Ευρετήριο 
 Προηγούμενο 
 Επόμενο 
 Πλήρες κείμενο 
Συζητήσεις
Τετάρτη 23 Οκτωβρίου 2013 - Στρασβούργο Αναθεωρημένη έκδοση

7. Προπαρασκευαστικές εργασίες ενόψει της συνεδρίασης του Ευρωπαϊκού Συμβουλίου (24-25 Οκτωβρίου 2013) (συζήτηση)
Βίντεο των παρεμβάσεων
PV
MPphoto
 

  Πρόεδρος. - Το πρώτο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η συζήτηση επί των δηλώσεων του Συμβουλίου και της Επιτροπής σχετικά με την προετοιμασία της συνεδρίασης του Ευρωπαϊκού Συμβουλίου της 24ης και της 25ης Οκτωβρίου 2013

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vytautas Leškevičius, President-in-Office of the Council. − Madam President, President Barroso, honourable Members, I am pleased to be able to present to you this morning the preparations for this weekly European Council. I look forward to hearing your reactions and responses to the many important issues which are on the agenda.

Later this week the European Council will have a further opportunity to make progress towards improving competitiveness and returning to strong and sustainable growth and job creation. President van Rompuy has therefore decided to focus the debate on the following issues: firstly, tapping the potential of the digital economy, boosting innovation and repeating the benefits of a single market for services. Secondly: continuing progress to combat youth unemployment, improving access to finance for the economy and regulatory fitness, and further deepening of the EMU.

On the digital economy, the European Council will look at how Europe’s industry can regain momentum through increased investment in the digital economy, promoting a consumer and business-friendly digital single market and improving IT skills. To boost the digital economy and create jobs, Europe needs both investment and the appropriate regulatory framework. The European Council would look at this issue in the broader context, ranging from broadband speed to cloud computing. We also need to promote a consumer- and business-friendly digital friendly market.

This requires us to tackle fragmentation for more effective competition and attract private investment through a predictable and stable EU-wide legal framework. We must accelerate ongoing work on the various legislative proposals in this area. Here I count on the support of this Parliament.

We have to increase the trust of consumers and businesses in the digital economy; this requires a strong data protection framework and the modernisation of public administration. Citizens and companies must all have the necessary IT skills to benefit fully from the digital single market. The European Council will put forward some specific proposals to address the situation.

The issue of innovation was discussed by the European Council in detail in February. Two years on, a significant number of issues highlighted then are being complemented. However, further efforts are required at both national and European level; these include measures to ensure that the Union’s intellectual and scientific potential is actually transformed into new products and services which can be sold on the markets.

The European Council will look at the areas which need to be addressed for the completion of the European research era by 2014. Concerning services, the European Council will send a strong message that Member States urgently have to improve the implementation of the Services Directive and remove unjustified or disproportionate barriers.

Madam President, honourable Members, as you know, last June the European Councill focused on how to step up efforts to fight youth unemployment. This remains one of our top priorities, and it is the most important social challenge facing us. This week’s European Council will look at and take stock of progress, in particular on the preparations for the launch of the Youth Employment Initiative and implementation by the Member States of the youth guarantee. This must become operational by 1 January 2014.

The Heads of State and Government will also discuss concrete measures to restore normal lending to the economy and facilitate financing of investment – with particular reference to SMEs – on the basis of the Commission and EIB reports. They will address the regulatory fitness with the aim of making EU law less of a burden for those to whom it is addressed.

I would like to add a few words about another important issue on this week’s agenda: economic and monetary union. Although the situation of financial markets is less volatile, we must continue to make progress towards the completion of EMU. This week’s European Council will focus on strengthening economic policy coordinaton and the social dimension of the EMU following the recent communication from the Commission on this issue.

Heads of State or Government will also come back to the issue of the banking union, our most immediate priority. The final adoption of the Single Supervisory Mechanism and the European Banking Authority amending regulations are very welcome, but more needs to be done; a single supervisory mechanism is not enough. It is also essential that a bank recovery directive and a deposit guarantee directive are adopted rapidly. I count on your cooperation to help ensure that this happens. It is in any case clear that the October debate will not be the end of our discussions on EMU. The European Council will come back with all these issues in December as well.

Finally, the European Council will take note of the state of play on the preparations for an Eastern Partnership Summit to take place in Vilnius on 28 and 29 November. It will also hold a discussion on the recent tragic accident off the coast of Lampedusa.

Madam President, President of the Commission, honourable Members, the October European Council will be a further step in our determination to return to growth and jobs and improve competitiveness in Europe. We look forward to constructive discussions and concrete results, which we will be taking forward in the months to come.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. − Madam President, this week’s European Council has a very broad agenda: the digital economy, innovation, services, youth unemployment, financing of the economy, regulatory fitness, EMU and economic governance, EMU and the social dimension, the Banking Union, Eastern Partnership and migration.

My main message to the European Council tomorrow is that, over the next weeks and months, the European Union can – and must – achieve concrete results in all these areas. Many of our initiatives can be brought to a successful conclusion even before this House rises ahead of next May’s elections. But I will make it clear that we can only deliver if there is the necessary political will among our Member States. Just yesterday, as you know, the Commission approved a very substantial working programme for 2014. So there is a lot to do.

The thematic focus of tomorrow’s European Council will be on innovation and the digital agenda. Digital services, telecommunications, e-government and skills are the drivers of tomorrow’s growth and productivity. Even in the crisis, this is a sector that has continued to show growth potential, and we predict there will be nearly one million ICT job vacancies unfilled in the coming years. This is unacceptable, given the level of youth unemployment that we face. This is why the Commission has launched the Grand Coalition for Digital Jobs, a multi-stakeholder partnership to exploit the employment potential of ICT.

We need a thriving digital sector to drive all other parts of our economy, and the internal market for telecoms has to be at the heart of this programme. We must urgently address the underlying shortcomings and create the right environment for investment. There is now a major reform package for the telecoms sector on the table. Let us all make maximum progress on this file by the end of this legislature.

This package complements a number of important recent proposals on the completion of the Digital Single Market, for example on reducing the cost of deploying high-speed broadband networks, on е-invoicing in public procurement, on cyber-security and on electronic identification and trust services for electronic transactions. These, too, are in your and the Council’s hands, and I hope the European Council will throw its weight behind the call to finalise them in the months to come.

We need to build this Digital Single Market in a manner that is consistent with our European values. That includes making sure that those who operate in the online world do not escape from fair taxation. The Commission is actively working on a series of measures to fight against tax evasion in general, working with the G8, G20 and OECD. But there are some specific challenges which are posed by new digital business models which existing tax policies may not yet fully address. This is why the Commission decided yesterday to set up an expert group on taxation in the digital economy, which will report by next summer.

Core European values, namely the respect of fundamental rights, including the right to privacy and security, also matter just as much on-line as off-line. Recent disclosures concerning surveillance activities have cast a shadow on European Union citizens’ trust. We need to combine the digital agenda with a better framework for the protection of data and privacy rights. Trust in the data-driven economy has to be restored, not only in order to re-establish much-needed confidence but also for its potential impact on growth. I therefore strongly welcome this week’s vote in the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs of this Parliament, lending its strong support to the Commission’s proposals. I want to thank Parliament for the priority which it attaches to this file. We should do all we can to conclude this much-needed modernisation and strengthening of the EU data protection rules before the end of this legislature.

The other thematic priority for this European Council will be research and innovation. The evidence is there: Member States that have continued to invest in innovation have fared better in the current crisis than those that have not. We will need to increase our efforts – public and private – to keep up with international competition. International investors are now finding their way to Europe, but business research and development expenditure in the EU is far below that of our main competitors. The crisis has also taken its toll, with a decrease in public spending on R&D in 2011.

Europe is lagging behind, in particular in fast-growing markets and high tech. If no action is taken, the EU may miss out again on fast-growing markets linked to the technologies which tackle societal challenges.

The Commission has recently launched an Indicator of Innovation Output to focus attention on the right R&D policies. But additional investment in R&D makes no sense without critical structural reforms of national research and innovation systems. The Commission will continue to push for reforms to create a true European Research Area. We must enable the mobility of researchers and provide open access to publicly-funded research results and transnational access to research infrastructures.

Creating the right business environment is also key to stimulating growth. This is why the Commission is removing unnecessary burdens on business across all policy areas. The Commission has, since 2005, repealed 5 590 legal acts and reduced the administrative burden by EUR 32.3 billion, and we are determined to go further. In our Communication on Regulatory Fitness (REFIT), we have just launched a programme to further simplify legislation. We plan to withdraw some pending proposals and repeal existing laws which no longer serve their purpose. We act where action is needed at European level. We should not act where it can be done better at national or sub-national level.

At the European Council tomorrow I will be looking for a strong endorsement of the REFIT programme. But let me be clear: this is not about calling into question established policy goals, nor should it be a battle of competences between Brussels and national capitals. This is about finding the right balance for using existing competences in full respect of subsidiarity and proportionality. I also expect Member States to cut red tape at their level and avoid ‘gold plating’ EU legislation by adding new national burdens to European rules.

This brings us, honourable Members, to another issue I have repeatedly stressed in this House, as well as in the European Council: financing the economy. This remains one of the biggest bottlenecks in the European economy. Even with growth returning, confidence and pre-crisis lending patterns will not return quickly. We need to unblock the flow of credit and help businesses, especially SMEs. Frankly, I am disappointed that the Member States are not more ambitious here, and I will say this tomorrow to the European Council.

In some countries, the European Union budget will be by far the most important source of public investment over the next few years. These funds will help kick-start private funding as well. This is key to future growth. The preparations for the next MFF have come a very long way, but we are not yet there. We need a final push from all concerned in order to conclude. This is of the utmost importance and urgency for many of our Member States and many of our regions. Without the budget of the European Union, they will simply not be able to invest, because they have no fiscal space to do so. I can assure you that the Commission will continue to do its utmost to facilitate a fair and balanced outcome between the European Parliament and the Council – an outcome which is as close as possible to the Commission’s level of ambition, something I know Parliament shares.

Honourable Members, you know that, together with the EIB, we have also looked into other, alternative instruments for financing the economy, including forms of risk-sharing by pooling and leveraging parts of EU funds and EIB loans. I will call upon Member States to bring forward concrete pledges and to go beyond the status quo. We are not asking governments to renounce part of their funds, we are asking Member States to increase the effect of the funds – including for the benefit of SMEs, which suffer the most from the fragmentation of Europe’s credit markets.

Equally important in our comprehensive crisis response is that we move forward on the road to a deep and genuine Economic and Monetary Union. In this sense, the European Council is an intermediate step towards decisions in December, but every step is necessary. Completing the Banking Union, in particular, is the single most significant and important advance we can make to end the unfair distortions of lending conditions in financial markets. So it must remain our absolute priority for the euro area.

I congratulate the co-legislators on the final approval of the Single Supervisory Mechanism. Now we have to find a final agreement on the directive on bank recovery and resolution and a political agreement in Council on the Single Resolution Mechanism by the end of the year. Our goal must be to conclude negotiations with this House in the spring. I want to thank the European Parliament for its efforts and the hard work that has been done to prepare its position for these discussions.

We also need to pay attention to the balance sheet assessment and forthcoming stress test exercise in the banking sector. The Commission will support the European Central Bank and European Banking Authority in any way possible in that important work. We also expect Member States to do their own work in terms of ensuring the availability of any necessary backstops in line with state aid rules if private solutions are not adequate, and in terms of the full cooperation of national supervisors, to bring this exercise to fruition.

We have made significant progress as regards economic governance in the EU, in particular as regards the country-specific recommendations, which are the end-point of the European Semester. But we must continue our efforts to strengthen economic policy coordination, in particular, within the euro area. We must make further progress on identifying the policy areas which require coordination, including ex-ante coordination. On the other hand, the implementation of the country-specific recommendations is not yet optimal. This is also due to insufficient ownership by each Member State of the recommendations which are addressed to them. The widening of these to the social and employment dimensions will surely contribute to enhancing ownership.

As you know, the Commission has presented a communication on the social dimension of Economic and Monetary Union. One of the core proposals is stronger surveillance of employment and social challenges and policy coordination. The role of the European Parliament is crucial in this regard. The Commission will cooperate with Parliament to select the indicators for the Alert Mechanism Report and will discuss with it the new scoreboard of key social and employment indicators. The Commission intends to make use of those indicators in the forthcoming Alert Mechanism Report. Moreover, in the Annual Growth Survey – to be adopted by the middle of next month – the Commission will present a first overview of the implementation of the country-specific recommendations. We will spare no effort in making the European Semester the real tool for economic coordination in the European Union.

We must also step up our efforts to fight against youth unemployment. As you know, in June the Commission proposed the frontloading of the social funds so that the initial EUR six billion is invested in the first two years. Adopting the necessary regulations is a matter of urgency and of concern. We are approaching the programming period. The Member States, with the support of the Commission, are in the process of finalising the design of the Youth Guarantee Implementation plans and Youth Employment Initiative programmes.

While moving forward on our internal priorities, we should not lose sight of our external responsibilities, particularly in our near neighbourhood. This European Council will prepare the Eastern Partnership Summit, which will take place in Vilnius later in November.

The European Commission launched this initiative, the Eastern Partnership Summit, back in 2009. Four years later, we are now in a position to deliver on our common objective of political association and economic integration with our Eastern partners. Our common goal is to conclude association agreements, including Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Areas. The free will of these countries must be respected by everyone. Of course, we also expect our partners to adhere to and deliver on their commitment to the reforms and to the values that underpin these partnerships. I therefore launch, from here, an appeal to Ukraine to fulfil the remaining benchmarks and seize the opportunity of the extension of the Cox-Kwaśniewski mission. I believe the coming weeks are critically important for Ukraine, and I make a strong appeal for all of us and for Ukraine to make progress in that process.

Last of all – and importantly – after the awful and all-too-frequent tragedies in the Mediterranean, migration policy too will feature heavily at this European Council. As you know, I was in Lampedusa two weeks ago, on an invitation from the Italian authorities, and of course I was profoundly moved by what I saw. The images will remain impressed on me for ever. I was there to express the European Commission’s understanding and solidarity with the local and national authorities and to the people of Lampedusa, as well as to offer concrete aid to the Italian authorities, which we have done.

We must all do more to prevent tragedies like this. I hope the European Council will pave the way for a new chapter in the common management, common responsibility and cooperative management at European Union level of migration policies. There are no magic bullets or immediate solutions, and we need to be realistic. But the character and scale of the problem calls for stronger measures to organise search-and-rescue operations to save lives in danger, to better protect our borders, to effectively tackle the criminal networks behind the migration flows and to protect those in need. In this sense, and knowing well that most responsibilities and competences lie at national level, more has to be done at European level in terms of cooperation with countries of origin and transit and of Member States’ efforts on resettlement. It is quite clear that Europe cannot turn its back when faced with this kind of humanitarian tragedy.

These elements form part of the solution, but first and foremost we need the political will. The Commission is doing its part and, for example, has now been asked by governments to lead a task force together with Member States and EU Agencies such as Frontex, the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and Europol. We must not allow the momentum on such vital issues to be fuelled by tragedies alone.

In conclusion, in all these files, we need to get the solutions where they can be found, working together to make them really produce results. I think there are no excuses, and the opportunity to go forward before the elections is there. There are efforts directly aimed at the welfare of our citizens, but there are also efforts which are critically important for the credibility of our institutions, to show that in fact we bring solutions to the problems of our citizens. I am convinced we can continue to work on this together in the spirit of achieving results. I thank you for your attention.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Joseph Daul, au nom du groupe PPE. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Président du Conseil, Monsieur le Président de la Commission, chers collègues, lors de sa réunion, demain, le Conseil abordera les points sur lesquels notre Parlement s'est déjà penché: l'union bancaire et l'achèvement de l'union économique et monétaire.

Aujourd'hui, le moindre événement qui touche une de nos capitales se répercute sur les autres. De fait, nous sommes de plus en plus intégrés. Nous devons donc créer le cadre législatif qui permette à nos économies de mieux fonctionner ensemble. C'est important.

Un autre point qui devrait enfin être à l'ordre du jour pour être définitivement réglé mais qui n'y figure malheureusement pas, c'est le CFP. Moi, je suis comme tous les autres, et je l'ai dit très clairement dans ce Parlement il y a deux jours, je ne comprends plus le fonctionnement du Conseil. Ce n'est pas le président présent ici que j'accuse mais, je le redis, je ne comprends plus le fonctionnement du Conseil.

Le Parlement a été clair. Le déficit de 3,9 milliards pour 2013 devait être soldé et je crois qu'on a même signé. Nous avons demandé une clause de révision et la mise en place du groupe de haut niveau pour un système de ressources propres. C'était des demandes de bon sens et nous étions convaincus qu'elles avaient été acceptées.

Ces 3,9 milliards, ce n'est pas de l'argent en plus qui est décidé. Chers collègues, nous n'arriverons pas à nous en sortir si nous ne mettons pas, demain ou après-demain, les factures de trois milliards qu'a la Commission sur la table du Conseil, et puis ce seront eux qui décideront qui ne sera pas remboursé. Ce n'est pas de l'argent du Parlement, c'est de l'argent qui a été dépensé pour des projets qui ont été acceptés et qui ne sont pas financés. Alors, nous pourrons faire ce que nous voulons ici, mais nous devons, Monsieur le Président de la Commission, mettre toutes les factures impayées, que nous ne pouvons pas payer parce que le traité est ainsi prévu, sur la table du Conseil. C'est eux, entre eux, qui diront: la France n'aura pas ça, la Grèce n'aura pas ça, et qui diront à tous les autres pays: "voilà ce qu'on ne va pas vous payer". Par exemple, le rabais à l'Angleterre, on ne pourra pas le payer cette année, on le paiera l'année prochaine, on va le reporter.

Toutes ces choses-là, nous devons maintenant les cogérer comme un chef d'entreprise. On m'avait toujours dit que je ne comprenais rien à la gestion, mais les institutions, c'est comme les entreprises. Vous pouvez reporter un déficit d'une année, de deux années, mais la troisième année, vous êtes pris. Par qui? Par les banquiers. Et nous allons connaître la même situation.

Nous devons donc dire simplement à nos chefs d'État et de gouvernement: "Messieurs, OK, vous nous demandez les 3,9 milliards, vous ne voulez pas les payer, alors décidez entre vous!"

Pourquoi on s'énerve ici? Nous n'avons pas le droit de faire un déficit, alors mettons les factures sur la table du Conseil pour qu'il décide qui ne sera pas remboursé. Nous ne pouvons pas tolérer ce qui s'est passé cette semaine, ce n'est pas possible. Nous allons avoir un déficit de plus de 20 milliards en 2014. Tout le monde le dit. Alors si c'est le cas, mettons-nous autour de la table pour voir quelles actions nous ne finançons pas, quelles actions nous ne mettons pas en place. On ne lance pas nos régions, nos différents pays dans différentes actions pour leur dire, à la fin de l'année: "Messieurs, je regrette, on vous a fait dépenser de l'argent et il y a 24 milliards qu'on ne peut pas payer". C'est comme cela que les États sont arrivés à la faillite.

Nous avons fait le two-pack et le six-pack pour éviter cela et on est en train de nous imposer ce système au niveau de l'Europe. Je crois qu'il faut simplement revenir à du bon sens, je dirais même du bon sens paysan: on ne peut pas dépenser plus que ce qu'on a! Voilà ce que j'ai envie de dire au Conseil, à la Commission et au Parlement: mettons-nous autour de la table! Monsieur Farage, c'est sûr, on ne pourra plus payer les députés qui veulent de la subsidiarité (ce n'est pas un problème, c'est pour la petite remarque)!

Pour demain, c'est exactement pareil. Ils veulent investir dans l'innovation, favoriser un marché unique des télécommunications ... Nous dépensons de l'argent lors des Conseils, des milliards et des milliards que nous n'avons pas. Nous devons donc revenir à des choses beaucoup plus simples et plus terre-à-terre. Par contre, c'est vrai que dans cette modernisation, dans ces investissements européens, il y a à peu près 900 000 emplois qu'on peut mettre sur la table avec les nouvelles technologies et tout ce qui tourne autour.

Nous devons simplement être réalistes. Au lieu de nous chercher, nous devons essayer de nous trouver et de nous mettre autour de la table pour décider qui fait quoi. En effet, mes chers présidents, chère présidence du Conseil, vous croyez qu'il aurait été difficile, comme l'a dit Dany, de mettre dans la même lettre les 2,7 milliards et ces 3,9 milliards qui étaient soi-disant décidés et au sujet desquels le Coreper et tout le monde était d'accord? Deux phrases supplémentaires auraient suffi et le problème était réglé. Là, franchement, vous nous prenez pour des cons, excusez-moi du terme! J'en ai ras-le-bol de la manière et de la méthode dont cela s'est passé les quinze derniers jours avec le CFP.

Je vais vous dire encore une chose, je vais encore aller plus loin. On m'a dit la semaine dernière, au niveau des techniciens de la Commission et des autres, que, de toute façon – et je suis d'accord avec ça – voter sur le CFP quinze jours plus tard dans un paquet global, cela n'aurait rien changé. Rien, parce que les factures qui sont sur la table, si vous les payez quinze jours plus tard, vous n'avez pas de problème de trésorerie. Vous le savez aussi bien que moi. Donc, ce ne sont pas ces quinze jours qui auraient changé les choses. Ce que je ne comprends pas, c'est que, après, on essaie 2,7-3,9.

Mais maintenant j'ai compris: si certains pays repoussent l'échéance de quinze jours ou de trois semaines, ils n'auront pas besoin de sortir l'argent cette année, ils le sortiront l'année prochaine. C'est cela que veut le Royaume-Uni quand il propose un report de quinze jours: cela lui évitera de sortir l'argent. Dites-le nous, si c'est cela. Même cela nous pouvons le comprendre. Nous sommes des gens responsables. Je ne dis pas que nous l'acceptons, mais nous pouvons le comprendre. Ne cherchons pas à détourner le système tel qu'il est fait! Je vais intervenir très fortement demain dans ce sens-là, au niveau du sommet PPE, parce que je n'ai plus envie de continuer de cette manière. Si nous ne pouvons pas, entre nous, travailler honnêtement, eh bien il faudra qu'on trouve d'autres solutions et qu'on bloque.

(Applaudissements)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Hannes Swoboda, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Madam President, we will come back to that. They were strong words, but where are the actions? But I will say some words about that later.

The Commission President spoke about a broad agenda, but I have looked at the conclusions and they are very empty for the Council. I do not know if the Council will take the chance to go forward to what we would call a progressive economy in Europe. Yes, we need more innovation, more digital economy. Why, then, has the Council cut the budget, for example, for broadband? It was not a large sum proposed by the Commission, but it was an important sum. The Council said that we do not need it, but some weeks later they come up with some enormous words about the digital economy.

But let this be very clear, also in conclusion, and in combination with data protection. The digital economy – and I am very happy about the vote on Monday, although some elements could have been given broader support – is one side of it for us, and data protection is the other side. It is a complement which is absolutely necessary.

But let me also be very clear on this: the digital economy is not only something for the upper echelons of society, it is for everybody. I was recently in Košice in the far East of Slovakia, and I saw how in the schools – remember, with the support of the European Social Fund – many of the children, including the Roma children about whose integration or non-integration we are always complaining, were integrated into society and into the digital economy thanks to European money, European support and the European Social Fund.

That is what we expect from a progressive economic policy in the European Union: to have an enhancement of the economy, of business, of start-ups, but at the same time, integration of those people who need to be integrated into society. Therefore, the European Social Fund is important, and we are still fighting for 25 % of the European Social Fund from the Regional Fund. This is an important aim for us.

Ich möchte zurückkommen und in deutscher Sprache über Deutschland reden. Kollege Daul ist jetzt abgelenkt. Vielleicht war es ein Freudscher Fehler, aber er ist immer wieder gekommen. Sie haben immer nur von Männern gesprochen, mit denen Sie reden. Da gibt es eine Frau, mit der Sie reden sollten: Frau Merkel, die nämlich sehr bestimmt, was hier auf der europäischen Ebene in vielen Fällen geschieht! Zum Beispiel – was nicht nur die Frage der Budgetpolitik betrifft – die ganze Grundkonzeption, die Frau Merkel hat. Europa ist zum Strafen derjenigen da, die zum Beispiel ihre finanziellen Ziele verfehlen. Oder zum Beispiel der Kampf und die Diskussion, die wir führen, gerade auch mit Frau Merkel, was die Frage der sogenannten makroökonomischen Konditionalität betrifft, dass Regionen bestraft werden sollen, wenn Regierungen sich nicht an die Regeln halten, die Frau Merkel entworfen hat. Das ist, was wir als ungerecht empfinden! Wir wollen den Regionen helfen, nicht sie bestrafen! Das ist die Politik, die wir betreiben sollen.

(Beifall)

Frau Merkel gebraucht ja immer wieder das Modell der schwäbischen Hausfrau. Das ist ja nett, und eine schwäbische Hausfrau kann sehr innovativ sein. Aber wenn wir eine Innovationspolitik betreiben wollen, wie das jetzt auch im Rat geschehen soll, dann ist das nicht genug. Wir brauchen Investitionen! Auch Deutschland braucht Investitionen. Sehen wir uns doch die Infrastruktur in Deutschland an! Selbst im reichen Deutschland ist die in vielen Fällen nicht mehr in Ordnung. Daher brauchen wir Investitionen, daher müssen wir eine offensive Politik betreiben. Das ist notwendig, und das erwarten wir von Deutschland. Und ich hoffe, dass wir das auch bekommen, weil ja jetzt Koalitionsverhandlungen stattfinden. Nicht alle sind begeistert von einer zukünftigen großen Koalition in Deutschland. Ich glaube aber, dass es wichtig wäre und eine Chance ist, in Europa durch Deutschland eine andere Politik zu bekommen, auch eine soziale Politik. Denn die soziale Dimension ist für uns ganz entscheidend in diesem Europa. Es geht nicht nur um die Ökonomie, und es geht nicht nur um die Effizienz der Wirtschaft, sondern es geht auch um die Beschäftigungskraft der Wirtschaft. Wir brauchen mehr Jobs. Wir können diese Arbeitslosigkeit nicht tolerieren!

Let me come back to the third chapter which is, I think, the most cynical and the most devastating one. A small paragraph in the conclusions – I do not know whether you have seen it – on migration and asylum policy. The first sentence reads: ‘The European Council expresses its deep sadness about the recent tragic accidents in the Mediterranean’. What is the conclusion? In one year’s time, in June 2014, we will come back to this issue. This is a conclusion of the Council. This is the orientation and the speediness of the Council’s work. Hundreds of people die in the Mediterranean – nearly every day there is an accident – but in June 2014 we will come with some ideas!

(Applause)

This is not acceptable. What is also not acceptable, for example, is how it is being discussed in Britain by the government and even further by UKIP: ‘migration is a bad thing, internal migration from Romania and Bulgaria is also a bad thing’. You cannot say: ‘come to our country, contribute to our economy, to our growth, to our wealth’ but then if a small percentage of these people want benefits perhaps: ‘go home, we are not for you’. This is not solidarity in the European Union.

Migration in the European Union – labour migration – is a right, a freedom. It should not be forced, but it is a freedom. This policy and this tendency in Europe to say that migration is always bad – migrants from outside can also contribute. You know perfectly well how many people from outside the European Union, in Great Britain and many other countries, have contributed to the wealth of our countries.

So let us have a sensible migration policy. Let us open the strategy for legal migration in order to combat illegal migration. Let us give these migrants a chance, let us give them an education – for temporary migrants too, from Syria, for example. Let us not just say ‘OK, we want to do something’, because the burden always lies with countries like Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon and others. Let us give them training and education too, so that they can go back and do something in their own country.

Once again, I think migration should not always be seen as a burden; it is also an opportunity. In any case, to have hundreds and hundreds of people dying until June 2014, and to come back only in June 2014 on migration, is shameful. This is shameful for Europe and shameful for the European Council.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I want to continue on a point made by Mr Daul, because I thought he made an important intervention. It would be better if the staff of the EPP never prepared your speeches again. I think it is far better like that, Joseph. You get straight to the point. What he said is very important, and maybe, Mr Callanan, you need to hear it in English too, because that is the reality. The reality is that a number of Member States, and especially Britain, do not want to pay their commitments in 2013. By not giving in on this Draft Amending Budget No 8 of EUR 3.9 billion now, we push it back to the 30th in the Council and until the 15th or 20th in Parliament, and they can push it to 2014. That is what is happening in reality.

At the same time, these political forces are urging us to approve the MFF – the Multiannual Financial Framework. They cannot deliver their commitments and ensure that there is no deficit at the beginning of 2014. I think, Mr Daul, that you are totally right, and that it is important that we see on Thursday what is happening, because we have to stop this cynical little game being played by a number of Member States which are officially in favour of the MFF but are in fact doing everything not to fulfil their commitments and to start with a deficit.

My second point is about the intervention made by Hannes Swoboda. I want to tell you that my first European Council was in 1999. It was in Tampere, in the north of Finland, Olli, where the reindeer live. That was the summit on migration policy. The Tampere Summit in 1999, under the Presidency of Finland, decided finally to develop a common migration policy in the European Union. It is 15 years since we took that decision to have a common migration policy. Here we are now, a few hours before the start of the European Council, with what Mr Swoboda has rightly described as shame for the European Union. We have one paragraph to say ‘okay, we will start a migration policy and we will have some ideas in June 2014’. This is even less than what we discussed 15 years ago in Tampere in Finland at the European Council of 1999.

What I am asking is that we develop a policy, and that the Commission also comes forward with a policy, based on three pillars. This is what we urgently need. The first is that we give more money and more instruments to our European institutions, to Frontex and to EUROSUR, so that we can avoid the tragedies that we have seen in Lampedusa. The only way to do this is by giving money to Frontex, and not just EUR 90 million. Today that is the whole Frontex budget: EUR 90 million. Frontex has to do its job across the whole of the Mediterranean Sea and prevent the tragedies that we have seen in Lampedusa. The first thing to do is to provide more funding for Frontex and more funding for EUROSUR as rapidly as possible.

The second thing is that we have to be honest with our citizens. We have to start with a policy of legal economic migration in the European Union. What we are doing makes no sense. A number of countries urgently need migrants. Germany, for example, will need four million migrants in the next 10 to 15 years if they want to maintain their economic record and their economic results of today. I think a policy of legal migration is necessary, the same way that the US, Canada and Australia have a policy of legal migration. It is the only way to avoid and eliminate illegal migration and human trafficking such as we have today.

My third point is that we also need a policy towards North Africa, which is where these migrants are coming from. We have not given one euro more to these countries since the Arab Spring. We have simply repackaged the money that was already in the budget.

My last point, Mr Barroso, is on the banking union. In my opinion, there is only one priority for this summit, instead of this long list of topics. When there are too many points on the agenda, you decide nothing at all. It is better to have one point on the agenda. It could be the banking union. Why not a political agreement, so that the Council agrees with the Commission proposal? That is my proposal. My proposal continues to be that Council and Parliament should start the negotiations immediately. Why is it necessary for us to adopt the position paper and lose months? Why is it necessary for the Council to lose months in negotiations and in debates?

The Commission proposal is a good one. That is what we need, and we need it urgently. Every day the banking union is not in place means a loss of initiative and investment in the real economy. That is the problem: it is not all the money that we will find on the right or the left, the problem is that the transfer of money from the banks to the real economy is blocked today, and only banking union – a European solution – can solve the problem.

(Applause)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Daniel Cohn-Bendit, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, tout d'abord, Joseph, good luck quand tu vas revenir avec tes 24 milliards... Je vais vous dire une chose. La culture politique européenne, c'est la culture du "trop tard". On arrive toujours trop tard. Guy vient de nous le dire, on a mis quinze ans à ne pas faire une politique d'immigration.

Je crois qu'il faut dire les choses clairement. L'efficacité de Frontex dépend de l'efficacité d'une politique d'immigration légale et d'un droit d'asile qui soit compréhensible et qui puisse fonctionner. Si cela ne fonctionne pas, Frontex ne garantit pas que la Méditerranée ne devienne pas une tombe. Arrêtons avec ce mirage.

Les choses sont simples. Frontex fonctionnait lorsque l'Europe négociait l'arrêt des immigrés avec les dictatures de l'autre côté de la Méditerranée. C'est alors que cela fonctionnait et, manque de pot, les dictatures ont disparu et nous découvrons tout à coup le problème. Nous étions des cyniques et nous voulons continuer à être des cyniques. Voilà notre problème.

Alors, oui, il faut une loi d'immigration européenne qui régisse l'entrée légale pour des raisons professionnelles. Deuxièmement, oui, il nous faut un droit d'asile qui ne soit pas un sanctuaire en laissant aux pays frontaliers, c'est-à-dire l'Italie, le sud ou l'est de l'Europe, la responsabilité du droit d'asile, tandis que l'Allemagne et les autres seraient sanctuarisés, à l'abri, derrière leurs aéroports. Ce n'est pas de la solidarité européenne.

Troisièmement, et il faut vraiment être clair là-dessus: si le Conseil européen ne répond pas à ce problème de l'immigration, qui est difficile et contradictoire dans nos sociétés, il se fait le moteur de l'accentuation des populismes dans nos États. Si nous ne sommes pas capables de faire quelque chose, alors la rhétorique des "y a qu'à" – y a qu'à fermer les frontières, y a qu'à sortir de l'Europe, y a qu'à sortir de l'euro, y a qu'à faire un bras d'honneur à la mondialisation – l'emportera, parce que nous sommes des incapables. Il est donc beaucoup plus important que ce Conseil européen freine les choses. Vous parlez des citoyens, mais les citoyens, c'est cela qu'ils attendent.

Encore un point, pour revenir au budget. Expliquons aux citoyens que nous avons besoin du budget européen pour la solidarité européenne. Le débat que nous avons, actuellement, sur le budget, c'est la grande victoire – je l'ai déjà dit – de Margaret Thatcher. Nous avons 27 ministres des finances qui ne savent dire qu'une chose: "we want our money back!". Avec ce type de discours, on détruit l'Europe. Alors qu'on admette qu'on veut détruire l'Europe, mais qu'on arrête de nous dire qu'on construit l'Europe, alors qu'on la détruit! Mais cela, personne ne sait faire.

C'est pour cela que je crois que c'est une erreur et je vous le dis: si vous ne décrochez pas au moins le budget rectificatif – nous serons de toute façon déficitaires en 2013, même avec les 3,9 milliards –, ce sera la catastrophe en 2014. Vous serez en cessation de paiement non pas en novembre, mais en mai, Monsieur Barroso! En mai, vous serez en cessation de paiement, juste après les élections européennes.

Donc si vous voulez être responsables pour l'Europe, il faut s'engager dans un bras de fer avec le Conseil. Si vous dites "il faut discuter, il faut être gentils" – on peut être gentil avec des gens qui ont envie de négocier, mais face à un Conseil qui ne veut pas négocier, il faut rentrer dans un rapport de force –, si vous ne voulez pas rentrer dans un rapport de force, ne pleurez pas et rentrez à la maison. Car si vous pleurez alors que vous n'avez rien tenté, je vous le dis, vous allez être balayés aux élections européennes parce que vous n'aurez pas démontré que vous êtes un Parlement qui défend les citoyens!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Martin Callanan, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Madam President, I and my group welcome the emphasis that tomorrow’s Council will place on economic matters. The agenda says – and I quote – that the Council will have a ‘thematic discussion’. They are going to ‘take stock’ and ‘assess ongoing work’. That does not sound very inspiring to me. I fear that this agenda merely asks for business as usual, while outside, real businesses are still struggling.

We all know what needs to be done. The only question in my mind is whether we have the political will to actually deliver it. Perhaps, instead of thematic discussions, we need clear decisions. Instead of taking stock, let us actually have some action, and instead of assessing ongoing work, perhaps some radical reform to remove the barriers to competitiveness would be useful.

Europe should be exporting goods and services, not jobs and wealth, but every time we place an additional burden on businesses and industry, we make Europe less attractive to potential investment. In my own Member State, research by the think-tank Open Europe highlighted that, of the 100 most costly regulations for the UK economy, 24 of those laws actually cost more than the benefits that they bring. We need to look again at many of those laws.

The Commission’s proposals for REFIT (Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme) were a good opening salvo in the war on red tape, and I welcome them. With any red tape, of course, it is much easier to put in on than it is to get it off again. EU red tape is no different. But last week we were presented with a new way forward. This report on EU red tape was drafted by the leaders of some of Europe’s most successful businesses. I am sure they will be reviled by the left and by the Greens in this Chamber because they are not, of course, EU-funded NGOs. But, unlike those NGOs, these are the people who actually provide the jobs and the taxes that pay all of our salaries and for all of our services. We should be listening to them with care. In this report there are some very sensible suggestions. I think Mr Barroso already has a copy of it, and I hope that he will go and beat Commissioner Andor over the head with it, because it is his department that produces many of the regulations that we want to get rid of.

One of the absurdities in this debate is that many of the people in this room, who bask in the title of pro-European, have an agenda for centralisation that will actually damage Europe: an agenda that will limit its economy, limit the opportunities of its people and condemn us all to a poorer future. Because there is nothing pro-European about obsessively pursuing an outdated vision that is undermining Europe’s future potential. That is the old-fashioned agenda that is reinforced by many of the vested interests that we have within the Brussels beltway. Just think of all the NGOs that we face every day, which are paid by the Commission to campaign for yet more regulations and yet more red tape. We seek their opinions as stakeholders, but all too often we are simply receiving the opinions of individuals with a centralising agenda of their own.

It was almost exactly 150 years ago at Gettysburg that Lincoln outlined the challenge of a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Well, today in the EU, we have an EU of the NGOs, by the NGOs and for the NGOs. This challenge is why much of the good work done by the Commission’s Internal Market and Trade and Industry departments is undermined by the paid allies of the Commission’s own Social Affairs or Environment departments. It is all too often a case of one step forward and two steps back. Overcoming those vested interests should be our challenge, but it will be very difficult. However, I can tell you now where to start. We could slash the EUR 7.5 billion that the Commission gives to those very NGOs. A report here by the New Direction think tank outlines exactly that. I would recommend it to you as yet more set reading. It is a very good study. It sets out the reforms needed so that we can fully represent the people of Europe and not predominantly the interest groups of the European district.

I hope we will see some action from the European Council this week: action to break down barriers to starting and expanding a company, action to break down the barriers to Europe’s competitiveness, and action to ensure that our debates are not drowned out by the special interest groups with their own agendas. These reports show the way forward to reforming Europe’s economy. They should be set reading for anyone who genuinely wants to see a business-led recovery in Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gabriele Zimmer, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin! Herr Callanan, was Sie als uralte Agenda bezeichnen, ist doch in erster Linie der Traum der Menschen, in Würde und gleichberechtigt leben zu können. Was bezeichnen Sie daran als uralte Agenda? Aus welcher Klamottenkiste sind Sie denn heute hier herausgesprungen und versuchen, uns einzureden, dass das, was für viele Menschen seit Jahrzehnten – im Prinzip seit 1789 – ein Wert ist, keiner mehr sein soll? Da versuchen Sie uns hier zu erklären, dass das nichts im Europäischen Parlament zu suchen hat? Sollen wir uns einstellen auf das, was wir hier gestern zum Bericht-Estrela erlebt haben? Dass letztendlich versucht wird, Grundrechte, und wenn es die auf die gesundheitliche Reproduktion sind, wieder zurückzudrehen? Wollen Sie dahin zurück? Ist das Ihr Traum von einem Europa? Das kann doch wohl nicht ernsthaft gemeint sein!

Was wir gestern erlebt haben, ist doch ein Vorgeschmack auf die Auseinandersetzungen während des europäischen Wahlkampfs. Und ich sage, gerade Ihnen in der Kommission und im Rat, Sie tragen wesentlich mit Verantwortung dafür, ob wir in der nächsten Legislaturperiode noch mehr Rechtspopulisten, national denkende Leute hier sitzen haben, oder ob es hier Menschen gibt, die wirklich für eine Europäische Union streiten, in der sich alle wiederfinden und die auch Lösungen parat hält, die wirklich zukunftsfähig sind.

Wenn ich mir die Agenda des Gipfels angucke, dann klingt das wunderbar. Da wird über die digitale Agenda geredet, das klingt alles zukunftsfähig. Wenn wir uns aber in die Augen schauen, dann wissen wir genau, dass die Institutionen gegenwärtig nicht in der Lage sind, die Aufgaben der Gegenwart zu lösen, und dass sie noch nicht einmal die Aufgaben, die aus der Vergangenheit resultieren, wirklich in Angriff zu nehmen.

Wir reden hier darüber, dass es in einer Art von Annex eine Position oder eine Verständigung für die Flüchtlingspolitik geben soll. Wir reden nicht darüber, was denn eigentlich die Gründe sind, warum Menschen hierher kommen, warum wir als Europäische Union verpflichtet sind, legale Wege zu schaffen, damit Menschen, die vor Hunger, Klimakatastrophen, Kriegen oder Armut fliehen, wenigstens menschlich behandelt werden, und dass wir uns diesen Werten verpflichtet fühlen müssen.

Wer die Europäische Union rundum abschottet, muss sich nicht wundern, wenn Menschen nach illegalen Wegen suchen. Das heißt, wenn wir etwas geregelt haben wollen, wenn wir unserer Verpflichtung als Europäische Union nachkommen wollen, dann müssen wir Tore finden, die genau die Möglichkeiten schaffen, dass Menschen erst einmal nicht sofort kriminalisiert werden, wenn sie den Weg in die Europäische Union suchen. Das ist unsere Verpflichtung.

Wenn ich mir dann anschaue, wie wir es nun mit dem MFR und mit den Teilen des Haushalts halten, kann ich einfach nicht anders, als jetzt an diesem Punkt noch einmal anzusetzen: Wir werden – und das muss noch einmal klar gesagt werden –, selbst wenn die 3,9 Milliarden gezahlt werden, ein Defizit von 5 Milliarden in das nächste Haushaltsjahr hineinschieben. Ich hätte gerne eine ganz klare Auskunft: Wie hoch ist der Anteil des Haushalts 2014, der für Verpflichtungen aus dem MFR 2007-2013 noch zu zahlen ist? Damit wir überhaupt einmal wissen, wovon wir hier reden. Wie hoch ist dieser Anteil?

Wo ist denn überhaupt noch eine Gestaltungsfähigkeit für die nächsten Jahre? Es ist doch jetzt schon vorprogrammiert, dass wir im nächsten Jahr wieder einen Nachtragshaushalt nach dem anderen haben werden. Wir wissen, dass die Zahlungsunfähigkeit dann auch im nächsten Jahr wieder vor uns schweben wird. Wann bringen Sie den Laden in Ordnung? Wann bringen Sie Ihren Haushalt in Ordnung? Warum lassen wir uns von Finanzministern der Mitgliedstaaten diktieren, dass es sie nicht schert, was wir hier im Europaparlament gemeinsam mit dem Rat vorher beschlossen haben.

Der Haushalt und der MFR, alles, was vorher beschlossen wurde, ist gemeinsam beschlossen worden. Das ist nicht irgendeine Erfindung des Parlaments. Dazu müssen die Länder stehen, und das tun sie einfach nicht, und das muss doch einmal auf den Tisch. Das gehört zu den Verpflichtungen. Das ist meinetwegen eine uralte Agenda, nämlich zu sagen: Die Solidarität ist die Grundfeste der Europäischen Union.

Und wenn einzelne Mitgliedstaaten hier aufgeben, dann brauchen wir uns nicht zu wundern, wenn wir bei den Wahlen die Quittung kriegen. Dann brauchen wir uns nicht zu wundern, wenn künftig hier vielleicht halbe-halbe oder noch ganz andere Verhältnisse herrschen und keine normale, kulturvolle, tolerante Debatte mehr stattfinden kann, wenn es um Grundwerte geht, nämlich um Menschenrechte, um die Rechte von Menschen, in Würde zu leben. Das ist der Anspruch, oder wir lassen es sein. Dann können wir es aufgeben. Aber bitte, geben Sie uns klare Antworten! Verschaukeln Sie uns nicht länger, und tun Sie nicht so, als würden wir es nicht merken!

(Beifall)

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Madam President, there is only one real debate going on here this week in Strasbourg: it is the fear stalking the corridors, the concern you have got about the rise of euro-scepticism. Years ago you were less worried. The few of us here who were euro-sceptics were treated as being mentally ill and sort of patted on the head. Now we are evil populists; we are dangerous; we are going to bring down western civilisation. It is clear that you do not get it, you do not understand why this is happening. Well, let me help you.

In 2005 it was the pivotal moment of this project: the French and the Dutch had said ‘No’ to the EU Constitution. Mr Barroso stood up and said: ‘They did not really vote ‘No’. They did not understand what they were doing’. But they did. You see, ever since 2005, the real European debate has been about identity. What we are saying – large numbers of us – from every single EU Member State is: ‘We do not want that flag. We do not want the anthem that you all stood so ramrod straight for yesterday. We do not want EU passports. We do not want political union’. If you think about it, there is nothing extreme about that position. There is nothing right-wing about that position; there is nothing left-wing, indeed, about that position. It is a normal, sensible assertion of identity.

What we are saying on our side of the argument – you see, you can scream and shout all you like, which really rather proves to me why you are going to do so badly in the European elections next year, because you are not listening – we want to live and work and breathe in a Europe of nation-state democracy. We want to trade together, we want to cooperate together. We are happy to agree sensible common minimum standards and, yes, we want to control our own borders, which is the rational, logical and sensible thing for any nation state to do.

We are not against immigration or immigrants. We believe there needs to be a degree of control, and that is the message that is picking up support right across this continent. I genuinely think that there is an opportunity for an electoral earthquake to happen in the European elections next year, with a large number of people from all sides of this House who will come with a nation state agenda, who will come saying: ‘Let us have a Europe, as de Gaulle might have said, of the patries; let us not have a Europe of political union’. You can abuse us all you like, but what we stand for is fair, principled and democratic.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Laurence J.A.J. Stassen (NI). - Overal worden banken die in de problemen zijn gekomen geherkapitaliseerd, gesaneerd of zelfs failliet verklaard. Het is aan elke democratisch verkozen regering om te besluiten of de eigen belastingbetalers aan het redden van een nationale bank moeten bijdragen, behalve in de Europese Unie.

De EU heeft geen boodschap aan de democratieën van de lidstaten en de door de eurofielen gedroomde bankenunie is daar opnieuw een voorbeeld van. Met een bankenunie dreigt het ESM, waar Nederland voor maar liefst 40 miljard euro aan bijdraagt, gebruikt te worden om noodlijdende banken in Europa direct van geld te voorzien zónder inspraak van de nationale regeringen.

Voorzitter, de eurofielen weten het altijd zo eufemistisch te formuleren: een bankenunie met een Europees bankentoezicht. Maar het komt natuurlijk neer op het afschuiven van schulden. Alle schulden, met name uit het zuiden, worden op één grote hoop gegooid en vervolgens kan het noorden ervoor opdraaien. Met andere woorden, degenen die er een puinhoop van maken komen ermee weg. Door eigen wanbeleid van banken elders in Europa mogen Nederlanders nu hun zuur verdiende geld afstaan. Kortom, een bankenunie betekent een financiële ramp voor Nederland en zijn burgers.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen: whether you like it or not, the turning point will be the next elections, in May next year.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Manfred Weber (PPE). - Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich möchte mich in meinem Beitrag vor allem auf Lampedusa, auf die Fragen der Zuwanderung konzentrieren.

Wir sind uns hier im Parlament einig, dass wir Menschen in Not, vor allem in Seenot, helfen müssen. Das steht außer Frage und ist auch Rechtslage in der Europäischen Union. Das Kommando auf den Schiffen haben aber die Mitgliedstaaten vor Ort und damit auch die Verantwortung. Wir sind uns hier im Europäischen Parlament als Zweites darüber einig, dass wir wirklich Verfolgten helfen müssen. Da wäre die Bitte an den Europäischen Rat, ein Signal Richtung Syrien auszusenden, dort jetzt aktiv zu werden und feste Kontingente zuzusagen, um den Bürgerkriegsflüchtlingen vor Ort zu helfen.

Aber es gibt einen dritten Punkt, und da gibt es einen Unterschied hier im Haus. Wenn ich den Kollegen Swoboda, den Kollegen Verhofstadt und andere höre, die mehr legale Migration fordern, um das Problem zu lösen, dann stelle ich mir zunächst die Frage: Es wird so getan, als gäbe es diese legale Migration nicht. Wir haben Hunderttausende von EU-Ausländern, die jedes Jahr nach Europa kommen. Es wird aber national entschieden, und es ist auch gut, dass die nationalen Kollegen darüber entscheiden, welche Zuwanderungsquoten wir haben, weil die besser Bescheid wissen über die Arbeitsmärkte als wir auf europäischer Ebene.

Ein zweiter Gedanke geht mir dabei durch den Kopf: Wie viele nehmen wir denn auf, Herr Swoboda? Nehmen wir eine Million aus Afrika auf? Nehmen wir zwei Millionen aus Afrika auf? Nennen Sie mal Zahlen! Glauben Sie denn, dass man mit legaler Zuwanderung dann die hunderte von Millionen, die noch warten in Afrika und die aus der Hoffnungslosigkeit entfliehen wollen, davon abhalten kann, den Weg über die Schlepperbanden zu gehen? Glaubt das ernsthaft jemand?

Das Dritte, Herr Swoboda: Ich möchte, dass Sie die Argumentation, wir müssten jetzt die Türen öffnen, gerne einmal den griechischen Jugendlichen, den italienischen Jugendlichen, den spanischen Jugendlichen erklären! Wir haben dort 50 % Jugendarbeitslosigkeit. Unsere Jugend in Europa hat keine Arbeit! Und dann gibt es ernsthafte Überlegungen, die Türen für afrikanische Jugendliche zu öffnen. Das kann nicht der richtige Weg sein! Deswegen: Ja zur Hilfe in Syrien, ja zur Hilfe bei wirklich Verfolgten, aber bitte hören Sie auf, die legale Migration als eine der Antworten zu geben. Wer das propagiert, der schafft die Grundlage für Rechtspopulisten in der Europäischen Union. Das wollen wir alle nicht!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ivailo Kalfin (S&D). - Madam President, the agenda of the next European Council looks very good: growth and jobs, youth unemployment, economic and monetary union, banking union, etc. The problem lies in the delivery because, when we say all these fine words, we have to look at what is happening in practice and what the Council is doing in practice.

Let us take the digital economy. Actually we should say ‘digital economies’, because there is no single digital economy in Europe. We have 28 regulators, 28 rules and 28 markets for this. What the Council is suggesting we do about this, as Mr Swoboda has just said, is to cut expenditure on enlarging the infrastructure and the broadband which would bring digital technologies to the people. It suggests cutting resources for innovation and research by EUR 200 million next year. We agreed with the MFF that they have to be increased, but now the Council is suggesting that they will be increased post-2017.

We have a number of files on the table: data protection, spectrum policy, connected Europe and cloud computing. Where is the Council’s delivery? There is nothing on that. We have less than 10 % cross-border e-commerce in Europe. Only 3.5 % of research spending goes to the 13 new Member States. Do you know why? Because there is a difference in researchers’ pay of up to seven or eight times. So this is what is not delivered by the Council.

A brief word on immigration: Mr Weber, whatever arguments you use about immigration, you cannot leave the burden of immigration to the border states. This is not sustainable or possible. You cannot ignore what is happening on the borders of Europe.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). - Arvoisa puhemies, arvoisa neuvoston puheenjohtaja, EU:n tulevaisuus on kiinni kansalaisista ja kansalaisten luottamuksesta. Kansalaisten luottamus saadaan parantamalla arjen asioita.

Euroopan huippukokous on usein puhunut yhteisvastuusta ja solidaarisuudesta. Minä toivoisin, että EU:n johtajilla olisi solidaarisuutta siinä, että tehtäisiin toimenpiteitä, jotta jokainen yritys ja jokainen ihminen maksaa verot niin kuin kussakin maassa on säädetty. Tänä päivänä sallitaan se, että piilotellaan veroja toiseen jäsenvaltioon. En ymmärrä sellaista, että toinen jäsenvaltio tavallaan varastaa toisen jäsenvaltion verotuloja.

Toivoisin, että EU:n johtajat ottaisivat tämän asian todella tosissaan. Siitä saataisiin rahoja uusien työpaikkojen luomiseen, nuoriso-ongelmien hoitamiseen ja monien muiden asioiden hoitamiseen, ja sillä taattaisiin myös, että eurooppalainen hyvinvointi säilyy eikä kuihdu.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Sven Giegold (Verts/ALE). - Herr Präsident! Die Europäische Bankenunion ist eines der zentralen Themen dieses Gipfels. Diese Bankenunion ist ein großes Versprechen, Banken in Zukunft konsequent zu kontrollieren und dafür zu sorgen, dass die Rechnungen in Zukunft nicht mehr von den Steuerzahlern bezahlt werden, wenn Banken sich verspekulieren oder unsolide Geschäfte machen, sondern eben in Zukunft von den Gläubigern dieser Banken.

Genau dieses Versprechen der Bankenunion ist derzeit in höchster Gefahr. Bei den Verhandlungen zur Abwicklungsrichtlinie hat der Rat eine Ausnahme hineingeschrieben, die jetzt so aussieht, dass, wenn sie die Subventionen an die Banken vor dem eigentlichen Abwicklungsfall bezahlen, sie das unbegrenzt tun können! Das heißt, es soll eben nicht das Ende der Bankenrettung eingeläutet werden, sondern es wird ein Scheunentor von Ausnahmen geschaffen. Das ist unakzeptabel! Die Europäische Kommission verteidigt nicht ihren Vorschlag, sondern legitimiert sogar noch diese Ausnahmepolitik des Europäischen Rates.

Das Gleiche geschieht derzeit beim Abwicklungssystem. Dort deutet sich jetzt ein Kompromiss an, dass der gute Vorschlag der Europäischen Kommission dadurch gefährdet wird, dass man eben nicht für die Eurozone eine Abwicklungseinheit schafft, sondern beides. Das ist eine typisch europäisch-bürokratische Lösung. Eine europäische Abwicklungseinrichtung und mindestens 18 nationale, die weiterbestehen sollen, mit 18 Fonds, was dazu führen wird, dass die Entscheidungen nicht effizient getroffen werden, und am Schluss wieder die Steuerzahler die Rechnung zahlen müssen. Das sind keine vernünftigen Lösungen.

Deshalb muss man dem Rat zurufen: Retten Sie die Bankenunion, statt sie jetzt durch neue Ausnahmetatbestände auszuhöhlen!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Susy De Martini (ECR). - Signora Presidente, signor Ministro, la politica europea per i cosiddetti rifugiati è stata fino ad oggi sbagliata e fallimentare.

I numeri in nostro possesso dei richiedenti asilo, o comunque in fuga, sono enormi e vanno ben oltre ogni capacità e possibilità concreta di accoglienza. Si parla di 50 milioni di persone in arrivo dall'Africa nei prossimi cinque anni, un numero quasi pari a quello di tutta la popolazione italiana.

E che cosa ha fatto l'Europa? Ha finanziato proprio i dittatori di quei paesi che spingono i loro cittadini a fuggire con una cifra pari a quasi 10 miliardi di euro. Vada a controllare, onorevole Swoboda. Una cifra enorme, finita in parte nei rivoli della corruzione, se non addirittura nelle mani dei terroristi.

Non si può più continuare così. È necessario che il prossimo Consiglio agisca immediatamente, non a giugno, inviando navi sottocosta in quei paesi dai quali provengono i migranti e decidendo lì chi ha diritto all'asilo e può essere accolto nei vari Stati membri e chi invece è criminale – o peggio terrorista – e non deve certo essere accolto.

Il prossimo Consiglio deve anche avviare subito accordi internazionali più vasti per accogliere l'enorme numero dei richiedenti asilo che ho appena citato e che non possono essere assorbiti – lo ripeto con forza – dalla sola Europa.

L'Africa è un problema del mondo intero e credo anche, e soprattutto, di quei paesi quali la Cina che ne stanno sfruttando tutte le risorse.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Rolandas Paksas (EFD). - Skaitmeninės ekonomikos darbotvarkė, bendra interneto rinka, inovacijos ir paslaugos elektroninėje erdvėje iš tikrųjų yra labai svarbus ateities dalykas. Diskusijos šia tema sveikintinos. Tačiau aš atkreipčiau dėmesį į antrąjį susitikimo darbotvarkės punktą „Ekonomikos augimas, konkurencingumas, darbo vietų kūrimas“. Šiandien tai yra svarbiausi klausimai Bendrijos valstybėms. Nedarbas yra šmėkla, kuri grasina šiandienos Europai. Pažanga jaunimo užimtumo iniciatyvos srityje yra pernelyg nežymi ir kol kas nesudaro jokių prielaidų jos visapusiškai veiklai. Ekonomikos augimas bei darbo vietų kūrimas kol kas tebėra gražūs žodžiai be realaus turinio. Bankai ir kitos finansų institucijos kol kas nelinkę skolinti mažoms ir vidutinėms įmonėms. Verslo reglamentavimas tebėra pakankamai klampus, apsunkinantis ir reikalaujantis nemažai išlaidų. Jaunimo nedarbo lygis Europos Sąjungoje šiuo metu siekia daugiau kaip 23 proc. ir yra dvigubai didesnis nei suaugusiųjų nedarbo lygis. Yra valstybių, kur šis rodiklis perkopia 50 proc., ir dėl to Europos Sąjungos rinka kasmet netenka milijardų eurų. Kyla grėsmė Europos ekonomikai ir konkurencingumui. Šie skaičiai – tik iliustracija tam, ką pasakiau. Įvairiais aspektais privalome spręsti pagrindinę šiandienos problemą. Sujudinti rinką gali drąsūs, netikėti sprendimai bei pasiūlymai. Tokių aš ir linkiu.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI). - Señora Presidenta, ambición desde luego no le falta al orden del día del próximo Consejo Europeo. Tanta ambición que me parece poco realista, pues cualquiera de los asuntos de ese orden del día merecería un análisis monográfico. Además, se hablará de Lampedusa, una desgracia colectiva que exige actuar ya y actuar en tres frentes: en primer lugar, en los países origen del drama; en segundo lugar, sobre las redes de delincuentes que trafican con personas humanas; en tercer lugar, en el diseño de una política de inmigración y de asilo común, lo cual ha de ser responsabilidad de las instituciones comunitarias, es decir, de la Comisión, del Parlamento y del Consejo.

Poco confío, señora Presidenta y queridos colegas, en el Consejo Europeo, un órgano que ni estaba en el proyecto de los fundadores, ni debería estar en el futuro de las instituciones europeas, pues el Consejo Europeo es el lugar donde los asuntos no reciben el calor del método comunitario, sino que duermen el sueño de la pereza intergubernamental.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Giuseppe Gargani (PPE). - Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, devo constatare che oggi si è svolto un vero dibattito in questo Parlamento, cosa un po' rara. Vi è stato un alto livello di valutazione e quando il livello è alto c'è un sostanziale accordo: tutti abbiamo chiesto un'Europa politica.

Il problema che a me frulla sempre nella testa è quindi del perché, fra i tanti punti all'ordine del giorno, non si inserisca anche quello della valutazione del Consiglio sulla problematicità politica che l'Europa deve avere. Mi riferisco ai tanti punti all'ordine del giorno che certamente non giungeranno mai a conclusione, come sempre avviene nei Consigli, citando il caso di Lampedusa – dell'immigrazione – non perché sono italiano, ma perché ritengo che si tratti di un problema europeo, politico prima ancora che finanziario ed economico.

Ci dobbiamo rendere conto che l'Europa monetaria deve avere presupposti quali la politicità, l'unità politica e la solidarietà perché sono termini previsti negli statuti e nelle grandi carte, ma che non vengono attuati. I nostri dibattiti sono sempre burocratici e si riferiscono a scadenze, mai che tengano conto dell'anima europea.

Se, come tutti sosteniamo, il problema dell'immigrazione è di grande attualità ed è un problema che comporta una valutazione politica in Italia, in riferimento all'Europa, ha rafforzato l'Europa anche nella tragedia che è capitata a Lampedusa, perché se l'Italia, se i paesi da soli non ce la fanno, e l'Europa ha una sua ragione d'essere per questa solidarietà, la politica deve aiutare a risolvere questo problema, che è il problema suo principale.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). - Señora Presidenta, como siempre, el orden del día del próximo Consejo está muy cargado, pero, como siempre, es repetitivo. Como siempre, parece que estamos a punto de tomar una decisión conclusiva, pero, como siempre, en la próxima sesión volveremos a hablar de su puesta en práctica. Un ejemplo: el fondo de la Garantía Juvenil, en relación con un drama al que tenemos que enfrentarnos, del que venimos hablando meses y meses, pero para el que todavía no hemos puesto nada en práctica.

Estamos en un proceso de sustitución de burbujas. Hemos vivido la burbuja financiera y la burbuja inmobiliaria, que nos ha llevado a una crisis desastrosa, y ahora estamos construyendo una burbuja de autocomplacencia y una burbuja de desigualdad.

Autocomplacencia. Hay una avalancha de declaraciones que nos dicen que estamos ya saliendo de la crisis, que las cosas van bien. Pero la realidad es que el crecimiento es cero o próximo a cero y que no hay ningún indicador que sea mejor ahora que antes de la crisis. Se nos habla de que hay dinero a espuertas, que llega de todas partes. Llega de todas partes pero a ningún lugar salvo a la bolsa o al dinero especulativo. Falta ese dinero en la economía productiva en las pequeñas y las medianas empresas. Sube la bolsa, pero también sube el paro. Sube el desempleo en todas partes de Europa. Caen los salarios y, a la vez, caen las prestaciones sociales.

Hablaba también de una burbuja de desigualdad. ¿Por qué? Porque, al mismo tiempo que aumenta el número de ricos, el número de millonarios en la Unión Europea, se duplica la pobreza y, además, la desigualdad no solamente se extiende por toda Europa, sino que es desigual dentro de Europa. Los últimos datos de Eurostat muestran que, mientras en algunos países, como el mío, España, la desigualdad entre el 20 % de población más rica y el 20 % más pobre ha aumentado casi el 30 % desde el comienzo de la crisis, en el promedio de la Unión lo ha hecho el 4 %. Por tanto, una Europa más desigual y más desigual entre nosotros.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Madam President, this agenda is a distraction from the real causes of unemployment and the lack of growth. They include restrictive budgetary policies, cheap foreign imports from emergent economies, domestic earned income being invested abroad, and the outsourcing of jobs. But the cause of unemployment which is the real taboo is immigration, especially immigration from the Third World. Their migrants are assisted by anti-discrimination laws, while what we really need are native population preference laws, so that each country’s nationals could go to the top of the employment list. Immigration should be on the agenda as one of the causes of unemployment.

In the UK, we have an establishment safety-valve party that would pretend to be opposed to mass immigration, but on 4 May 2010, its leader, Mr Farage, said that the UK should issue a quarter of a million work permits each year.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Elisabeth Morin-Chartier (PPE). - Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Président du Conseil, Monsieur le Président de la Commission, Mesdames, Messieurs, chers collègues, nous pourrions nous réjouir de l'ordre du jour. Nous voulons certes nous occuper de l'emploi des jeunes, mais dans quelle situation sommes-nous aujourd'hui? Nous sommes au point mort. Vous avez beaucoup parlé de l'initiative pour l'emploi des jeunes, qui serait la solution à ce problème. De quels moyens disposons-nous? De six milliards d'euros! C'est bien insuffisant face à la réalité du problème, qui est qu'aujourd'hui 22,9 % des jeunes entre 15 et 25 ans sont au chômage, qu'il s'agisse de jeunes sans qualification ou de jeunes diplômés. Et si nous prenons la tranche des 15 - 30 ans, nous multiplions par 2 le nombre de jeunes au chômage.

Il y a là une génération qui est dans le désespoir et ce n'est pas l'initiative pour l'emploi des jeunes, qui est la vraie réponse, comme on voudrait nous le faire croire, c'est la garantie "Jeunesse". Et la garantie "Jeunesse", sur quoi repose-t-elle? Elle repose sur le Fonds social européen, mais nous avons du mal à obtenir les crédits nécessaires à ce Fonds.

J'ajouterai aussi que dans cette réflexion sur l'emploi des jeunes, vous ne devez pas oublier que les jeunes femmes ont un retard d'embauche incroyable par rapport aux hommes.

Je reviens au Fonds social européen. C'est l'essentiel de notre outil de cohésion sociale. Or, vous ne voulez pas garantir une part suffisante du Fonds social européen pour répondre à ce besoin de capital humain. Je vous en veux! Vous devez faire un effort!

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Pervenche Berès (S&D). - Madame la Présidente, je constate que nous préparons un Conseil européen alors que le président Van Rompuy n'est pas là. Je constate que la question de l'Union économique et monétaire a été rajoutée à cet ordre du jour parce qu'elle n'a pas pu être traitée au mois de juin, car nous attendions le résultat des élections en Allemagne, et je constate que, vraisemblablement, le Conseil européen d'octobre devra reporter la discussion de fond sur une véritable Union économique et monétaire au Conseil européen de décembre, parce qu'il attend un gouvernement en Allemagne.

En attendant, la question de l'emploi des jeunes est sur la table. Alors, Mesdames et Messieurs les chefs d'État et de gouvernement, prenez cette question à bras-le-corps et autorisez le financement à hauteur de 25 % du FSE pour que la garantie "Jeunesse" puisse être une réalité et que nous puissions soutenir les jeunes en situation d'échec jusqu'à  30 ans.

Sur la véritable Union économique et monétaire, vous allez pour la première fois aborder le débat sous l'angle de la dimension sociale. C'est très paradoxal, parce que vous dites - tout le monde le dit - qu'il faut mettre en valeur le dialogue social. Or, dans les mêmes conclusions du Conseil européen, vous abordez un point qui s'appelle REFIT, en clair, le nettoyage de la législation européenne et, dans ce cadre-là, vous demandez qu'un accord qui a été conclu entre partenaires sociaux soit retiré de l'ordre du jour. Il y a là une contradiction que je ne comprends pas.

Enfin, le jour où vous voudrez aborder la question d'une véritable Union économique et monétaire, vous devrez aborder celle du modèle économique de la zone euro. Car ce n'est pas à travers des logiques de sanctions ou de discours sur les conditions macroéconomiques que vous permettrez aux citoyens de la périphérie de la zone euro de vivre et de travailler là-bas, ce qui est le modèle auquel la plupart des Européens aspirent.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Luis de Grandes Pascual (PPE). - Señora Presidenta, hemos avanzado mucho desde que hace poco más de un año se temiese por la desaparición del euro y por la quiebra de varios Estados miembros. Las turbulencias financieras del año pasado han quedado atrás y las reformas emprendidas son los cimientos sólidos que garantizan una salida sostenible de la crisis.

Sin embargo, Señorías, ahora nos encontramos en una situación frágil. Todavía es necesario garantizar la estabilidad financiera. La acción del Banco Central Europeo como supervisor único será decisiva para despejar definitivamente las dudas sobre nuestro sistema bancario. Para que este proceso se realice con garantías deben preverse las redes de protección necesarias tanto a nivel nacional como europeo, para cubrir cualquier necesidad de capital que aflore. Estos ejercicios deben entenderse como una oportunidad en vez de como una amenaza.

España, Señorías, es un buen ejemplo de ello. El sistema financiero español ya se ha sometido a un ejercicio de transparencia, de análisis, sin precedentes. La reforma del sector financiero español se ha puesto como ejemplo modélico de transparencia y de eficiencia. Gracias a su éxito, el programa de asistencia financiera al sector bancario español se cerrará sin necesidad de prórroga o medidas de acompañamiento. Hoy nuestro sector bancario está en mejor situación que muchos bancos europeos, no solo a nuestro juicio, sino también a juicio de cualificados y rigurosos observadores.

¿Qué falta pues? Lo ha dicho el señor Barroso: lo que falta son medidas para la reactivación del crédito. Es preciso pasar, Señorías, de la macroeconomía a la microeconomía. Es necesario que los emprendedores encuentren confianza, encuentren recursos, para apostar, para arriesgar, para crear riqueza, que es la única manera, naturalmente, de crear empleo y es la única forma de crear bienestar para los Estados.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Edit Herczog (S&D) - Emlékszünk még a 2000-ben elfogadott lisszaboni stratégiára, ami az EU-t a világ legfejlettebb régiójának álmodta? Emlékszünk a 2005-ös felülvizsgálatra, amikor felsoroltuk az elmaradt végrehajtási hibákat? Most a 2008-as válságot követő év abban eredményes, hogy a legrosszabbat elkerültük. De ma már ugyancsak arról beszélünk, hogy hogyan maradjunk a legversenyképesebbek. Sürgős teendő, hogy az EU finanszírozását rendbe tegyük! Mi lenne, ha a választók nem fizetnék ki a számláikat? Mi lenne, ha a vállalatok nem fizetnék ki szerződésben vállalt kötelezettségeiket? Milyen példát mutatnak az államfők, amikor kibújnak kötelezettségeik alól, majd másra mutogatnak?

Sürgős teendő, Hölgyeim és Uraim, hogy felgyorsítsuk a törvényhozást, különösen a digitális területen, mert e nélkül versenyképességünk nem kezelhető. Az IKT-ágazat fejlesztése nem ágazati kérdés, hanem sürgető gazdasági, társadalmi kérdés, a kirekesztés legfontosabb eszköze. Miközben a világ egy kattintásra van, elég 60 km-re elhagyni bármelyik európai fővárost, s már nem beszélhetünk megfelelő Internet-lefedettségről. Tudomásul kell venni, hogy a vidék kirekesztése a digitális hálózatokból, ma a legnagyobb kockázat. Ez az elvándorlás oka vidékről városba. Aki nincs a hálón, az nincs! Annak nincs munkahelye, az nem része a társadalomnak, az nagyon nehezen éri el a közszolgáltatásokat. A digitális agenda végrehajtása korunk legnagyobb lehetősége, a kormányfőknek élni kell vele!

 
  
  

VORSITZ: OTHMAR KARAS
Vizepräsident

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Ildikó Gáll-Pelcz (PPE) - Nagyon sok és nagyon széles az a témakör, ami az ülésnek a napirendjére került. Csak remélni tudom, hogy az általánosságon túl a lényegi kérdésekhez is a tanácsi ülés el fog érni. Három témát szeretnék érinteni, az első a digitális gazdaság kérdése. Fontos, hogy keressünk kitörési pontokat, olyan pontokat, amelyek lehetőséget adnak az integrált uniós gazdaság számára. Ugyanakkor azt is kell látni, hogy ez a terület, bár a válságban átlag fölött teljesített, mégis azt tapasztalhatjuk, hogy leginkább érzi a belső piaci akadályokat és érzi a belső piaci töredezettséget. Az nem lehet, hogy miközben rövid távon forrásokat csökkentünk, azt várjuk, hogy ez a terület tartós növekedést mutasson fel. Ha nem szüntetjük meg az akadályokat, akkor lesz továbbra is 28 fregmentált digitális piacunk.

A másik téma a gazdaságpolitikai koordináció, az európai szemeszternek a kérdése. Nagyon fontos, hogy a gazdasági koordináció erősödjön, azonban a felelősséget ebben a folyamatban mindenkinek viselni kell. Úgy tapasztalom, az eddigi döntéseiben a Bizottság bizonyos kérdésekben túlment a saját hatáskörén, tagállami kompetenciák területére tévedt, sőt számaiban bizonyos tekintetben erőseket is tévedett. Szeretném azt látni, hogy a következő időszakban, a következő szemeszterben a Bizottság viselni fogja a döntéseinek a következményét. Azt is fontosnak tartom, hogy ex ante és ex post is ez a felelősség megjelenjen. A harmadik téma a bürokrácia csökkentése, amit csak támogatni tudok.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Libor Rouček (S&D). - Mr President, I would like to say a few words about the Eastern Partnership and the preparations for the Vilnius summit. I think it is in our vital interests that we have peace, stability and cooperation on our eastern borders. For this reason, the Eastern Partnership is the right instrument. We need political associations and economic integration with those countries that wish to have this partnership with us.

I wish the Council would talk about concrete help for our neighbours. Association Agreements and the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements are the right way forward, but countries such as Moldova need immediate and concrete help. So let us look for ways to increase trade and to speed up the process of building the gas pipeline. We should also think about how to improve and increase mobility, and especially how to help young people – in other words, visa liberalisation. Let us move on a path towards a visa-free regime.

Unfortunately, our eastern neighbours are under great pressure from Russia. We should send a clear message to Russia that we express our full solidarity with our neighbours, but, at the same time, we do not want a new Cold War. We do not want a new division in Europe. I think that should be our clear message. We must not sink back into a Cold War mentality or zero-sum games. Let us work together to create a common economic space: a zone of peace, cooperation and prosperity from Brest all the way to Vladivostok.

Good luck with the preparations for the Vilnius summit.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Μαριέττα Γιαννάκου (PPE). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η ημερήσια διάταξη του Ευρωπαϊκού Συμβουλίου πραγματικά παρουσιάζει εξαιρετικό ενδιαφέρον με θέματα όπως η καινοτομία, η ανάπτυξη, η ανταγωνιστικότητα, η απασχόληση, η ψηφιακή οικονομία, η εμβάθυνση της οικονομικής και νομισματικής ένωσης, η ανατολική εταιρική σχέση. Τα ζητήματα ανάπτυξης, ανταγωνιστικότητας και απασχόλησης όμως έχουν συζητηθεί αναρίθμητες φορές και για τον λόγο αυτό αναμένει κανείς ουσιαστικότερα συμπεράσματα.

Σε ποιο στάδιο βρίσκεται το επενδυτικό σχέδιο για την Ευρώπη και η Ευρωπαϊκή Τράπεζα Επενδύσεων; Πώς ακριβώς θα επιταχυνθεί ώστε να συμβάλει περισσότερο στην ανάπτυξη και την ανταγωνιστικότητα; Τι συμβαίνει με την πρωτοβουλία για την απασχόληση των νέων που είναι τόσο σημαντικό θέμα; Όσο εξακολουθεί η Ευρώπη να βρίσκεται σε κατάσταση όπου το άνοιγμα μεταξύ Βορρά και Νότου, σε συμβολικό επίπεδο, γίνεται ολοένα και μεγαλύτερο, τόσο μικρότερη ανταγωνιστικότητα συνολικά θα έχει σε σχέση με τους άλλους ανταγωνιστές σε διεθνές επίπεδο. Για τον λόγο αυτό, είναι απόλυτη ανάγκη να επικεντρωθεί το Συμβούλιο στο ζήτημα αυτό και οπωσδήποτε να ολοκληρώσει τις εργασίες για την τραπεζική ένωση και τον ενιαίο μηχανισμό εξυγίανσης τραπεζών, για τον οποίο εκφράζονται ακόμη αντιδράσεις σε ορισμένες χώρες. Ελπίζω ότι αυτό το ζήτημα θα κλείσει επί ελληνικής Προεδρίας διότι στην υπόθεση των τραπεζών σημαντική παράμετρος δεν είναι μόνο η εμπλοκή τους στην οικονομική κρίση αλλά και η εξυγίανσή τους, η οποία είναι μία προϋπόθεση σύνθετη αλλά απαραίτητη για ένα καλύτερο μέλλον στην Ευρώπη.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Roberto Gualtieri (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il timore che questo Consiglio europeo non sarà memorabile è molto concreto e non sarebbe peraltro una novità.

Sull'Unione economica e monetaria siamo allo stallo: l'idea di incentivi per rafforzare il coordinamento delle politiche economiche si allontana all'orizzonte, mentre si vogliono imporre surrettiziamente nuove sanzioni con le condizionalità macroeconomiche, svuotando in modo illegittimo il concetto stesso di codecisione. Alcuni governi in scadenza vogliono addirittura annacquare ulteriormente i timidi passi avanti sulla dimensione sociale dell'UEM, che per noi è un elemento essenziale che va sviluppato e che deve portare a un vero utilizzo degli indicatori sociali nell'ambito del semestre europeo. Sullo sfondo c'è l'incapacità di prendere atto che occorre cambiare rotta e che l'Europa deve potenziare il suo mercato interno.

Sull'immigrazione è positivo il riferimento alla tragedia di Lampedusa, ma non basta stabilire una task force. Lo sforzo di solidarietà verso i migranti e verso gli Stati più esposti si deve realizzare subito. Sospensione dei trasferimenti dei rifugiati ex Dublino, applicando la clausola di particolare difficoltà prevista dal regolamento, concessione di visti umanitari per mettere in sicurezza le persone nei paesi di transito, approvazione rapida di nuove regole per le operazioni di soccorso.

Per noi è tempo di agire, giudicheremo il Consiglio europeo dai fatti e non dalle parole.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Der Präsident. − Meine Damen und Herren! Ich würde Sie sehr bitten, sich mehr an die Redezeit zu halten, weil wir weit über der Zeit sind. Alles, was wir jetzt überzogen haben, muss ich bei catch-the-eye einsparen, sodass ich Ihnen jetzt schon sage, dass ich maximal fünf Personen bei catch-the-eye das Wort erteilen kann. Sollte die Zeit weiter überzogen werden, muss ich catch-the-eye überhaupt streichen.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Gay Mitchell (PPE). - Mr President, I think this is probably a dangerous environment in which to mention Ecclesiastes Chapter 3, verse 1, but it does say ‘to everything there is a season’. I would like to follow that up by taking to task the comments of the well-intentioned Bishops of Ireland recently about what they call austerity when they should actually be talking about consolidation – the only thing that is actually working, getting people back to work and working well and restoring confidence. What they should have spoken about is solidarity, and I think that is what we need to talk about here.

This is a time for change, a time to talk about growth and recovery. There are two things I would like to see coming out of the European Council: one is to put the social market economy at the heart of our talk about recovery. Adenauer said that people should not serve business, business should serve people. The second thing we need to do is to revisit the issue of common European bonds. I think George Soros has a point when he says, for example, that this would lift Italy out of its current mire and put it on the road to recovery.

Let us talk more about the social market economy, a Christian Democrat principle which is shared by the Social Democrats and others, and let us put people at the heart of our recovery. Let us again look at this issue of common European bonds. If we are to change the language, if we are to move to a new season, we need to talk about growth and recovery.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Frank Engel (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, une fois n'est pas coutume, en tant que dernier orateur de ce débat, du moins parmi ceux inscrits, je ne fabulerai pas sur la nécessité abstraite de "plus d'Europe", mais je déplorerai, en revanche, l'absence de toute initiative significative prévue par le Conseil européen en matière migratoire.

Le président de la Commission revient de Lampedusa secoué. Le Premier ministre maltais dit, à raison, que la Méditerranée est en train de devenir le cimetière de l'Europe, et le Conseil européen se dit "nous allons revenir aux questions migratoires en juin 2014". J'ai l'impression que, pour parler métaphoriquement, s'il n'a rien de mieux à faire que de revenir à cela en juin 2014, il faudra mettre une croix sur le cimetière de l'Europe que continuera d'être la Méditerranée.

Non seulement nous sommes dans l'incapacité totale de faire face aux questions migratoires que nous rencontrons avec acuïté, à Lampedusa et ailleurs, mais nous n'avons pas non plus grand-chose à dire en termes de politique de voisinage et de solde migratoire des pays qui nous avoisinent. Nous sommes aujourd'hui absents des conceptions politiques de gestion des migrations en Europe et autour de l'Europe. Ce n'est pas bon pour l'Europe, ce n'est pas bon pour ceux qui nous entourent, et ce n'est pas bon pour notre économie non plus.

 
  
 

Catch-the-eye-Verfahren

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). - Mr President, my experience in this Chamber is that there are more considered speeches later on in the debate. We had a very lively exchange this morning with the Presidents of the Groups, and that was very important in clearing the air, particularly on the budget issue.

Let me just pick up on my colleague Gay Mitchell’s very well-considered presentation here. There are signs of economic recovery, so there is hope here. Let us build on it. Our biggest problem is youth unemployment and a lack of cash and credit for SMEs so that they can employ young people. There is a complete logjam. We know the problem, but the Council has to find and come forward with those solutions. The social market economy is vital. There is absolutely no doubt that both matter. You cannot have one without the other.

Finally, I would just like to say something regarding the impasse over the budget: this is a very unseemly mess. Citizens do not like it. We should clear it up. Let us never allow this to happen again in our future budget debates.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Francesco De Angelis (S&D). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il Consiglio che si apre domani è di cruciale importanza per il futuro dell'Unione. Credo non sia un caso che il primo punto all'ordine del giorno sia il completamento del mercato unico digitale.

Per ogni due posti di lavoro persi con la crisi, cinque nuovi posti di lavoro sono creati dalla diffusione dell'economia digitale, ma si hanno anche risparmi e benefici per le pubbliche amministrazioni e soprattutto per i cittadini.

Mi auguro quindi – ed è un invito che rivolgo al Presidente – che il dibattito si concentri su quattro punti prioritari: il completamento del mercato unico digitale e dei servizi di linea, l'abolizione del roaming, la promozione delle infrastrutture digitali e del ruolo chiave delle amministrazioni nella diffusione dei servizi digitali innovativi, gli incentivi ad investire nelle competenze digitali e lo sviluppo dei progetti a lungo termine.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). - Senhor Presidente, dirijo-me ao Presidente da Comissão Europeia que, mais uma vez, foi embora antes do fim do debate.

Queria falar-lhe de democracia, de soberania, do Estado de direito. São conceitos com os quais terá alguma dificuldade de relacionamento, a julgar pelas suas declarações recentes sobre o Tribunal Constitucional português.

Queria também falar-lhe da mediocridade dos que se armam sempre em fortes perante os fracos mas que são sempre fracos perante os fortes. Saberá bem do que lhe falo.

Enquanto Presidente da Comissão Europeia, o senhor Barroso resolveu chantagear o Tribunal Constitucional português, dizendo que, se este não aceitar as medidas impostas pela troica, então temos o caldo entornado.

Senhor Barroso, a Constituição Portuguesa, que o senhor assim desrespeitou e ofendeu diz, no seu artigo 1.º, que Portugal é uma República soberana baseada na dignidade da pessoa humana, na vontade popular e empenhada na construção de uma sociedade livre, justa e solidária.

Essa determinação não vive apenas na letra da Constituição, vive na vontade do povo português que, da mesma forma que correu consigo quando primeiro-ministro, correrá com a troica, com os seus homens de mão, com a sua política de desastre e de destruição.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Jean-Pierre Audy (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, mes premiers mots seront pour féliciter le président du Conseil européen de faire plancher nos chefs d'État et de gouvernement sur des sujets thématiques. Demain et après-demain, la croissance et l'emploi, au mois de décembre la défense, au mois de mars l'énergie. Bravo! Je regrette néanmoins, Monsieur le Président – je ne sais pas si c'est vous qui avez omis de l'inviter – que M. Van Rompuy ne soit pas là pour débattre de tous ces sujets avec le Parlement européen.

Un mot sur le grand plan d'infrastructure qui a été décidé en juin. Merci d'avoir repris cette idée au Conseil européen. Il faut maintenant être plus précis. Ce n'est pas soixante ou cent milliards qu'il nous faut, c'est de 1 000 à 1 500 milliards sur une dizaine d'années pour le numérique, les transports, l'énergie, avec l'idée également que nous puissions introduire des contributions obligatoires à la charge des consommateurs de ces services. Oui, il faut un grand plan d'investissement. C'est la condition de la confiance de nos concitoyens dans leur continent.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). - Señor Presidente, he solicitado participar en este turno de palabra para expresar mi protesta, como Presidente de la Comisión de Libertades Civiles, Justicia y Asuntos de Interior, por la redacción del apartado 39 de la propuesta de conclusiones, no solamente porque es tibio, patéticamente inexpresivo, y porque elude referirse a lo que hay que hacer, que es reforzar la cooperación con los países de origen, reforzar, sobre todo, el salvamento de vidas en el mar y aplicar, de una vez, la cláusula de solidaridad que está en el Tratado de la Unión Europea en lo relativo a la gestión integrada de fronteras, sino porque, además, pospone la decisión de la nueva orientación estratégica y la planificación de la definición de la política de asilo y refugio a junio de 2014, es decir, exactamente en el lapso de tiempo comprendido entre la expiración del mandato de este Parlamento Europeo y la constitución del que vendrá después de las elecciones de mayo de 2014, para evitar justamente que, al definir esa política, pueda escucharse a la representación de la ciudadanía europea y eludir así el mandato de los artículos 10 y 11 del Tratado de la Unión Europea. Simplemente, inaceptable.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Olli Rehn, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I would first like to thank you all for a very substantial and serious debate today. The Commission shares your concerns about making concrete progress in the European Council this week on such key issues as immigration policy, banking union, the digital economy, financing of the real economy and fighting youth unemployment, as well as on the Eastern Partnership, which is very important for peace, stability and progress in Europe.

Let me make a few comments on this, starting with the issue of migration and immigration. First, the Commission fully agrees with the need to enhance legal economic immigration and labour mobility instead of illegal immigration. My colleague, Cecilia Malmström, continues to work hard – and decisively – to strengthen Europe’s ability to act in this important field. In fact, responding to Guy Verhofstadt on migration policy, a lot of things have been done since the Tampere Summit in the late 1990s and in recent years. The creation of Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office, the creation of funds for refugees and the completion of a common asylum policy are just some of the main steps taken recently.

But – and of course there is a very big but – as President Barroso said, the tragedies of Lampedusa show us that it is indeed necessary to step up our efforts. Messages from the Commission on this are clear, and we trust that the European Council will listen to them and support us in reinforcing European actions to help prevent and stop tragedies such as this one. We need stronger measures to organise search-and-rescue operations to save lives in danger. This calls for more intensive cooperation between the responsible bodies, and here the Commission is taking the lead in a taskforce with Member States and EU agencies such as Frontex and the European Asylum Support Office, as well as Europol.

Another priority of the European Council is the digital economy. This has a clear and immediate link to migration. Let us face it: we have a skills shortage in Europe, especially with regard to digital skills. Therefore, legal economic immigration is one of the solutions – not the only one, but one of the solutions – to this skills shortage. We have to be more forthcoming in this critical field.

The Commission has also put forward a proposal for a telecoms single market, on which my colleague Neelie Kroes is working very hard and effectively. We know that this will not be built overnight, but it is an essential step forward, both for bringing benefits for European consumers and for improving our economic competitiveness, thus helping to create employment in the European economy.

Better regulation is also one of the key areas of the European Council and, as underlined by President Barroso, we are committed to simplifying legislation to ensure that we have the right regulatory framework to promote economic growth, competitiveness and employment. We have a single market that requires common rules, but the rules need to be smarter and effectively implemented in the same way in all 28 Member States.

To Mr Callanan – who is no longer here – I would say that I believe that we are committed both to better regulation and to the single market. So, by the way, was his heroine, Margaret Thatcher, who supported both the single market and the Single European Act of 1987, which opened the gates for qualified majority voting, because she realised that, in order to have a strong single market, you also need strong rules and institutions. They go very much hand in hand.

I also agree with many speakers that in the coming months our strong priority will be the completion of the banking union, which should still happen during the Lithuanian Presidency in terms of the single resolution mechanism. At the European Council, the Commission will underline the importance of maintaining momentum in rebuilding the economic and monetary union and, as a next step, completing the banking union. Why is this important? It is important in order to restore and reinforce confidence in the European banking system and to open the credit flows that the SMEs in Europe so badly need. Both businesses and households very badly need this, especially in southern Europe. This is crucial and is essential in order to create jobs in Europe.

The Commission will also call on the Member States to support the important European-level initiatives to address the consequences of the crisis. Improving access to finance, particularly for SMEs, remains a priority, as does the fight against youth unemployment. I have also taken note of your comments on the social dimension of EMU. The Commission has put the social dimension at the heart of the Europe 2020 Strategy by including employment and social inclusion targets in it. Tackling unemployment and the social consequences of the crisis is a key priority of the Annual Growth Survey.

We have proposed concrete ways to develop the social dimension of EMU through reinforced surveillance of employment and social developments in the European Semester, enhanced solidarity via the EU budget and support for labour mobility, and a strengthened social dialogue, which we see as an equal part of the European social market economy.

Economic recovery is now under way in Europe. It is still fragile but will be on a stronger footing next year when it will also be positively reflected in employment – on condition that we stay on the course of reform, because there is no room for complacency and the economic turnaround now under way should in no way be taken as a signal to scale back the level of ambition. This is what we – both Parliament and the Commission, as I believe – expect from the European Council. We expect concrete steps and concrete progress to support economic recovery and job creation. That is essential, and that is what the citizens of Europe call for from the European Council.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Vytautas Leškevičius, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, Vice-President of the Commission, honourable Members, thank you for this valuable discussion in advance of tomorrow’s European Council meeting. A wide range of issues have been covered during the course of the debate. I will ensure that the President of the European Council is aware of the specific points which have been raised here in this morning’s debate. As I made clear in my opening remarks, this week’s European Council is set to address a number of different issues, but they are interlinked and coherent.

The issue of deepening economic and monetary union is about ensuring that we continue to emerge from the economic and financial crisis and create a stronger framework within the eurozone and, in particular, for preventing future crises. It is about developing mechanisms to allow us to cope with future stresses on our economic and financial systems. The key issue of youth unemployment is primarily about addressing one of the most serious consequences of the crisis. Tomorrow, heads of state will be taking stock of progress with the initiative on which we agreed at the European Council in June. I took note of what has been said by Ms Berès, Ms Morin-Chartier and Ms McGuinness in this regard.

The final issue and the main focus of this week’s discussion is an issue which is vital to our future competitiveness in the world: digital economy, innovation and services. This is about ensuring that Europe is able to emerge stronger from the crisis, with increased potential for economic growth and the creation of new jobs. There will be a particular focus on the digital economy. We have to promote a digital single market which benefits both consumers and businesses. We must improve IT skills and create an environment which encourages investment in the technology of the future. We have to make full use of the potential of the internal market for services.

Mr Rouček raised a very good and pertinent question regarding the Eastern Partnership Summit. I am grateful for his suggestions and proposals. I will certainly transmit these messages to the EU institutions and partners concerned.

Mr Swoboda and Mr Verhofstadt touched upon a very tragic issue, namely the tragic events in Lampedusa and migration policy. The tragedy of the coast of Lampedusa has uncovered major issues in the EU migratory framework and border protection policies. As a result, the last Justice and Home Affairs Council called for a Commission-led joint task force to identify the main gaps and conduct a needs assessment to improve the current system and to avoid tragedies like Lampedusa in the future. Let me simply say that the Lithuanian Presidency is working hard to contribute to a comprehensive solution.

Speaking more concretely, let me simply reiterate that, following a call from the European Council for clear rules of engagement for joint patrolling and for rules of disembarkation for rescued persons, the Council adopted a decision on 26 April 2010 supplementing the Schengen Borders Code as regards the surveillance of the external maritime borders in the context of operational cooperation coordinated by Frontex. This decision includes guidance on the implementation of international law obligations relating to search and rescue, in accordance with the Search and Rescue Convention.

Then, in October 2012, the European Court of Justice annulled the above decision but decided to maintain its enforcement until a new legal instrument is adopted. On 16 April 2013, the Commission adopted a proposal for a regulation to replace the annulled Council decision. Under the Lithuanian Presidency, the first reading has now been completed, and the competent Council working party and the Strategic Committee on Immigration Frontiers and Asylum have discussed certain issues this week. The Presidency welcomes the draft report by Mr López Aguilar and wishes to reiterate its commitment to making as much progress as possible before the end of the year, so as to allow a first-reading agreement for the European Parliament before the elections next year.

Finally, let me get back to the issue of MFF. There are a couple of remarks that I want to get across. Firstly, the Lithuanian Presidency has been doing, on the Council side, whatever is in our power in order to clinch a deal. I am glad that we managed to facilitate an agreement on Draft Amending Budget No 6 on the Council side. I would expect the European Parliament to do the same here. Secondly, it is simply a fact that we in the Council managed, in a record-breaking time of two weeks, to get a qualified majority on Draft Amending Budget No 8 and Draft Amending Budget No 9. You could have voted on the whole MFF during this plenary. If we in the Council could do it another way, when it comes to procedures, of course we would have done it already.

 
  
MPphoto
 

  Der Präsident. − Ich möchte auf Ihre letzte Bemerkung im Sinne der Beschlüsse nicht wirklich eingehen. Das ist heute am Beginn ausführlich debattiert worden und wird morgen in der Debatte, bevor wir eine Klärung herbeiführen, noch einmal geschehen. Die Beschlusslage und die Vorgangsweise sind bekannt. Darauf hätte man schon lange reagieren können.

Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 149 GO)

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Claudette Abela Baldacchino (S&D), bil-miktub. – Huwa kruċjali li l-problema tal-immigrazzjoni illegali fil-Mediterran tingħata prijorità assuluta fis-summit tal-Kunsill Ewropew. Ġimagħtejn ilu tkellimna dwar it-traġedja ta' Lampedusa. Minn dakinhar 'l hawn kellna traġedja oħra li seħħet fl-ibħra Maltin li fiha mietu għexieren ta' Sirjani. Dawn it-traġedji jpoġġu piżijiet akbar fuq spallejn l-UE. Illum kulħadd jistenna li tal-anqas nuru solidarjetà ma' dawn in-nies li qegħdin ikunu kostretti li jħallu kollox warajhom biex jitbiegħdu miċ-ċirkostanzi attwali f'pajjiżhom. Dawn in-nies qegħdin ikunu sfurzati jafdaw ħajjithom f'idejn kriminali li ma jiddejqu xejn jissugraw ħajjet ħaddiehor biex iħaxxnu bwiethom. Qegħdin nitkellmu dwar kriminalità organizzata li tinħtieġ battalja organizzata li tirnexxi biss bl-appoġġ konkret tal-pajjiżi membri kollha. Irridu naraw x'nagħmlu biex dawn in-nies ma jkollhomx għalfejn jafdaw ħajjithom f'idejn kriminali biex jitbiegħdu mill-perikli li jdawruhom. Tqum mistoqsija ċara: Il-kriminalità organizzata hija kapaċi aktar mill-UE? Nixtieq nagħmel referenza għal dak li qalet Aung San Suu Kyi meta f'din il-plenarju rċiviet il-Premju Sakharov. Saħqet fuq l-importanza tal-libertà tal-ħsieb. Saħqet fuq l-importanza tad-dritt li kulħadd jistaqsi "għaliex?". Imma lejn tmiem id-diskors tagħha qalet li mistoqsija li ma tixtieqx tisma' hija: Għaliex twelidt? Ejja nerfgħu r-responsabbiltà tagħna u ma nħallux lil dawn in-nies jagħmlu din il-mistoqsija. Il-Kunsill għandu jieħu azzjoni konkreta ISSA.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  John Bufton (EFD), in writing. – This summit sees us discuss, once again, the EU’s Youth Employment Initiative, its place within wider efforts to foster growth, jobs and EU competitiveness, and the aim of making it fully operational by January 2014. The UK currently has a youth unemployment rate of 21 %. This means that approximately 1 million 18-25 year olds in the country are out of work. And, as of 1 January 2014, when 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians will be allowed to enter the country freely, the youth job market – and, more than likely, the job market as a whole – is sure to reach saturation point. We can sit here and discuss and dissect the Youth Employment Initiative all day and all night but my party and I quite simply cannot see how this initiative will make any real positive impact in our country. It is clear to me that the only way to ease the youth employment crisis we are currently facing in the UK is to leave the EU, regain proper control of our borders and make sure that any available jobs are done by our own young people.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), in writing. The next Council meeting is set to focus on economic affairs, particularly on research, innovation, job creation and youth unemployment, etc. These are all fields that require investment and long-term commitment. Therefore, it is rather ironic that the Council's strategy has been going in the opposite direction. This can be seen with the EU's 2014 budget, where the Council made overall cuts of EUR 240.7 million in commitment appropriations, and EUR 1.06 billion in payment appropriations. These cuts represent a decrease in the funding available in 2014 for programmes that will drive growth and productivity.

Another example is the EU's long-term budget, MFF 2014-2020, where the Council has yet to formally accept the second tranche of EUR 3.9 billion – funds that are needed to pay the outstanding bills for 2013. Therefore, ahead of the meeting of the Council, I would like to remind the Member States that actions speak louder than words. By failing to take the necessary actions, the Council is neglecting its commitments to our institutions, and – more importantly – failing to live up to the expectations of 26.5 million unemployed citizens in Europe, of whom 5.4 million are under the age of 25. It is time for the Council to back its words with solutions and actions.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Silvia-Adriana Ţicău (S&D), în scris. – Consiliul European din 24-25 octombrie 2013 va avea trei teme principale: 1. economia digitală, inovațiile și serviciile; 2. creștere, competitivitate și locuri de muncă; 3. Uniunea Economică și Monetară.

Solicităm Consiliului să asigure în cadrul financiar multianual 2014-2020 fondurile necesare stimulării economiei digitale, a inovării, a creșterii competitivității și a combaterii șomajului, în special în rândul tinerilor. Solicităm șefilor de state și de guverne să asigure refacerea bugetului alocat mecanismului „Conectarea Europei”, componenta ICT, la valoarea propusă inițial de Comisie. Investițiile în infrastructură și serviciile ICT finanțate prin mecanismul „Conectarea Europei” sunt esențiale atât pentru competitivitatea UE cât și pentru redresarea economică a Uniunii. Aceste investiții reprezintă atât o necesitate pentru modernizarea și competitivitatea multor industrii europene, cât și o măsură de asigurare de locuri de muncă. De crearea acestor locuri de muncă ar putea beneficia în special tinerii, întrucât noile generații dispun de competențele necesare utilizării ICT în diferite domenii.

De asemenea, având în vedere că încrederea cetățenilor europeni și a companiilor în instrumentele ICT este esențială pentru dezvoltarea economiei digitale, atragem atenția că sunt necesare, la nivel european, măsuri ferme pentru protecția datelor și pentru asigurarea securității rețelelor și a datelor.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D), schriftelijk. De Sociale dimensie van de EMU dreigt een zwaktebod te worden. En dat terwijl de aanpak van de crisis in verschillende lidstaten een sociaal slagveld heeft achtergelaten en er op sociaal vlak grote verschillen bestaan (bijvoorbeeld het al dan niet bestaan van minimumlonen), met de bevolking als slachtoffer.

De Europese Commissie wil dat aanpakken met de ontwikkeling van een sociaal scorebord. Dit is erg mager. De cruciale vraag is immers niet wie goed of slecht scoort, maar welke acties wij gaan ondernemen om het sociale beleid in de Unie vorm te geven. Bovendien ontbreken een aantal relevante indicatoren op het scorebord: armoede, kinderarmoede, werkloosheid bij vijftigplussers of bij vrouwen.

Eigenlijk zie ik maar één lichtpuntje en dat is dat de Europese Commissie eindelijk heeft ingezien dat Europa méér is dan een economische Unie en dat de sociale dimensie eindelijk op de agenda is komen te staan. Maar om de sociale dimensie van de EMU werkelijk te versterken, is er nood aan gezamenlijke sociale doelen en de introductie van sociale minimumstandaarden, in balans met de economische doelen van de EU. Pas dan zal het Europese beleid opnieuw een draagvlak vinden bij de bevolking.

 
  
MPphoto
 
 

  Anna Záborská (PPE), písomne. – Úlohou verejnej správy je vytvárať legislatívne podmienky, ktoré umožnia každému občanovi uplatniť v maximálnej miere svoju slobodu. Digitálna agenda je nepochybne snahou o rozšírenie priesoru slobody pre podnikanie, ale zároveň má za cieľ rozšíriť slobodu voľby spotrebiteľov v oblasti ponuky digitálnych služieb a technológií. Ale som v rozpakoch z tej časti vystúpenia predsedu Komisie pána Barrosa, v ktorej hovorí o snahách riešiť nezamestnanosť, a to predovšetkým mladých ľudí. Človek potrebuje prácu – nielen kvôli zabezpečeniu svojich materiálnych potrieb, ale aj pre zachovanie svojej dôstojnosti. Lenže žiadna verejná politika nedokáže predpovedať potreby trhu. Bola by som veľmi rada, keby sme sa na európskej úrovni sústredili na odbúravanie bariér na trhu práce tak, aby geografická vzdialenosť, zodpovednosť za ďalších členov rodiny či zmena kariéry neboli neprekonateľnými prekážkami. Naším cieľom by nemalo byť dotovanie stáží a krátkodobých pracovných miest pre mladých nezamestnaných absolventov škôl, ale vytvorenie prostredia, v ktorom by títo mladí ľudia nemali strach postaviť sa na vlastné nohy či nájsť si prácu tam, kde práve je.

 
Ανακοίνωση νομικού περιεχομένου - Πολιτική απορρήτου