Пълен протокол на разискванията

Сряда, 11 декември 2013 г. - Страсбург

8. Конституционни проблеми, свързани с многостепенното управление в рамките на Европейския съюз (разискване)

  El Presidente. − El punto siguiente en el orden del día es el debate sobre el informe de Roberto Gualtieri y Rafał Trzaskowski, en nombre de la Comisión de Asuntos Constitucionales, sobre los problemas constitucionales de una gobernanza multinivel en la Unión Europea (2012/2078(INI)) (A7-0372/2013).

  Roberto Gualtieri, relatore. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Vicepresidente della Commissione, con questa relazione il Parlamento vuole offrire il suo contributo alla discussione in atto sul futuro delle istituzioni europee.

L'angolo di osservazione è quello della governance multilivello, ossia dei meccanismi di differenziazione che storicamente hanno consentito di conciliare sviluppo dell'integrazione e unità e di garantire aristotelicamente, si potrebbe dire, il rispetto sostanziale del principio di uguaglianza, che significa trattamento uguale di situazioni uguali, ma trattamento differenziato di situazioni differenti.

Si tratta di una questione cruciale dopo l'introduzione della moneta unica e soprattutto dopo che la crisi ha reso evidente la necessità di rafforzare la governance dell'unione economica e monetaria. La tesi fondamentale che la relazione sostiene è che non solo è possibile costruire un governo economico dell'euro all'interno del quadro istituzionale dell'Unione, ma anche che questa è l'unica strada per rendere questa rafforzata governance efficace e democraticamente legittimata.

La teoria e la pratica della differenziazione che la relazione propone è dunque quella di una differenziazione come strumento dell'unità dell'Unione e non come elemento di divisione e di frattura. Una differenziazione imperniata sulle istituzioni dell'Unione e non su quella tendenza ad affidarsi a procedure e a strumenti di tipo intergovernativo che è prevalsa dopo il 2010.

La relazione analizza e propone un insieme di procedure coerenti con questa filosofia, tra cui vorrei sottolineare, tra l'altro, la combinazione tra articolo 352 e cooperazione rafforzata che, in alcuni casi, con effetti equivalenti a quelli di una riforma dei trattati, potrebbe consentire di evitare il veto di paesi esterni all'area euro.

Uno dei punti centrali della relazione riguarda la democrazia e il ruolo del Parlamento. Qui la tesi è netta e argomentata: il Parlamento europeo è anche il Parlamento dell'euro e la simmetria fra il Parlamento europeo dell'Unione e il Consiglio che invece vota in formato eurozona, previsto per esempio dall'articolo 136, quando in combinazione con l'articolo 121, paragrafo 6, è una procedura pienamente legittima che anzi consente di bilanciare gli interessi degli Stati membri dell'eurozona con gli interessi generali dell'Unione, che sono comunque toccati dalle scelte che l'eurozona prende al suo interno.

Non serve dunque un Parlamento dell'eurozona e non bisogna tornare indietro rispetto al principio introdotto dal trattato di Lisbona, secondo cui i deputati rappresentano i cittadini dell'Unione. È possibile e necessario, naturalmente, attraverso il regolamento e attraverso l'azione politica dei gruppi, organizzare specifiche forme di differenziazione interne al Parlamento, connesse all'unione economica e monetaria, ma senza giungere a rivedere il trattato su questo punto e senza prevedere una formale differenziazione del ruolo dei deputati sulla base della nazionalità.

Le ultime due parti della relazione analizzano e propongono riforme a trattati costanti e infine ipotesi di cambiamento dei trattati. Nel primo caso il contributo della commissione ECON e della commissione EMPL è stato determinante riprendendo e sviluppando molti punti contenuti già nella relazione Thyssen. Sottolineo solo un contributo specifico sulla possibilità tecnica di collocare il meccanismo di solidarietà e poi una fiscal capacity all'interno del bilancio dell'Unione.

Sulla riforma dei trattati invece la relazione propone numerose ipotesi, alcune anche ambiziose, che introducono la codecisione nell'ambito della politica economica, che rendono la Commissione centro e perno di un vero governo economico europeo, che prevedono una sorta di passerella attraverso l'articolo 136 per arrivare a una competenza concorrente in ambito economico per i paesi dell'eurozona, che porterebbero a superare l'unanimità sull'MFF e sulle risorse proprie e che infine affrontano la stessa procedura di revisione dei trattati.

Quindi una relazione ampia, una relazione ambiziosa, per la quale volevo ringraziare la splendida cooperazione avuta con il corelatore Trzaskowski – ora divenuto ministro in Polonia – e con lui tutti gli shadow rapporteur e gli altri gruppi, una relazione sulla quale auspico si registri un'ampia convergenza nel voto di domani.

  El Presidente. − Efectivamente, György Schöpflin desempeña la tarea de ponente suplente, ante la marcha de Rafal Trzaskowski, que ha pasado a formar parte del Gobierno polaco y al que trasladamos nuestra felicitación y todos nuestros deseos de éxito.

  György Schöpflin, deputising for the rapporteur. − Mr President, Commissioner, I have taken the place of Rafal Trzaskowski who has been appointed to a ministerial post in Poland. He is co-rapporteur with Roberto Gualtieri, as you have heard. I think I too can thank the shadows in his name. It is very clear from having read the report that it is a very coherent piece of work.

It has fallen to me almost by accident to take on the task of introducing this particular report and I want to add that, given the economic focus of the report, the Committee on Foreign Affairs has worked fairly closely with the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and, I think, to good effect.

The report is complex and has the objective of assessing the present state of play in the relationship between the different levels of the European Union’s institutional framework in economic issues and proposing improvements where these are appropriate. As with any institution – not least one as highly diverse as the EU in all its manifestations – there will be different levels of power and ideally these different levels of power should operate with as much coherence as possible. At the same time, given the European Union’s commitment to democracy, it is common sense that there must be clear and transparent procedures in the exercise of power.

The report looks specifically at the effectiveness and credibility of economic governance in the context of the euro and various measures taken to establish sustainable remedies for the crisis. The thrust of the report is to develop a strategy in consequence of which economic governance will operate optimally and equally with the necessary democratic legitimacy. Roberto Gualtieri has already referred to this.

Similarly, the report has sought to ensure that the coherence of the EU is sustainable at the operational level. Now in consequence of the economic crisis of the last few years, the different levels of the EU and Member State governance already find themselves intertwined in a variety of ways. The argument of the report is to enhance EU competence where appropriate while respecting fully the demands of Member-State-level democracy. This strategy, while essential, is bound to raise complex issues involving all the different levels of governance.

One of these levels is the group of states that use the euro and their relationship to the rest of the EU, to the institutions and procedures of the Union. The report therefore focuses on the new rules and structures that have been drawn up in the context of the crisis and are understandably euro specific. That does mean that the Member States that do not use the euro are excluded from the argument of the report. On the contrary: the relationship between the two tiers affected is part of the discussion.

The heart of the report is the need to enhance the EU’s competences in economic policy in strengthening budgetary capacity and the democratic accountability of the Commission in these areas.

The governance of the EMU has to be placed in an overall EU institutional framework as all Member States are stakeholders in its governance. As far as the European Parliament is concerned, the report stresses that there can be no differentiation been Members as far as their country of origin is concerned. However, the internal rules of Parliament are flexible enough to establish the most appropriate scrutiny mechanisms. It should be common sense that the area covered by this report is complex and such complexity is bound to generate overlaps and contradictions. To that end, the report has sought to offer lucidity and flexibility in the expectation that its argument offers the most dynamic solution to an issue of paramount importance.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I would just like to underline that the Commission welcomes the report on multi-tier governance as a very important contribution to the debate on the future of Europe and I would also like to thank the rapporteurs for their work on this report. We share a common aim: to increase the EU’s ability to act and to respond effectively to the many challenges we face. Deepening the EMU and strengthening our system of economic governance are fundamental to this aim.

The Commission has acknowledged that, despite the tentative signs of recovery, we still continue to face a crisis of confidence. Restoring confidence will require us to stay on the reform path and to tackle the vulnerabilities that allowed the crisis to have such a devastating effect.

At European level, this means combining measures to boost growth with major efforts to strengthen cooperation and deepen integration in the financial, fiscal, economic and also the political field. As you know, important steps have already been taken in response to the crisis, including through the six-pack, two-pack, and the ESM. Looking forward, we must focus on implementing what has already been agreed, as well as on the next steps. We fully agree with your conclusion that completing the banking union is an immediate priority. An agreement on the single resolution mechanism before the end of this Parliament would create significant momentum.

We also need to continue to strengthen EMU in a broader sense. Your report contains a wealth of important ideas in this regard. Many of these are well-reflected in the Commission’s Blueprint on a Deep and Genuine EMU, and in the supplementary communications on ex-ante coordination of major economic reforms, on a Convergence and Competitiveness Instrument (CCI), and on the social dimension of the EMU.

We are already working on putting these ideas into practice. Contractual arrangements and associated solidarity mechanisms can generate real value added by enhancing national ownership and strengthening the implementation of reforms which have been agreed in the context of the EU surveillance framework. But after listening to the debate this morning it is still clear that we need to engage in more profound debate to clarify all the outstanding issues in this area.

Any new arrangements should be firmly anchored in and be part of the Community surveillance framework. Contracts and solidarity should go hand in hand and President Barroso will be making these points very firmly during the crucial debate at the upcoming European Council. The specific points in your report are an important and timely contribution to this debate.

Lastly, the Commission has set out very concrete ways of developing the social dimensions of the economic and monetary union as an integral part of EU economic governance and has started to put them into practice as well. These include reinforced surveillance of employment and social developments and strengthened policy coordination within the European Semester – which we have begun this year; enhanced solidarity and action in support of employment and labour mobility; and thirdly strengthening of social dialogue.

More generally, the Commission agrees with Parliament that differentiation is the right and realistic way to proceed in order to further integrate EMU. It should be possible for those who wish to integrate further and faster to do so. However, this process must be open to all Member States and must be based on full integration into the Treaties. In this way, the unity of the Union can be preserved. It is also crucial to anchor further integration firmly in the Community method, so as to avoid the serious pitfalls of intergovernmental approaches.

It goes without saying that this Parliament plays and will continue to play a key role in ensuring democratic accountability. The euro is the currency of the EU and the European Parliament is its Parliament. The Commission welcomes the steps that you are taking to enhance democratic accountability and scrutiny. The Commission will continue to support the strong involvement of this Parliament in EMU governance, building inter alia on the successful Economic Dialogue newly established in the framework of the European Semester.

National parliaments play a key role in ensuring the legitimacy of the action of the Member States in the Council and the European Council. And their role needs to be reinforced, particularly as regards decisions in the context of the European Semester, where interaction between the European and national levels is so crucial. In this context, it is certainly also important to strengthen interparliamentary exchange. Therefore, apart from the agreement to hold the Parliamentary Week in the European Parliament, we also welcome the Interparliamentary Conference on Economic and Financial Governance foreseen by Article 13 of the Fiscal Treaty.

I am encouraged that there is so much common ground between our institutions in this most important area. I look forward to today’s debate and to continued cooperation on this very important topic.

  Sylvie Goulard, rapporteure pour avis de la commission des affaires économiques et monétaires. − Monsieur le Président, c'est un défi de traiter un sujet pareil en une minute.

Je voudrais me concentrer sur un point. Ce rapport est une étape sur un long chemin. Nous partons d'une logique dans laquelle il y avait unité du Parlement sur tous les sujets et le fait que tous les parlementaires représentaient l'intérêt général de l'Union.

La situation réelle après la crise, c'est qu'il y a une différence objective entre les pays qui partagent la même monnaie et ceux qui ne souhaitent pas y participer – je laisserai de côté ceux qui nous rejoindront.

Nous avons essayé de proposer des solutions qui sont dans cette tension entre une tradition d'unité et une nécessité de différenciation. La décision d'hier soir du Conseil ECOFIN consistant à faire appel à un traité intergouvernemental doit nous alerter. Nous avons devant nous un vrai défi.

Pour ma part, je pense qu'il n'est pas illégitime pour la zone euro de se doter

d'institutions, d'institutions démocratiques, et je souhaiterais qu'elles s'inscrivent, autant que possible, dans ce cadre. Si tel n'est pas le cas, il ne faut pas se faire d'illusions, les développements auront lieu à l'extérieur.

  Stephen Hughes, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. − Mr President, the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs starts with a number of reminders: Article 3 of the Treaty says we shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, full employment and social progress; Article 9: the promotion of a high level of employment, guaranteed adequate social protection, fight against social exclusion, high level of education and human health, taking into account the European Union policies; and Article 151: the Union of the Member States shall have as their objective the promotion of employment, improved living and working conditions, proper social protection, and so on.

But you only have to look around the European Union today to see that there is a massive imbalance between the social pillar of EMU and the economic pillar. Therefore in our opinion we make a number of demands. In order to meet the objectives set out in Article 9, we say that economic policy can no longer be considered in isolation from social policy and we therefore need to improve European social governance in ways directly comparable to the establishment of European economic governance.

We call for the establishment of employment and social benchmarks, such as incoming inequality, employment and poverty, in addition to fiscal and macroeconomic benchmarks. We have seen some progress on that front as a result of the social scoreboard produced by Commissioner Andor at the beginning of October, but not enough.

We stress the emergence, existence and aggravation of internal and external imbalances in the field of economic and social policy and the need therefore to identify automatic stabilisers that will deepen the existing multi-tier governance. We call upon the Commission to produce a Green Paper to set out the range of such stabilisers that might be adopted and developed in the framework of multi-tiered governance.

We should not shy away from treaty change, if necessary. If we do have treaty change, one of the important factors is to build in a social clause to make sure that we have a proper balance between economic freedoms and workers’ rights within the framework of the Treaty.

  Elmar Brok, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Herzlichen Dank, Herr Präsident, dass Sie zuerst an die EVP-Fraktion denken. Ich möchte insbesondere den Berichterstattern danken, dass sie diesen Bericht vorgelegt haben, auch unserem Kollegen Trzaskowski, der nun in das ferne Polen entschwunden ist. Ich glaube, dass es da auch mit dem Kollegen Gualtieri ein gutes Team gegeben hat.

Ich finde, das ist ein wichtiges Thema. Das ist ein wichtiges Thema, weil einmal daran deutlich gemacht werden muss, dass wir ein ausgewogenes Europa haben wollen, das inhaltlich vernünftig ausbalanciert ist, auch in den Entscheidungsprozessen. Deswegen stimme ich ausdrücklich mit der Auffassung überein, dass die Europäische Union nicht nur eine Veranstaltung des wirtschaftlichen Erfolgs ist, sondern dieser wirtschaftliche Erfolg auch sozial eingebettet sein muss.

Aber ich meine auch, dass es wichtig ist, mit diesem Bericht deutlich zu machen, dass bei den Verwerfungen, die wir aufgrund der Finanzmarktkrise haben, jetzt nicht Druck entstehen sollte, dass wir vom Erfolgsmodell abgehen. Diese Europäische Union ist gegenüber allen anderen internationalen Organisationen so erfolgreich gewesen, weil sie nach der Gemeinschaftsmethode arbeitet, weil sie direktes Recht setzen konnte, weil im Ministerrat mit Mehrheit entschieden wurde, weil ein Parlament daran beteiligt war, das die Legitimation geliefert hat und auch Verbesserungen betrieben hat. Die intergouvernementale Methode zerstört das alles.

Wir müssen dabei auch deutlich machen, dass diese Entwicklung nicht dazu führen darf, dass wir neue Mauern in Europa errichten. Es darf nicht dazu führen, dass die europäische Wirtschaftsunion jetzt zu einer Veranstaltung der 18 wird, alle anderen mit Ausnahme Großbritanniens können Mitglied der Europäischen Währungsunion werden, sie sind mit Ausnahme von Kopenhagen sogar dazu verpflichtet, wenn sie die Bedingungen erfüllen.

Deswegen müssen die Situationen so gestaltet werden, dass es keine neuen Institutionen gibt. Die Gemeinschaftsinstitutionen müssen tätig sein. Der Euro ist eine Währung der Gemeinschaft, wie Herr Šefčovič richtig gesagt hat. Damit ist auch das Europäische Parlament als Ganzes gemeint, damit ist die Kommission gemeint in ihrer Zuständigkeit. Es ist keine intergouvernementale Veranstaltung, das widerspricht dem Sinn des Vertrags von Lissabon. Es ist geradezu rechtswidrig, und wir sollten es in der Stunde der Not nicht dazu kommen lassen, dass wir uns das aus der Hand nehmen lassen.

Ich meine aus diesem Grunde: Gemeinschaftsmethode, Einheit der Europäischen Union, aber Avantgarde-Lösung für diejenigen, die vorangehen können, aber Offenheit für alle und deswegen nicht Zerstörung der Einheit der Europäischen Union unter einer der Institutionen.

  Jo Leinen, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ich danke dem Berichterstattern Roberto Gualtieri und Rafał Trzaskowski für einen wirklich ausgezeichneten Bericht zu einem sehr komplexen Thema. Es ist ein ausgezeichneter Bericht, den wir da vorliegen haben.

Die Krise der letzten drei Jahre hat wie ein Sprengsatz gewirkt – für die Einheit der EU wie auch für die Machtbalance innerhalb der EU. Der Bericht bringt noch mal diese Facetten zusammen: Wir wollen die Einheit behalten. Es ist die europäische Idee, die Länder zusammenzubringen und nicht die Länder auseinanderzutreiben.

Aber wir wollen auch ermöglichen, dass man in der Vertiefung der Integration vorangehen kann. Wir wissen, dass die Währungsunion durch eine wirkliche Wirtschafts- und Finanzunion ergänzt werden muss, wenn man so will, hin zu einer politischen Union.

Der Sprengsatz war das Ausweichen zu intergouvernementalen Methoden, die Gefährdung der Gemeinschaftsmethode. Der Rat ist mächtiger geworden, die Kommission ist ohnmächtiger geworden. Wir wollen, dass die Kommission die Exekutive ist und nicht der Rat. Damit geht auch die parlamentarische Kontrolle einher.

Der Rat – vor allen Dingen der Europäische Rat – kann weder von uns noch von den nationalen Parlamenten kontrolliert werden. Es ist ganz wichtig, dass diese Kontrolle durch das Europäische Parlament und, wo nötig, durch die nationalen Parlamente erfolgen kann.

Wir wollen kein Euro-Parlament. Aber wenn es ein Budget für das Euro-Währungsgebiet gibt, dann wird es auch hier im Parlament einen Euro-Ausschuss der Kollegen geben müssen, die aus den betreffenden Ländern kommen, ohne dass wir die Rechte der anderen Kollegen schmälern.

Wir wollen keine Blockaden in der EU. Wenn ein Land nicht mitmachen kann, nicht mitmachen will, dann ist es seine Sache; es soll aber nicht die anderen blockieren können. Deshalb müssen alle Möglichkeiten der Differenzierung ausgeschöpft werden. Rosinenpickerei ist allerdings auch nicht gewollt, ein Europa à la carte ist nicht unsere Idee.

Wir brauchen die Einheit und die Vielfalt innerhalb der Einheit, und das bringt der Bericht sehr gut zum Ausdruck. Ich sehe, dass wir 24 Ideen für notwendige Änderungen des Lissabon -Vertrags haben. Also appelliert das Parlament wieder einmal, in der nächsten Periode einen besseren Europa-Vertrag, eine bessere Vertragsgrundlage zu schaffen.

  Andrew Duff, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, this report poses the question as to whether we can expect all 28 Member States to be able to agree upon what needs to be done to strengthen fiscal integration or whether it is now time to recognise that not all states will be able to share the same political objectives.

So the strength of government of the EU becomes of paramount importance and the convention which will draw up the next treaty will be faced with a stark choice. The first of the options is to transform the Commission from whatever it is now into a proper efficient parliamentary government with a greater concentration of executive powers and instruments, and the resources that it needs for their disposal.

The second option is to take the route of the European Council to create a sort of centralising executive federalism which will exercise its will through diffuse, opaque and only partially democratic bodies and agencies, many of them on the outside of the Union framework.

The first option is a genuine federal polity. The second is an intergovernmental confederal arrangement relying on the passing will of national prime ministers. The Liberal Group is going to be quite clear which of those options it will prefer.

  Gerald Häfner, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Auch ich möchte ganz herzlich Rafał Trzaskowski und Roberto Gualtieri für diesen Bericht und für die hervorragende Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Fraktionen bei diesem Bericht danken.

Ich möchte gleichzeitig sagen – das ist an uns alle gerichtet –, dass es mich ein wenig beunruhigt, dass wir hier häufig in sehr rastloser Weise ausgiebig Gesetze diskutieren, dass wir aber für diese wirklich großen Debatten über die Zukunft Europas meistens viel zu wenig Zeit haben und oft auch sehr spät dran sind. Ich hätte mir diese Debatte früher gewünscht. Aber umso wichtiger ist es, sie heute zu führen.

Es gibt in sehr vielen Fragen unterschiedliche Auffassungen in diesem Parlament. Das kann anders gar nicht sein, denn schließlich vertreten wir 500 Millionen Bürger, die eine große Vielfalt an Meinungen in und über Europa repräsentieren.

Aber es gibt eine Vielzahl von Fragen, in denen alle ernsthaft demokratischen Mitglieder dieses Hauses einer gemeinsamen Meinung sind. Darüber möchte ich jetzt vor allem sprechen.

Das ist im Kern: Wir dürfen die Einheit und die Demokratie in Europa nicht aufs Spiel setzen! Wer glaubt, er könne oder müsse die künftige Union auf einen verwirrenden Flickenteppich von einzelnen bi- und multilateralen Verträgen bauen, der gefährdet das Wichtigste: nämlich den Zusammenhalt in Europa; der baut nicht an Europa, sondern der zerstört Europa.

Das gleiche gilt für die Demokratie. Wer glaubt, er könne auf Dauer mit kurzfristigen Ermächtigungen, mit nicht gewählten Organen, nicht ausreichend demokratisch und parlamentarisch legitimierten und kontrollierten Verfahren und Institutionen Europa regieren, der zerstört dieses Europa und vor allem das, was die Substanz Europas ist – nämlich die Demokratie und das Vertrauen und die Zustimmung der Menschen.

Deshalb ist es so wichtig, dass wir im Kern bei diesem Bericht darüber sprechen, wie wir nach dieser atemlosen Phase von Rettungsmaßnahmen jetzt eine tragfähige und nachhaltige Architektur für Europa finden können. Das kann nur ein Europa sein, in dem die bindenden Entscheidungen vom Parlament ausgehen, und zwar von diesem einen Parlament. Die Idee, mehrere Parlamente zu haben, eins für das Euro-Währungsgebiet, eins für andere Aufgaben, ist eine Idee, die die Axt an die Substanz Europas und an die europäische Demokratie legt.

Das Zweite ist: Wir brauchen einen Konvent – wir haben das in diesem Bericht sehr deutlich zum Ausdruck gebracht –, der unter Beteiligung der nationalen Parlamente, des Europäischen Parlaments, der Regierungen und insbesondere auch der Zivilgesellschaft, der Bürgerinnen und Bürger daran arbeitet, die neue Grundlage für dauerhafte Formen in Europa, Solidität und Solidarität und Demokratie zu sichern.

Ich meine, dass dieses Europa, an dem wir gemeinsam bauen müssen, auf Dauer ein Europa der Demokratie und der Bürger sein muss. Ich würde wünschen, dass dieses Parlament, wenn es nach den Wahlen wieder zusammentritt, aus den Berichten, die wir beschlossen haben, die Summe zieht und nach Artikel 48 EUV eine Vertragsänderung und die Einberufung eines Europäischen Konvents beantragen wird.

  Ashley Fox, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, this report sets out sweeping new powers for the European Union. It proposes that the EU budget be substantially increased, that EU-wide taxes be introduced, that the EU should be allowed to borrow money and that Member States lose almost all of their powers of veto.

It is clear that this report was drawn up in the Brussels bubble. It bears no relationship to what our citizens really want. It is yet another step towards ever closer political union. That may be the ambition of many Members of this Parliament, but it is not my goal and it is not the goal of my group.

Do our constituents really want us to hand over vast new powers to the Commission so that it can tell national governments how much they can tax, spend and borrow? Such powers undermine democracy, and we have already seen what damage this has done to Greece and other countries where the Troika has taken over control of their economies.

Very few people believe that the EU is working well. This House should accept that many Member States do not believe that more Europe is the answer to their problems. In the United Kingdom there is a strong mood that we would like rather less Europe. The EU already has too much power and interferes too much in the everyday lives of our citizens. It is too expensive and does not spend wisely the money the taxpayers send it.

I want to see Europe reformed. I want to see the relationship between the United Kingdom and the EU changed so that powers are repatriated to our Parliament in Westminster. I understand that is not a popular view in this Chamber and I accept that members of the eurozone need to change the way they govern their economies.

If they need Treaty changes to provide for closer economic integration, then non-eurozone states like Britain should not stand in the way. We should cooperate to agree a new European settlement that allows Member States much more flexibility in the areas in which they share sovereignty. This will mean more integration for some and less integration for others. We need to lay to rest the concept that the European Union is a project in which powers can only ever flow towards the centre. Those days are over.

  Helmut Scholz, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Vizepräsident, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich möchte mich auch bei den beiden Berichterstattern für ihre Arbeit an diesem Bericht bedanken. Zugleich möchte ich unser Bedauern zum Ausdruck bringen, dass die Vorschläge unserer Fraktion in dem Bericht nicht ihren Niederschlag gefunden haben.

Der Bericht geht durchaus wichtigen Fragen nach, so der Frage, wie wir mit der Tatsache umgehen, dass der Rat zunehmend die Gemeinschaftsmethode aushöhlt, dass er es vorzieht, sich bei der Krisenlösung außerhalb des EU-Rechts aufzuhalten, dass das Ausbalancieren von Erfordernissen der Integration und der Anforderungen aus der Erweiterungspolitik gerade vor dem Hintergrund zunehmend kultivierter Konflikte zwischen den Interessen der Mitgliedstaaten deutlich komplizierter wird und dass die heutigen Kompetenzen des Europäischen Parlaments und die Rechenschaftspflicht ihm gegenüber nicht mehr ausreichen.

Die Schlussfolgerungen, liebe Berichterstatter, aus dem Bericht sind nachvollziehbar, aber wir teilen sie nicht. Welches sind die Punkte, die wir nicht teilen? Seit Monaten diskutieren wir doch hier im Haus die unzureichende Legitimität der gegenwärtigen EU-Politik und der EU-Institutionen und ihrer Rolle dabei. Der Bericht verpasst es aber, das Demokratiedefizit vom Kern her anzugehen. Er macht keine Vorschläge, wie die Kluft zwischen der Europäischen Union, ihrer Politik, ihren Institutionen und den Bürgerinnen und Bürgern aufgehoben werden kann. Zugegeben: Der Bericht fordert mehr Beteiligung des Europäischen Parlaments. Aber gleichzeitig schlägt er vor, die umgekehrte qualifizierte Mehrheit in den EU-Rahmen zu integrieren, um zukünftige Verträge ohne die Zustimmung aller Mitgliedstaaten zu ratifizieren. Das wird nicht funktionieren.

Eng damit verbunden ist das Konzept der differenzierten Entwicklung, welches im Bericht entwickelt wird. Es orientiert auf eine verstärkte Anwendung von Artikel 20 des EU-Vertrags, um beim business as usual zukünftig mittels der verstärkten Zusammenarbeit voranzukommen. Unsere Fraktion will Veränderungen in der EU-Politik und kein „weiter so“ mittels Koalitionen der Starken, der Guten oder der Willigen. Dazu gehört doch auch, die Governance in der EU auf Basis der Gemeinschaftsmethode unter Berücksichtigung des Subsidiaritätsprinzips zu entwickeln. Das mag alles langsamer gehen, aber es entspricht und fordert zutiefst demokratische Rückbindungen in die Gesellschaft.

Der Bericht berücksichtigt die sich verschärfenden Ungleichgewichte zwischen der Wirtschaftspolitik und der Sozial- und Beschäftigungspolitik nur unzureichend. Er verweigert sich der Forderung nach einer Sozialcharta, welche die Arbeitsrechte auf die gleiche Stufe mit den vier Grundfreiheiten stellt. Nicht einmal die Vorschläge des Beschäftigungsausschusses fanden Eingang in den Bericht.

Es bleibt das Fazit: Ja zu den Fragen, die Antworten bleiben aber deutlich hinter heutiger EU-Realität zurück.

  John Stuart Agnew, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, here is a classic example of how a subject is hidden by a committee and its rapporteurs from plain sight by skilful use of EU gobbledegook. It sounds like a discussion of genuine constitutional issues, when it is no more or no less than a call for yet another power grab by the EU.

The very first paragraph sets out the objective which is: ‘enhancing the Unionʼs competencies’. Let us be clear what this means. It means increasing the power of the European Union and draining away further power from the nation states.

In the face of the catastrophic failure of the European project, the response is always the same. It is like a football chant. What do we want? More power, more money! When do we want it? Now!

But that, of course, requires a treaty change and that all takes time and the agreement of everyone involved – all those countries – which in the current climate may be hard to get. Nor will the UK Prime Minister be pleased by all of this because, if there is going to be a treaty change, he will have to call a referendum which he will lose.

  Francisco Sosa Wagner (NI). - Señor Presidente, señor Comisario, entramos en un año electoral, por lo que la discusión que suscita este razonado informe es muy oportuna. Queremos los europeístas ambiciosos que, al cabo, en el horizonte temporal, exista una convención y también una reforma de los Tratados que reputamos ineludible.

Pero, de momento, no estamos en ese horizonte. En lo que estamos es en explotar las posibilidades que ofrecen los actuales Tratados en vigor para conseguir mayor eficacia en las instituciones europeas, para servir mejor a los ciudadanos y para hacer más transparente nuestra gestión.

Debemos esforzarnos por llevar a las plazas y a las calles europeas —con motivo de la campaña electoral— todos los asuntos que justamente se tratan en este informe, para debatirlos y para que las cuestiones internas de los Estados no nos hurten la posibilidad de discutir sobre Europa, sobre sus necesidades, sobre los anhelos y preocupaciones de 500 millones de ciudadanos.

Porque construir Europa, señor Presidente y señor Comisario, construir Europa con sólidas raíces democráticas es la aventura histórica más prometedora y más fecunda de este siglo XXI.

  Jean-Paul Gauzès (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, les questions que se pose le Parlement à travers ce rapport d'initiative, dont je remercie les rapporteurs, sont essentielles pour le futur de l'union économique et monétaire.

Ce rapport manifeste la volonté politique d'aboutir à une plus grande efficacité de l'action économique de l'Union et met en avant des objectifs tout à fait louables. Il s'agit notamment d'accélérer les réformes structurelles pour permettre à l'Europe de progresser sur la voie de la compétitivité, de la croissance et de la création d'emplois. Pour y arriver, beaucoup de travail a été fait, même si cela n'a pas toujours été facile à mettre en œuvre, du fait, notamment, des résistances des États membres. Ce rapport souligne les efforts qui ont été réalisés pour réagir contre les crises qui se sont cumulées ces dernières années et il s'est efforcé de le faire avec cohérence.

Dans le domaine de la coordination économique, d'abord le six-pack, puis le two-pack, ont permis de renforcer cette coordination des politiques économiques dans la zone euro en conciliant une discipline stricte au niveau national et une solidarité au niveau européen.

Dans le domaine de l'union bancaire aussi, les principaux piliers que sont le mécanisme de supervision des banques, le système de résolution avec un fonds de résolution unique et le mécanisme de garantie des dépôts sont en cours de finalisation et devraient être achevés dans les semaines qui viennent.

Tous ces textes ont pour objectif final de redonner confiance aux citoyens européens dans le système financier européen et dans le système bancaire. Il s'agit maintenant de mettre en œuvre ces mesures qui doivent nécessairement être en conformité avec les traités européens.

À cet égard, nos concitoyens n'attendent pas tant des réformes institutionnelles que des résultats. Nous avons, dans les mois qui viennent, à expliquer davantage encore ce que l'Union européenne a fait de bon et, quand j'entends ici que l'on dit que c'est un échec, c'est certainement une erreur d'appréciation, mais on comprend qu'elle puisse être politiquement orientée. Aujourd'hui, ce qu'il faut, c'est apporter du concret à nos concitoyens et je crois que, dans ce domaine, ils ne comprendraient pas qu'on ne traite pas de l'Europe sociale et de l'Europe fiscale, qui peuvent être la preuve du "vouloir vivre ensemble".

  Enrique Guerrero Salom (S&D). - Señor Presidente, quiero felicitar a los ponentes, el señor Gualtieri y el señor Trzaskowski, por este informe, que creo es de gran interés. Porque, ¿de qué se trata? Se trata de cómo conseguir una Unión Europea más avanzada.

¿Cómo hacerlo? Naturalmente, incrementando las competencias comunitarias de la Unión Europea. No necesariamente todas las que actualmente tiene, algunas puede ser discutible que vuelvan al ámbito nacional. Pero, para responder a los retos de la Unión y a la crisis a la que nos enfrentamos, la Unión tiene que tener más competencias.

¿De qué se trata, también? De tener más capacidad presupuestaria, para que pueda haber políticas comunitarias que resuelvan problemas concretos de los 500 millones de ciudadanos europeos.

¿De qué se trata, también? De que haya responsabilidad democrática de todos los órganos de la Unión. Y, finalmente, se trata de que el Parlamento incremente sus prerrogativas, al ser la única institución directamente elegida por los ciudadanos.

El informe también señala qué cosas hemos hecho mal en nuestra respuesta a la crisis. Básicamente, haberlo hecho con una perspectiva intergubernamental, abandonando el método comunitario. Básicamente lo hemos hecho mal porque, aunque hemos tratado de corregir con cláusulas «sunset clause» las reformas que se han introducido, finalmente tenemos ante nosotros el reto de incorporar esas reformas en los Tratados. También señala el informe que es posible explorar, en los Tratados actuales, respuestas más contundentes y, finalmente, se pronuncia a favor de una convención que aborde todos estos tipos de problemas.

Creo que la convención tendría ante sí una disyuntiva: o más integración con más flexibilidad o menos integración con más rigidez. Y creo que la decisión acertada es más integración con más flexibilidad, siempre que la flexibilidad no ponga en riesgo ni el método comunitario, ni el contenido social del modelo de la Unión Europea, ni la responsabilidad democrática de todos sus órganos.

  Anneli Jäätteenmäki (ALDE). - Arvoisa puhemies, EU-kriittisyys on viime vuosina lisääntynyt. Terve kriittisyys on hyvästä, se on osa demokratiaa ja sitä ei tule tukahduttaa.

EU:n demokratiaa sen sijaan tulee vahvistaa. Asiat on sovittava EU:n omissa instituutioissa. Mitä vähemmän isot jäsenvaltiot sopivat keskenään erilaisin kahdenvälisin tai monenvälisin sopimuksin, sitä yhtenäisempänä EU säilyy ja se on kaikkien etu.

Osa jäsenvaltioista haluaisi poimia ainoastaan rusinat pullasta. He haluaisivat esimerkiksi tiiviit sisämarkkinat mutta eivät oikeuksia työntekijöille tai kehittää kuluttajansuojaa, puhumattakaan siitä, että ne haluaisivat tukkia veronkierron tai lopettaa paratiisit. On selvää, että tällainen yhtälö ei toimi.

Rakennetaan EU:ta yhdessä kaikkien jäsenvaltioiden toimin niin, että siinä huomioidaan myös heikompiosaiset. Ei niin, että EU:ta kehitetään vain finanssimaailman ja suurten yritysten ehdoilla. Se yhtälö ei tule toimimaan. Tarvitaan demokratiaa, tarvitaan kritiikkiä, tarvitaan rakentavaa kritiikkiä ja ennen kaikkea yhteistyötä.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). - Gospodine predsjedniče, kao zastupnica iz Hrvatske, koja se posljednja priključila Uniji, ovom pitanju posvećujem posebnu pozornost.

Dugi niz godina u hrvatskoj javnosti su se provlačile dvojbe: Treba li Hrvatska ući u Europsku uniju? Sada kada smo postali punopravna država članica, vrijeme je za postaviti pitanje: „Kakva je to Unija po mjeri Hrvata?“

Nikada neću podržati federalnu Europu, naddržavu koja će uništiti višestoljetne identitete i težnje za slobodom. Europa suverenih nacionalnih država dokazala se kao najbolje rješenje, a poznato je pravilo da se sve ono što dobro radi ne treba ni popravljati. Model suradnje suverenih europskih država treba usavršiti a nipošto pokušati zamijeniti dokazanom utopijom o sjedinjenim europskim državama koju se sve otvorenije protura na krilima navodno veće učinkovitosti, zanemarujući pri tom volju građana Europske unije.

Gospodo izvjestitelji, Parlament i Komisija moraju konačno shvatiti da mi ne stvaramo Europu po svojoj mjeri, već po mjeri građana. Bilo bi stoga najpoštenije pitati njih da se na referendumu izjasne o tome kakvu to Uniju zaista žele.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL). - Senhor Presidente, este relatório tem um mérito indiscutível. Ele deixa claro quais são os responsáveis pelo retrocesso civilizacional em curso na Europa e deixa também clara qual a sua estratégia para o futuro. Direita e social-democracia juntas, como sempre, definem uma arquitetura jurídica e institucional que procura não apenas consolidar a austeridade interna, trazendo para dentro do ordenamento jurídico da União Europeia o tratado orçamental, como cria as condições acrescidas para forçar a sua aplicação. Chegam ao ponto de propor que a entrada em vigor de futuras alterações ao Tratado possa ser feita mesmo contra a vontade de um quinto dos Estados-Membros e de propor a generalização do princípio da maioria inversa, uma ideia brilhante da Senhora Merkel.

Referendo, é notável como o referendo passou a ser uma palavra proibida, é evidente a escalada no confronto com a própria democracia. Uma escalada que pode ser travada, que tem de ser travada pela luta dos trabalhadores e dos povos da Europa. As próximas eleições para o Parlamento Europeu serão sem dúvida um momento importante nessa luta.

  Mara Bizzotto (EFD). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, mentre qui parliamo di aria fritta e perdiamo tempo in chiacchere inutili, in Italia, in queste ore, decine di migliaia di persone stanno protestando per le strade e per le piazze contro il governo italiano, contro questa Europa, contro l'euro.

Diciannove milioni sono i disoccupati nell'area euro, di cui il 40 per cento sono giovani. Il 30 per cento dei cittadini italiani è a rischio di povertà. Questi sono i veri problemi che la nostra gente deve affrontare ogni giorno, che non si risolvono certo con più Europa, con il fiscal compact, con la politica dell'austerità o col pareggio di bilancio. Servono regole chiare e uguali per tutti, altrimenti le nostre imprese saranno distrutte dalla concorrenza sleale, dal dumping sociale, dalle tasse e dalla burocrazia.

I cittadini hanno oggi una sola certezza: hanno vissuto nell'illusione che l'Unione europea avrebbe aiutato la situazione economica e migliorato la loro vita, ma ora si sono svegliati, il sogno è finito e stanno vivendo un incubo economico senza precedenti che non si sa se e quando finirà. O si cambia rotta velocemente o sarà la storia a decretare la fine dell'euro e la morte dell'Europa.

  Andreas Mölzer (NI). - Herr Präsident! Es ist ein wenig skurril, wenn wir jetzt philosophieren, wie eine echte Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion zu gestalten ist, um legitim und demokratisch zu sein. Immerhin wissen wir ja, dass die Union an sich bereits ein Demokratiedefizit aufweist. Dieses wird nicht besser, wenn sie nunmehr vertragswidrig immer stärker zur Europäischen Haftungsunion wird.

Nun wird die fehlende parlamentarische Kontrolle von Troika, EFSF und ESM beklagt. Zu spät und zu wenig, meines Erachtens. Ein Aufschrei wäre bereits nötig gewesen, als die EU-Verträge das erste Mal gebrochen wurden. Der Wahn Brüssels, alles zu regulieren, hat uns ja bekanntlich bereits Milliarden gekostet, und damit ist man auf dem besten Weg, der Union nachhaltigen Schaden zuzufügen. Mit diesem Zentralisierungswahn geht die Gründung immer neuer EU-Agenturen einher – mit jährlich steigendem Finanzbedarf und mit vielen Doppelgleisigkeiten, deren Sinnhaftigkeit wir einfach hinterfragen müssen.

Zudem ist die EU offenkundig unfähig, die großangelegten Subventionsbetrügereien abzustellen. Anstatt ständig mehr Geld zu verlangen und nach Eigenmitteln zu rufen, sollte Brüssel lieber bei sich selbst den Rotstift ansetzen und die gewaltigen Einsparungspotenziale, die es gibt, nutzen. Es ist meines Erachtens der Subventionsdschungel zu durchforsten, es müssen Zuständigkeiten an die Mitgliedstaaten zurückverlagert werden, und es wären die Kontrollen zu verbessern. Das wäre eine Lösung.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE). - Tisztelt Elnök Úr, Kedves Kollégák! Magam is értékes munkának tartom az asztalunkon fekvő jelentést, ugyanakkor ezt a dokumentumot vegyes érzésekkel olvastam el, vegyes érzések ébredtek bennem a dokumentum teljes egészének alapos áttanulmányozását követően. Ez a jelentés nyilvánvalóan több mint egy problémagyűjtemény, több annál, mint azoknak a kérdéseknek egy értelmes logika szerinti összegyűjtése, amelyekre választ kell kapnunk az Európai Unió továbbfejlesztése érdekében, ugyanakkor az elkészült dokumentum határozott véleményem szerint jóval kevesebb, mint az Európai Unió hétköznapjait ma érintő, sújtó, terhelő problémákra adott megoldási javaslatok.

A gazdasági és monetáris unió szociális dimenziójának erősítése az uniós tevékenységek foglalkoztatási aspektusainak nyomon követése, a tagállami foglalkoztatási és szociális politikák hatékonyabb koordinációja, a szociális párbeszéd megerősítése fontos és üdvözlendő törekvések. A gazdaságpolitika nem kezelhető függetlenül a szociális politikától. Az Unió működésének szociális dimenziója ugyanolyan jelentőséggel bír, mint a gazdaságé. Fontos, hogy a foglalkoztatási és szociális szempontok kellő mértékben figyelembe legyenek véve a szakpolitikák és intézkedések kidolgozása és végrehajtása során. Azonban a foglalkoztatási és szociális politikák jobb koordinációja közben nem feledkezhetünk meg arról, hogy ez a terület alapvetően tagállami hatáskör, ezért a tagállami kompetenciák teljes mértékben tiszteletben tartandók. Magyarul szükséges a foglalkoztatási és szociális politikák jobb koordinációja, de hangsúlyozom, a tagállami hatáskörök tiszteletben tartása e tekintetben is nélkülözhetetlen.

  Zita Gurmai (S&D). - Mr President, first of all let me congratulate the two co-rapporteurs for this very important and comprehensive report. Not only does it provide a deep analysis of the differentiated integration within the European Union, taking stock of the changes brought by the necessary strengthening of economic governance at EU level, but it also puts forward concrete solutions in a two-step approach: within the current institutional framework, and what could be done later on through Treaty changes.

Let me emphasise a few key points in this report, concerning the necessary democratic legitimacy, accountability and transparency. This is a crucial requirement of the different measures adopted to strengthen financial stability and economic governance, and although it has often been underlined, for example in the report ‘Towards a genuine economic and monetary union’, much improvement is needed and expected. This is especially true of parliamentary scrutiny which is often lacking, for example, with regard to the Troika, the EFSF, and of course the ESM.

Another point I would like to highlight is the asymmetry that can arise between Member States which have the euro as their currency and the other Member States which do not. It is important for all Member States to remain associated with the mechanism and decisions taken among eurozone members, for the sake of unity and given their implications for the European Union as a whole.

Finally, I welcome the strong emphasis put on the necessary strengthening of the social aspect of the EMU and the proposal outlined in the report of expanding the principle of enhanced cooperation to social and employment policies.

  Χαράλαμπος Αγγουράκης (GUE/NGL). - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η έκθεση επιβεβαιώνει τη θέση του Κομμουνιστικού Κόμματος Ελλάδας για τον χαρακτήρα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης ως διακρατικής ένωσης του κεφαλαίου που έχει αποκλειστικό σκοπό να διασφαλίσει την οικονομική και πολιτική κυριαρχία των μονοπωλίων. Συστατικό στοιχείο αυτής της λυκοσυμμαχίας είναι οι ανταγωνισμοί για την προώθηση των ιδιαιτέρων συμφερόντων των αστικών τάξεων, που οξύνονται στο έδαφος της καπιταλιστικής κρίσης. Στο μόνο που συμφωνούν τα όργανα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και οι κυβερνήσεις του κεφαλαίου στα κράτη μέλη είναι η ανελέητη επίθεση στη ζωή και τα δικαιώματα των εργαζομένων σε όλα τα κράτη μέλη. Αποτελεί κοροϊδία, γι’ αυτό τον λόγο, το αίτημα για δημοκρατική, δήθεν, λογοδοσία της Τρόικας στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο. Λες και η Τρόικα δεν είναι η ίδια η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση. Λες και η Τρόικα δεν συναποφασίζει από κοινού με τις αστικές κυβερνήσεις στα κράτη μέλη τα βάρβαρα αντιλαϊκά μέτρα για να τσακίσει την εργατική τάξη και να διασφαλίσει την κερδοφορία των μονοπωλίων.

Σε ποιον άλλον να λογοδοτήσει η Τρόικα; Το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο όχι μόνο έχει ψηφίσει όλα τα αντιλαϊκά μέτρα που εφαρμόζονται αλλά βρίσκεται στην πρώτη γραμμή για να επιβάλλει το σύνολο αυτής της πολιτικής σ’ όλα τα κράτη μέλη. Αυτή η Ένωση μόνο χειρότερη μπορεί να γίνει, γι’ αυτό τον λόγο η λύση βρίσκεται στην αποδέσμευση από την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και στην οικοδόμηση της εργατικής εξουσίας σε όλα τα κράτη μέλη.

  Auke Zijlstra (NI). - Voorzitter, de lidstaten zijn niet alleen door het Verdrag van Lissabon, maar ook door aparte financiële overeenkomsten gebonden. Staatsrechtelijk is dit een onduidelijke situatie en de rapporteur stelt dit terecht aan de orde.

Maar de tegenvoorstellen van de rapporteur maken het probleem alleen maar groter. Zo stelt hij bijvoorbeeld dat dit Parlement voortaan het bestuur van de Europese Centrale Bank moet benoemen. Daarmee wordt de Europese Centrale Bank definitief een politiek instituut. Voorzitter, monetair beleid is geen politiek speeltje, maar een cruciaal technisch onderdeel van onze economie.

Ook het voorstel om het Europees Parlement voortaan zelf Verdragswijzigingen te laten goedkeuren is in strijd met de soevereine positie van de lidstaten. Het Europees Parlement is een dienaar van het Verdrag en niet zijn meester. Mijn partij kan dit voorstel dan ook niet goedkeuren. Ik vind het verontrustend dat nu zelfs de Commissie constitutionele zaken het Verdrag negeert. Waar is de burger en waar is de rechtsstaat in deze discussie?

  Carlo Casini (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, anch'io ho il dovere e il piacere di ringraziare i relatori e di lodare il loro lavoro, ottimo, che ha ottenuto il risultato quasi di unanimità di consensi all'interno della commissione – soltanto tre membri della commissione hanno votato contro – ed è auspicabile che nel voto di domani una quasi unanimità si ripeta.

Devo dire che l'apprezzamento che faccio a questa relazione è che si tratta in realtà di un trattato vero e proprio – un piccolo trattato – che in modo esatto, minuzioso, spiega quali sono i vari livelli di governance finora raggiunti, ma soprattutto che dà un'indicazione chiara sulla direzione verso la quale camminiamo.

Non bisogna mai dimenticare che il trattato di Lisbona si autodefinisce come una tappa e la tappa suppone un traguardo. Allora, la valutazione di ciò che è accaduto e che sta accadendo va misurata in ordine al traguardo. È chiaro che se il traguardo è soltanto il benessere di un singolo paese che si può trarre dall'appartenere ad una comunità economica ci possono essere critiche, ma se invece il traguardo è quello grandioso del più grande progetto politico di tutti i tempi, quello di un'Europa unita, non più insanguinata dalla morte dei suoi figli, ma divenuta un continente pacificato e pacificatore nel mondo, allora il discorso cambia.

Allora, la governance multilivello ha un significato diverso, non è più il segno di una decomposizione incipiente, ma è il segno di una costruzione in atto, secondo un progetto iniziale nel quale si raggiungono volta per volta livelli diversi. Ecco perché hanno ragione i relatori i quali descrivono positivamente l'attuale situazione di governance a vari livelli – e la descrivono tutti quanti con molta precisione – ma hanno ragione anche quando dicono che bisogna evitare decisioni e strutture nuove le quali possono rallentare la costruzione, possono decomporla, possono toglierle armonia.

In questo senso credo che sia totalmente da condividere la relazione che essi hanno presentato e li ringrazio di nuovo.

  Pervenche Berès (S&D). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, nous sommes devant un rapport qui nous met en perspective pour les travaux futurs, s'agissant du chemin vers une véritable union économique et monétaire et, au fond, de savoir comment organiser la différenciation pour y parvenir. À ce sujet, je voudrais faire trois observations.

La première, c'est que, dès le mois de décembre 2011, nous indiquions que, s'agissant de nos propres structures, elles devraient évoluer pour s'adapter à l'évolution des conditions de gouvernance, notamment de la zone euro. Il me semble que, depuis, nous avons beaucoup progressé. Ceux qui prétendent défendre la méthode communautaire sans en tenir compte dans l'organisation de nos travaux font fausse route car, en n'adaptant pas nos structures d'organisation de travail autour de l'évolution des pouvoirs et des devoirs au sein de la zone euro, nous nous mettons hors circuit. Nous nous enfermons dans une seule logique du marché intérieur qui déligitime cette Maison pour être l'organe de la méthode communautaire au sein de la zone euro.

Donc, plaider pour la méthode communautaire, ce doit être plaider pour l'organisation de notre Parlement européen dans une structuration momentanée autour des enjeux de la zone euro. Nous avions un accord avec M. Andrew Duff, y compris sur cette approche, je ne comprends pas le sens de son amendement.

Sur la question du pacte euro plus, très franchement, ce pacte n'est pas démocratique et ne correspond pas à la vision que nous avons de l'avenir de la politique économique de l'Union. Le simple fait de l'intégrer dans les traités n'en fera un élément ni démocratique ni pertinent pour la politique économique que nous voulons mener. Franchement, je ne comprends pas pourquoi nous demandons cette intégration dans les traités.

Troisièmement, il n'y aura pas de différenciation raisonnable et efficace, il n'y aura pas d'union économique et monétaire véritable si nous ne construisons pas ce cinquième pilier en faveur de l'Europe sociale pour lequel notre Parlement européen s'est prononcé à une forte majorité.

  Zdravka Bušić (PPE). - Gospodine predsjedniče, pozdravljam izvješće kolega Gualtierija i Trzaskowskog i ovo je jako ambiciozan dokument. U svjetlu toga citirala bi kolegu Trzaskowskog: „Europa se sve više mora baviti velikim stvarima, a sve manje malim stvarima.”

Ovo izvješće definitivno odražava to stajalište. Od iznimne je važnosti održati europski pravni put, a to se može jedino i samo diferencijacijom. Nužno je naime diferencirano postupanje prema različitim zemljama, ali uvijek uz proporcionalni učinak. Jer kako bi opstao, europski pravni put, prije svega mora biti dosljedan, a dosljednosti prethode obvezujuće mjere za sve i, naravno, obostrana odgovornost.

Različite zemlje različito napreduju, svaka ima svoj specifičan put, ali ipak bi se sve trebale sresti na onom zajedničkom, europskom. Jedan diferencirani sustav će gotovo sigurno imati i pozitivan učinak na participaciju svojih građana što trenutno predstavlja veliki problem Europi. Predstavljenost je jedan od najvažnijih temelja demokracije i zato smo mi zastupnici u svakom trenutku dužni brinuti o slici, rekla bih i o snazi ovog našeg doma gdje zasjedamo.

Europski parlament je jedino izabrano tijelo Europske unije i kao takvom mu se uvijek trebaju dati pripadajuće ovlasti u odnosu na druga tijela. Ali sama diferencijacija nikada ne smije postati cilj. Ona je zamišljena isključivo kao sredstvo i kao takva mora ostati sredstvo za više ujedinjenosti, sredstvo za više europske dodane vrijednosti i u konačnici sredstvo za više Europe.

  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). - Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, stimați colegi, acest raport se referă la structura instituțională a Uniunii și la politica sa economică și monetară, trasând practic liniile generale pentru următorul legislativ și viitoarea Comisie.

În contextul în care rata șomajului atinge în anumite state 26%, cred că este imperativă consolidarea dimensiunii sociale a uniunii economice și monetare prin intermediul unui pact și al unui pilon social. De aceea, politicile economice pe care le punem în practică trebuie să urmărească nu doar îmbunătățirea competitivității, ci și ocuparea forței de muncă și asigurarea unei protecții sociale adecvate, așa cum este amintit în tratat.

În același timp, acțiunile troicii care nu au îndeplinit rezultatele scontate și au provocat deseori o creștere a datoriilor publice, a șomajului și a neliniștii sociale nu pot să rămână în afara controlului democratic. Parlamentul European trebuie să supravegheze comitetul tripartit, în calitatea sa de reprezentant al cetățenilor.

  Paulo Rangel (PPE). - Senhor Presidente, eu devo dizer que este relatório é um relatório com muito interesse, não tanto e não apenas pelas soluções que apresenta mas, mais do que isso, por ser um roteiro dos problemas que nós temos de resolver no quadro da governação multinível, não tanto no âmbito, como aqui aliás se explica muito bem, da relação com as autoridades nacionais, portanto, não é tanto a divisão entre os diferentes níveis europeu, regional e até nacional da União Europeia, mas é justamente a capacidade de ter uma integração diferenciada, como é que nós devemos essencialmente tratar esta questão.

E aqui de facto julgo que há um roteiro muito interessante, nomeadamente no que diz respeito às questões económicas, às questões orçamentais, às questões fiscais e até, como se disse, às questões sociais. Há aspetos onde até esta lógica pode ser muito bem integrada. Nós falamos aqui hoje de manhã sobre a questão da política de defesa e de segurança comum, pois a ideia da integração diferenciada tem aí um grande potencial e deve também ser aí aplicada. Portanto, há aqui uma matriz comum.

Dois pontos que gostaria, no entanto, de chamar a atenção: o primeiro é que tenho uma certa desilusão quanto à ideia de não fazer do Eurogrupo um Conselho verdadeiramente formal no contexto da União Europeia. Penso que era importante fazer, desde já, essa aproximação e dar depois a tradução consequente no Parlamento Europeu e há outro aspeto, que está aqui bem sublinhado, mas que acho que é muito importante deixar claro, é que, para nós, a ideia de uma governação com integração diferenciada não é um objetivo, é um instrumento.

O objetivo da União Europeia é que todos os Estados estejam plenamente integrados e à mesma velocidade. Apenas se garante a integração diferenciada para não afastar certos Estados, mas que nós devemos manter os incentivos para uma integração plena em todos os instrumentos da União aos 28 Estados e não, portanto, aceitarmos pura e simplesmente, a ideia de uma integração em diferentes velocidades ou de uma integração diferenciada.

O risco de um relatório destes, que é altamente útil, é justamente alguém perceber o contrário, perceber que nós queremos integrações diferenciadas, quando o que nós queremos é integração diferenciada como um caminho para a integração plena.

  Sandra Petrović Jakovina (S&D). - Gospodine predsjedniče, prije svega želim čestitati suizvjestiteljima na dobro obavljenom poslu. Postoji sklonost tumačenju da Europska unija sa svojim institucijama nije dovoljno učinkovita zato što u njoj nisu samo zemlje koje su u eurozoni pa je potrebna dodatna uključenost institucija. Europski je parlament, kao jedna od institucija, parlament svih 28 zemalja članica, a jednako tako i građana svih 28 zemalja, te ne može donositi odluke koje se tiču isključivo eurozone. Potrebno je pomiriti načela diferencijacije i integracije na način pronalaženja najboljeg mogućeg rješenja, potrebno je odlučiti da li ćemo na jednaki način pristupati jednakim situacijama, odnosno na nejednaki način rješavati nejednake situacije. Mi želimo stvoriti integriranu Europu.

Članak 136. Ugovora o EU-u daje osnovu suradnji i fleksibilnosti. Pored navedenog, potrebno je posvetiti pozornost održivosti socijalne Europske unije u dugoročnoj perspektivi, kao i jačanju socijalne dimenzije EMU-a kroz socijalni pakt, te izgradnjom socijalnog pilara, naglašavajući da su politika zapošljavanja i socijalna politika stvarne politike Europske unije.

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

  Miroslav Mikolášik (PPE) - Som presvedčený, že v správe Hospodárskej a menovej Únie jednoznačne chýba dostatočná demokratická legitimita, keďže v mnohých oblastiach je doslova obchádzaný inštitucionálny rámec.

Zakladajúce zmluvy od vstupu v účinnosť Lisabonskej zmluvy vytvárajú značný priestor na posilnenie demokratického rozhodovania. Napriek tomu sú tieto možnosti málo využívané, a tak v mnohých kľúčových, hospodárskych a menových oblastiach vôbec neexistuje parlamentná kontrola.

Tento demokratický deficit musíme bezodkladne napraviť, pokiaľ nechceme prispieť k prudkému nárastu často oprávneného euroskepticizmu po celej Európe. Správne fungovanie hospodárskej a menovej politiky musí totiž prinášať právnu istotu všetkým aktérom a brať do úvahy sociálne dôsledky hospodárskych opatrení. Fragmentáciu a uzatváranie medzivládnych dohôd považujem na tomto stupni integrácie za veľmi nežiaduce.

  Nikola Vuljanić (GUE/NGL). - Gospodine predsjedniče, temeljni problem koji se nameće objektivnom promatraču na ovu temu je nepoštivanje odluka Europskog parlamenta u kojem sjede izabrani zastupnici, dakle oni koje su građani Europe izabrali od strane Vijeća u kojem sjede imenovani zastupnici. U Vijeću naravno vrijedi logika jačega, a konsenzusom se ta logika, za divno čudo, još pojačava.

Osim ove teme htio bih u ovoj kratkoj minuti spomenuti temu monetarne unije koja je obuhvaćena izvješćem. Jasno je da je euro valuta koja će doći do svih zemalja članica, osim onih koje imaju izuzeće od toga. I ovdje se pokazuje da nismo baš svi sasvim ravnopravni, neki su po Georgeu Orwellu ipak malo ravnopravniji. Euro će dakle osiromašiti građane kad pretvorite plaće koje dobivaju...

(predsjednik je prekinuo govornika).

  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, in paragraph 13 the rapporteurs express their dislike of Member States excluding themselves from treaties or legislation from the outset, and would prefer legislation to allow for derogations later. This effectively makes the default position that all treaties and legislation should apply to all Member States unless they negotiate an opt-out and only, of course, for as long as they retain it.

However, the express disapproval of derogations is intended to make them an exceptional and shameful procedure for which Member States should feel properly contrite. This means that agreements and legislation concerning the euro and instruments to serve it will apply to Britain and other non-euro countries unless they and Britain ask for a derogation: in other words, control of our economy unless the government asks for an opt-out. This would allow Member State governments that are indolent, or perhaps less eurosceptic than they pretend to be, to extend the EU’s control…

(The President cut off the speaker)

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

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, Mr Leinen described the crisis as dynamite to many well-established policies in the European Union and it is true that the crisis was and still is very difficult for our citizens and the EU as a whole. We had to overhaul economic governance systems completely, we had to use crisis management tools very often and on many occasions we really had to act very quickly.

I think that you would all agree that very often we also observed quite strong temptations from the Member States to use preferably intergovernmental methods, an intergovernmental approach.

To be completely honest, sometimes that was the only way decisions could be adopted, especially when the decision was very pressing and had to be done at very short notice.

I am afraid that it looks as though this would again be the preferred approach when it comes to the single resolution fund, because after yesterdayʼs discussion it seems that the compromise, if agreed next week, would imply establishing national compartments in the resolution fund for the transition phase, with these accumulated contributions from the national banking sectors being progressively mutualised.

At the end of the ten-year build-up phase, the national compartments would disappear and all would contribute equally to any resolution operation.

And I think that, despite this, we also have to emphasise the fact that in the last crisis years we have learned that the Community method is clearly preferable to the intergovernmental one, because it reflects the Union diversity better, it takes more account of differences between big and small Member States, north and south Member States, there is much better incorporated expression of the will of the citizens through the directly elected representatives in this Parliament and it gives the truly Communitarian European institutions, both Parliament and the Commission, the appropriate role.

Therefore this is always always a starting point for the Commission and it is always a reference point for presenting proposals or indeed the ultimate goal, where we would like to see cooperation, even if set up on an intergovernmental basis, ultimately transformed and changed. It is, I think, our common task as it was on many previous occasions; as I am sure it would be with the overall construction of the banking union.

With our President, dear Miguel Ángel, we have already seen in COSAC, in the Article 13 Conference, in our interparliamentary dialogues, renewed interest by the national parliaments in European efforts, in European cooperation. This is good because it enhances ownership of EU decisions and it brings better information to the national parliaments, but what is very important and what has very often to be stressed is that at the same time we have to respect our prerogatives.

What should be dealt with at European level, what should be deal with at national level? We have to do this in full respect of institutional laws which are different, and in full respect of the appropriate balance. If something was started as intergovernmental, then I think that later on we have to explore all possibilities as to how to get it on to a strong European Communitarian platform.

If you will allow me, I will conclude on the specific question posed by Mr Hughes, who was calling for a Green Paper on the EU-level automatic stabilisers. I think this is a very important question and as such it was already discussed in the blueprint on EMU and also in the communication on the social dimension of EMU. From our analyses, our bottom line is that such measures could only be envisaged in the much longer term as this would require significant treaty changes to the current EU competencies in this area, which are quite limited. But it is an idea that is worth exploring further.

However for now I think that we need to focus on what we can achieve in the intermediate term, meaning the convergence and competitive instruments especially, and explore all the possibilities we have with our current competencies and in the framework of the current Treaties.

  Roberto Gualtieri, relatore. − Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, in questo dibattito sono emersi molti spunti, molti contributi importanti, anche alcune osservazioni critiche rilevanti e mi è impossibile in questo poco tempo rispondere a tutti.

Tuttavia, volevo seguire un filo di ragionamento partendo proprio dall'osservazione giusta dell'onorevole Rangel, che sottolinea quello che in realtà è proprio l'obiettivo della relazione. Non quello di parlare di integrazione differenziata come fine, ma quello di sottolineare che essa è un mezzo, un mezzo reso necessario dall'attuale condizione di asimmetria tra eurozona e Unione, peraltro temporanea tranne che per il momento per alcuni Stati knocked out, ma che tuttavia l'obiettivo e la filosofia dell'integrazione differenziata come mezzo e non come fine che noi proponiamo è quella appunto di uno strumento per salvaguardare l'unità dell'Unione e per consentire che questa integrazione, questa costruzione di una governance dell'eurozona poggi sulle istituzioni dell'Unione e quindi sia democraticamente legittimata.

Anche per questo, nelle varie procedure che noi indichiamo e individuiamo, quella richiamata dall'onorevole Scholz della cooperazione rafforzata è solo l'ultima in ordine di priorità. Noi crediamo che occorra sempre cercare di partire da atti giuridici di carattere generale in cui magari inserire deroghe che sono previste storicamente e giuridicamente dall'assetto dell'Unione, eventualmente passare all'articolo 136 e solo come ultima ratio arrivare alla cooperazione rafforzata, appunto in coerenza con questa filosofia di una differenziazione fondata sull'unità.

Naturalmente sono emerse alcune sensibilità diverse soprattutto su un punto politico di fondo, quello del Parlamento della sua eventuale differenziazione, in particolare l'onorevole Goulard, portavoce, diciamo così, di un orientamento che punta a considerare come lei ha detto, legittimo quello di un'istituzionalizzazione dell'eurozona.

Io invece continuo a pensare che solo facendo leva sulle istituzioni attuali e non arretrando sul carattere del Parlamento di rappresentante di tutti i cittadini, si potrà dare un'adeguata risposta in termini di legittimazione democratica e che la strada della differenziazione interna al Parlamento, oltre a questo Parlamento, un eventuale nuovo Parlamento, non porti molto lontano e peraltro porti in una direzione che è diversa da quella che attualmente stiamo percorrendo.

Se si pensa che sull'SSM sia accettato il principio del voto che oggi abbiamo tenuto, un voto di consenso del Parlamento sul vertice di un'istituzione di una funzione che non riguarda tutti i paesi dell'Unione, ma questo voto vincolante è stato ottenuto da tutti i parlamentari, si comprende come in realtà su questa strada già si sono compiuti dei passi avanti e quindi credo che questa relazione insieme con altre molte indicazioni costituisca un contributo importante a tenere questa linea, che è l'unica credo che ci possa portare con coerenza a seguire un filo conduttore tra la differenziazione necessaria di oggi e l'unità possibile di domani.

  György Schöpflin, deputising for the rapporteur. − Mr President, I would like to echo Roberto Gualtieri. This has been an extremely interesting debate and there are a number of points that I have taken from it. I think the point regarding the complex relationship between unity and differentiation, as raised in the report, is a central one. Where the boundary between the two should lie is always difficult to establish and I think the report does offer some clear signposts. The difficulty, of course, lies in the political implications of where we draw that particular boundary.

The second point I want to make is that a very strong argument has been made by a number of speakers in this afternoon’s debate in support of social benchmarks, the general social issue to accompany the economic and fiscal ones. I think it is very hard to disagree with this when unemployment is as high as it is in so many states of Europe.

A third point struck me as being of considerable significance – I think I made it myself at the outset – namely that the democratic legitimacy of whatever we propose is the sine qua non of all development. We have to confront this issue and I think we have to do it effectively. We have to think further about what the most effective mechanisms in this respect actually are.

Finally, on the issue of treaty change, which has come up several times – various speakers have mentioned it – there has to be considerable support for a move in this direction. Many of the changes discussed today necessitate treaty change and I would like to add that a properly organised convention could itself contribute to overcoming the legitimacy deficit.

  El Presidente. − Se cierra el debate.

La votación tendrá lugar mañana jueves 12 de diciembre de 2013.

Elnökváltás: SURJÁN LÁSZLÓ
Alelnök