Prinzip ist die Herstellung von Biokraftstoffen auf Flächen, die für die Herstellung von Lebensmitteln genutzt werden, bedenklich. Aus verschiedenen Gründen kann es aber dennoch Sinn machen. Dann nämlich, wenn – wie bei Raps – die Fruchtfolge eingehalten werden kann oder mit dem „Abfallprodukt“ gleich Futtermittel „mitproduziert“ werden. Der Anbau von Pflanzen zur Gewinnung von Biokraftstoffen macht daher, sofern er in begrenztem Ausmaß geschieht, durchaus Sinn und ist zu befürworten. Gewisse Umweltaktivisten im Parlament haben zuerst einen hohen Anteil haben wollen, nun soll wieder alles anders sein. Es braucht auch Rechtssicherheit für die Betroffenen. Nachdem der Bericht in Summe nicht wirklich zufriedenstellend war, habe ich mich der Stimme enthalten.
Claude Moraes (S&D), in writing. − Labour MEPs voted in favour of measures to limit the use of biofuels from food crops and for ILUC factors to be introduced to ensure that only sustainable biofuels count towards EU targets. Switching to biofuels whose greenhouse gas emissions are no better or even worse than conventional fuels makes no sense and is having a negative impact on world food prices and fuelling land-grab problems in developing countries.
Vital Moreira (S&D), por escrito. − Votei o relatório Lepage sobre alterações da Diretiva relativa à energia renovável no sentido de reduzir as quotas obrigatórias de biocombustíveis de primeira geração (produzidos a partir de espécies alimentares, como o milho) e privilegiar os de segunda geração (resíduos, por exemplo), porque o regime até agora em vigor se revelou causador de pressão sobre os preços alimentares e sobre o uso nocivo da terra (desflorestação e degradação ambiental). A promoção de combustíveis não fósseis não pode sacrificar outros valores e interesses mais importantes. A necessidade de corrigir a referida Diretiva mostra os custos e os prejuízos que podem ser causados por um certo fundamentalismo ecológico, baseado mais em dogmas e modas do que em juízos informados e escolhas avisadas.
Radvilė Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė (PPE), raštu. − Šiandien patvirtintame dokumente išsakėme EP poziciją klausimu, susijusiu ne tik su naujos kartos biokuro skatinimu, tačiau, netiesiogiai, ir su maisto kainų kilimu bei pastangomis sustabdyti beatodairiškus miškų kirtimus atogrąžų juostose. Suprantu, jog šis sprendimas nepatinka tradicinių biodegalų gamintojams, susiduriantiems su tam tikru teisiniu netikrumu, tačiau esu įsitikinusi, kad ES turi būti pasauline tvarios energetikos ir kovos su klimato kaita lydere.
Tiziano Motti (PPE), per iscritto. − Ho sostenuto questa risoluzione. Sebbene gli investimenti già in atto debbano essere tutelati, gli scopi della proposta della Commissione devono limitare il contributo apportato dai biocarburanti convenzionali al raggiungimento degli obiettivi fissati dalla direttiva sulle energie rinnovabili. Vanno inoltre migliorate le prestazioni in termini di gas a effetto serra dei processi di produzione di biocarburante incrementando la soglia di riduzione dei gas a effetto serra, tutelando gli impianti già operativi alla data del 1° luglio 2014; infine, si deve incoraggiare una maggiore penetrazione nel mercato dei biocarburanti avanzati, consentendo loro di contribuire maggiormente agli obiettivi stabiliti dalla direttiva sulle energie rinnovabili rispetto ai biocarburanti convenzionali.
Vojtěch Mynář (S&D), písemně. − Unijní politika biopaliv v současné době selhává v plnění svého základního cíle, tedy snížení produkce emisí CO2 v evropské dopravě. Namísto toho vede k dalšímu odlesňování v rozvojových zemích, k záběrům půdy, která by mohla být použita k pěstování potravin pro tamní obyvatelstvo, a v důsledku toho prohlubuje hlad a chudobu. Proto jsem i já hlasoval pro takovou úpravu stávající legislativy, která by pomohla těmto negativním důsledkům zamezit. Jsem rád, že se podařilo najít rozumný kompromis a v rámci 10% podílu obnovitelných zdrojů energie v dopravě do roku 2020 vytvořit v kategorii pohonných hmot pro biopaliva první generace strop 6 %. Při takovémto snížení neohrozíme dosavadní investice, předejdeme nechtěné podpoře znečišťujících biopaliv a narušení světových cen potravin a zároveň budeme schopni zajistit přiměřenou ochranu životního prostředí. Věřím, že tato legislativní změna také podnítí vznik inovativních a méně znečišťujících biopaliv (tzv. druhé a třetí generace), která přímo nekonkurují potravinářským plodinám ve využití půdy. Proto jsem pro zprávu kolegyně Lepageové hlasoval.
Rareş-Lucian Niculescu (PPE), în scris. − Am votat în favoarea unei abordări echilibrate în privința disputei între producția de hrană și producția de combustibili. Consider că această temă trebuie analizată cu prudență. Nu pot fi neglijate potențialele influențe ale culturilor de plante destinate biocombustibililor asupra prețurilor alimentelor. În același timp, aceste culturi joacă un rol important în acoperirea deficitului de proteaginoase la nivelul Uniunii Europene, care este îngrijorător. Poziția mea a fost „pentru” la votul final, pentru a deschide posibilitatea unei a doua lecturi, ocazie cu care ar putea fi eliminate excesele textului.
Sławomir Nitras (PPE), na piśmie. − Od 10 lat Parlament Europejski aktywnie wspierał produkcję biopaliw pochodzących z roślin oleistych. Środki przekazane na ten cel miały realny wpływ na rozwój rolnictwa w wielu krajach i powstanie tysięcy nowych miejsc pracy. Biopaliwa drugiej generacji, z roślin organicznych czy odpadów, nie są produkowane jeszcze na skalę przemysłową, dlatego w najbliższym czasie nie mogą być alternatywą dla eko-paliw pierwszej generacji. Nowe regulacje zmniejszą konkurencyjność biopaliwowych przedsiębiorstw działających na rynku europejskim w stosunku do tych działających np. w Ameryce Południowej, a wprowadzone limity na paliwa z roślin spożywczych wpłyną negatywnie na sytuację w całym sektorze.
Co więcej, bardzo prawdopodobne jest, że środki przeznaczone na badania i rozwój nowych technologii w branży biopaliw zostaną zmniejszone w nowej perspektywie . Mając na uwadze, że dnia 1 stycznia 2020 r. udział biopaliw wykorzystywanych w transporcie powinien wynosić 10%, Unia Europejska powinna nadal dążyć do aktywnego promowania produkcji biopaliw. Niestety, przyjęta dyrektywa w znaczący sposób ograniczy wielkość produkcji roślin takich jak rzepak czy olej palmowy, co spowoduje likwidację wielu miejsc pracy.
Younous Omarjee (GUE/NGL), par écrit. – Ce rapport propose des objectifs en matière de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre dans le secteur des transport, et vise le développement d'énergies renouvelables de plus en plus efficaces des mesures afin de réduire les émissions de gaz à effet de serre, notamment en limitant les agrocarburants de première génération, qui affectent indirectement notre environnement et sont en concurrence avec les productions agricoles à usage alimentaire. C’est en posant des exigences strictes que les pratiques changeront et que nos consommations en carburant auront des impacts moindres sur notre environnement. C'est un impératif afin de renforcer nos politiques de lutte contre le changement climatique, c'est pourquoi j’ai voté en faveur de ce rapport.
Rolandas Paksas (EFD), raštu. − Biodegalai yra viena iš pagrindinių priemonių, padėsiančių sumažinti ES energetinę priklausomybę. Tačiau labai svarbu, kad jų gamyba būtų saugi, nekeltų pavojaus aplinkai, taip pat būtų pagrįsta subalansuotu požiūriu. Mes turime užtikrinti, kad būtų tinkamai įgyvendinta teisė į maistą, žemę ir vandenį ir užkirtas kelias bet kokioms galimoms neigiamoms socialinėms pasekmėms. Be to, labai svarbu, kad būtų suderinti aplinkosauginiai tikslai su teisėtais verslo lūkesčiais. Tik bendromis pastangomis mes galime sumažinti aplinkai ir žmogui kenksmingą šalutinį poveikį. Atsižvelgiant į tai, turi būti skatinamas efektyvus, ekonomine nauda pagrįstų gamybos technologijų naudojimas ir pažangiųjų biodegalų gamyba. Įgyvendinus šias priemones bus sumažintas aplinkai ir žmogui kenksmingas gamybos šalutinis poveikis. Didesnis dėmesys turi būti skiriamas netiesioginio žemės paskirties keitimo padarinių šalinimui. Kita vertus, siekiant sukurti konkurencingą, stabilią ir saugią energetikos sistemą reikia užtikrinti tinkamą projektų finansavimą taip pat išlaikyti aiškias investavimo perspektyvas.
Alfredo Pallone (PPE), per iscritto. − La relazione sulla promozione dell'uso dell'energia da fonti rinnovabili e sulla qualità della benzina e del combustibile, la cosiddetta ILUC (emissioni associate al cambio d'uso dei terreni messi a coltura per la produzione di biocarburanti), si prefigge come obiettivo principale l'utilizzo del 10% di energie rinnovabili per i trasporti entro il 2020. L'impatto del cambiamento indiretto della destinazione dei terreni sulle emissioni di gas a effetto serra deve essere rivisto per essere ridotto nel rispetto degli investimenti e delle attività di produzione in corso. Bisogna inoltre favorire la ricerca di materie alternative se vogliamo riuscire a raggiungere tale obiettivo nei tempi previsti e tutelare la salute dei cittadini grazie a un utilizzo sempre maggiore delle energie rinnovabili.
Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D), per iscritto. − Esprimo voto favorevole riguardo alla proposta di direttiva del Parlamento europeo e del Consiglio che modifica la direttiva 98/70/CE relativa alla qualità della benzina e del combustibile diesel e la direttiva 2009/28/CE sulla promozione dell'uso dell'energia da fonti rinnovabili. La tutela dell'ambiente costituisce un fattore primario tra gli obiettivi di crescita intelligente, sostenibile e inclusiva previsti dalla strategia Europa 2020. Per l'attuazione di tali traguardi, quello dei trasporti è un settore strategico su cui intervenire. E' pertanto di capitale importanza sfruttare i progressi nel campo della ricerca e dell'innovazione e incentivare quindi l'uso di biocarburanti e bioliquidi. Parallelamente, però, occorre integrare il fattore del cambiamento indiretto della destinazione dei terreni (ILUC) nella metodologia impiegata per determinare gli effetti che i combustibili derivati da biomasse esercitano sull'ecosistema. Inoltre, è necessario valutare con attenzione le possibili conseguenze sul valore di mercato delle materie prime coinvolte nel processo di produzione dei suddetti biocarburanti, e quindi l'eventuale impatto sociale. Per tali motivi considero questa proposta di direttiva un'adeguata risposta all'esigenza di approfondire il problema delle emissioni di gas a effetto serra alla luce di nuovi criteri di sostenibilità e di nuove alternative possibili.
Γεώργιος Παπανικολάου (PPE), γραπτώς. – Η παρούσα έκθεση, την οποία και υπερψήφισα, εστιάζεται στην επίτευξη των προκαθορισμένων ευρωπαϊκών στόχων για την προστασία του περιβάλλοντος και, βεβαίως, για την ενίσχυση του ποσοστού που καταλαμβάνουν οι ανανεώσιμες πηγές ενέργειας στη συνολική ζήτηση και κατανάλωση καυσίμων στην ΕΕ. Η συγκεκριμένη συζήτηση ενδιαφέρει την Ελλάδα δεδομένων των επενδύσεων της χώρας, ιδίως στην ηλιακή ενέργεια. Σημειώνεται ότι η οδηγία για τις ανανεώσιμες πηγές ενέργε