Sanatarkat istuntoselostukset

Tiistai 21. lokakuuta 2014 - Strasbourg

12. Yleiskatsaus Barroson toisen komission toimintaan (keskustelu)

  Der Präsident. - Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung des Präsidenten der Kommission zur Bilanz der Kommission Barroso II (2014/2812(RSP)).

Ich weise die Mitglieder darauf hin, dass bei dieser Aussprache kein Catch-the-eye-Verfahren vorgesehen ist und dass ich keine blue cards annehmen werde.

Zunächst einmal darf ich den Präsidenten der Kommission und seine Damen und Herren Mitglieder der bisherigen Kommission herzlich hier im Hause begrüßen.

(Beifall)

Herr Kommissionspräsident, meine Damen und Herren Mitglieder der Kommission! Das ist heute die letzte Sitzung, bei der dieses Parlament mit Ihnen als der amtierenden Kommission zusammenkommen wird. Ich gehe einmal davon aus, dass es die letzte ist. Das werden wir ja morgen Mittag besser wissen. Aber aus jetziger Sicht würde ich annehmen, es gibt eine leichte Tendenz dazu, sagen zu können, es ist die letzte Sitzung dieses Kollegiums. Ich nutze deshalb die Gelegenheit, Sie noch einmal herzlich willkommen zu heißen und Ihnen zu sagen, dass die Zusammenarbeit zwischen einem Parlament und einer Exekutive immer von großen Spannungen geprägt ist. Das muss auch so sein. Ich will Ihnen aber als Kollegium vorab den Dank des Europäischen Parlaments aussprechen für die sicher nicht immer leichte, aber von einem gemeinsamen Geist getragene Zusammenarbeit. Vielen Dank, meine Damen und Herren!

Bevor ich dem Präsidenten der EU-Kommission das Wort erteile, hat sich Herr Abgeordneter Lucke gemeldet – ich nehme an zur Geschäftsordnung.

  Bernd Lucke (ECR). - Herr Präsident! Auf der Tagesordnung steht der Abschlussbericht der II. Barroso-Kommission. Unter diesem Tagesordnungspunkt wird sicherlich die Kommission eine Art Rechenschaft über ihre Amtsführung in den letzten fünf Jahren ablegen. Ich möchte Sie auf Artikel 17 Absatz 1 des EU-Vertrages aufmerksam machen, der im Wesentlichen besagt, dass die Kommission die Hüterin der Verträge ist. Die Kommission steht aber unter massiver Kritik, weil sie den Bruch von Artikel 125 des AEU-Vertrages – der Nichtbeistandsklausel – und von Artikel 21 des AEU-Vertrages – des Verbots der monetären Staatsverschuldung – geduldet und sogar gefördert habe.

Angesichts der Bedeutung dieser Angelegenheiten ist es völlig unangemessen, heute nur die Fraktionsvorsitzenden zu Wort kommen zu lassen. Das Europäische Parlament muss die Unverletzlichkeit der Verträge ernst nehmen und deshalb eine ausführliche Debatte dazu führen können. Ich bitte deshalb darum, die Debatte so zu gestalten, dass auch einfache Abgeordnete dazu Stellung nehmen können, denn auch sie sind die gewählten Vertreter ihres Volkes.

  José Manuel Barroso, President of the Commission. - Mr President, first of all I would like to thank you for the invitation to address this Parliament at what I think will be the last time I have this opportunity. In fact, now we are coming to the end of my second mandate as President of the Commission, and I am very happy to be here with you and my colleagues, to present to you our bilan, and of course, since this is my second Commission, I think I can also refer to the last 10 years. This time I did not bring a written speech. There will be a testimony online, a text I have prepared, and that is going to be distributed to all those of you who would like a copy, together with the main documents of the Commission over these last 10 years. I thought that instead of reading a speech to you, I would share with you my feelings, my emotions, on what I think about the way the European Union has responded to these very challenging times and what I think are the most important challenges for the future.

First of all, I think you can agree that these have been exceptional and challenging times. Ten years: ten years of crises and the response of the European Union to those crises. Not only the financial and sovereign debt crisis, but let us not forget that at the beginning of my first mandate we had the constitutional crisis, when two founding Members of the European Union rejected, in referenda, the Constitutional Treaty. So we had a constitutional crisis, we had a sovereign debt and financial crisis and we had several geopolitical crises – but in most acute terms now with the crisis between Russia and Ukraine.

The constitutional crisis we had was in fact solved through the Lisbon Treaty. The reality is that at that time many people, some of whom we know, were saying that it would be impossible for the European Union to find a new institutional setting, and there were moments of ambiguity and doubt; but basically we were able to keep most of the acquis of the European Union, including most of the new elements of the Constitutional Treaty, with the Lisbon Treaty that was ratified by all Member States, including those that today seem to have forgotten that they have ratified the Lisbon Treaty.

More recently – because I want to leave to the end the economic issues, because they are still with us – we had the very serious challenge and threat to our stability, stability in Europe, coming from the unacceptable behaviour of Russia regarding Ukraine. We took a principled position. We offered Ukraine an association agreement and a free trade agreement and in fact I am happy that, despite all the difficulties, Ukraine was there signing and ratifying the association agreement. I want to congratulate this Parliament, because on the same day, at the same hour, that the parliament in Ukraine was ratifying this agreement you were also ratifying the agreement, showing that you can offer hope to Ukraine as part of the European family of nations.

Now as I am speaking to you, this crisis is not yet solved. We know that, but I think we can be proud that we have kept a position of principle, that we have condemned in the most unequivocal terms the actions of Russia, and that in fact there was an association agreement ratified; not only in Ukraine but also with Georgia and Moldova. I believe we have a duty to those countries that are looking to Europe with the hope of sharing with us the same future and also because they want to share with us the same values.

At this moment we are still mediating – today in Brussels there is a meeting mediated by the Commission on Energy – with the Russian Government and the Ukrainian Government. We believe a politically-negotiated solution is possible, we are working for that, we believe it is in the interests of all the parties to have a political agreement, but a political agreement that respects the principles of international law, that respects the right of a country that is our neighbour to decide its own future and that respects the sovereignty and independence of that country. I think we should be proud of what we have been doing in this very challenging geopolitical crisis.

We also had the financial and sovereign debt crisis. The reality is that the crisis was not born in Europe, but the fact is that because we were not prepared, because the euro area did not yet have the instruments, we were very much affected by it, not only in financial terms but in economic terms, in social terms and I would say also in political terms. I think this crisis was probably the biggest since the beginning of the European integration process in the 1950s.

Let us now put things in perspective. Let us remind ourselves what was the main opinion of most analysts in the economic and financial media, or even in many of our countries or outside of Europe, as to what could happen. Everybody was predicting a Greek exit, Greece exiting the euro, and of course that Greece exiting the euro would have immediate cascading effects on other countries, a domino effect that was indeed already felt in countries like Ireland or Portugal. But let us not forget. Spain was also under very heavy pressure and Italy too. We were on the edge of the abyss. I remember well what happened in discussions in the margins of the G20 in Cannes in 2011. I remember well when the analysts were almost unanimously predicting a Greek exit and at least 50% of them were predicting the implosion of the euro. And what happened? Not only was there no exit from the euro: now we are going to welcome the 19th member of the euro and Lithuania will join us on 1 January 2015. Not only did Greece not leave the euro: the euro area has enlarged and the European Union has been enlarging as well. That is a point which I think is very much underestimated in our analysis. In 2004, the year I had the pleasure and the honour of assuming the leadership of the Commission, do you remember how many we were? We were 15. Today we are 28 countries, so we have almost doubled the membership of the European Union during all these crises. Is there a better proof of our Union’s resilience and capacity to adapt? I think the fact that we were able to remain united and open during the crisis confirms the extraordinary resilience and strength of the European Union. This should not be underestimated. I know that for some this does not count for much. In a way they are idealising the past. They probably dream of a cosy Europe. They think Europe was better when half of Europe was under totalitarian Communism. I do not think that. I think Europe today is better than when half of Europe was under Communism.

(Applause)

I think that the fact that, even during all these crises, the European Union was able to open, consolidate and unite on a continental scale almost the whole of Europe around the values of peace, freedom and justice is a great thing. We should commemorate it and not be ashamed of it as some seem to be. I think this is also a reason to commemorate. Many people predicted – like those of you who were following these issues at that time – that the Commission would not be able to function and that it would be impossible. They were saying that at 25, 27 or 28 the European Union would be blocked. The reality is that the European Union was not blocked by the enlargement. I can share the reality with you now. Sometimes it was more difficult to put together some of the core members of the Union than all the 28 countries of Europe.

So I think we should be proud of that as well – collectively – because the European Union was able to remain united and open during the crisis. When I say open I mean it in all senses, including having an open attitude towards the world. For instance, after the failure of the Doha Development Round and the global trade talks, we promoted a proactive trade agenda and we are now leading in that sense. I believe that trade can be one of the best ways to support growth globally and in the European Union. We – because it was the initiative of the European Union – went to the United States, to the former President of the United States of America, inviting him – indeed, convincing him – to organise the first G20 meeting at Head of State and Government level because that was a means of taking a cooperative global approach and avoiding a return to ugly and nasty protectionism, which could be a temptation in times of crisis. We were able to keep Europe not only united and in fact enlarging its membership, but also open to the rest of the world.

But now we can ask, are we stronger or weaker? I know that most people today, on the critical side, will say that we are weaker. But are we really? In fact, when the crisis erupted, we had almost no instruments with which to respond to it. We were facing – as was said at that time – an unprecedented crisis. For instance, we had no mechanisms to support the countries facing the immediate threat of default. What did we do? We collectively – the Commission and Member States, and always with the strong support of the Parliament, I have to say – created a new system of governance. Today we have a much stronger governance system than before, including with unprecedented powers for the Community institutions.

We have done everything to keep the Community method at the centre of our integration. For instance, the Commission today has more powers, in terms of governance of the eurozone, than before the crisis. The European Central Bank today has the possibility to directly supervise the banks in Europe, something that would have been considered impossible, almost unimaginable, before the crisis. I remember, when we spoke about banking union and when I gave an interview saying that we need a banking union, I received some phone calls from capitals asking ‘why are you speaking about banking union? This is not in the Treaties’. I responded that it was not in the Treaties, but that we needed it if we wanted to fulfil the objectives of the Treaties, namely the objective of stability for growth – and today we have a banking union.

So, if we look at things in perspective and we think where we were ten years ago compared to where we are now, we can say with full rigour and in complete observance of the truth that today the European Union, at least in the euro area, is more integrated, has reinforced its competence and that we now have, through the Community method, more ways to tackle crises, particularly in the eurozone. Not only the system of governance in the banking union, but legislation on financial stability, financial regulation and financial supervision that we have presented – around 30 new pieces of legislation that were all approved by the Parliament. Once again I want to thank you, because in almost all those debates Parliament and the Commission were on the same side of the debate for more ambition – not less – for Europe. So today I can say that we are stronger because we have a more integrated system of governance, we have legislation to tackle abuses in the financial markets and we have a much clearer system of supervision and regulation.

I think we are now better prepared than we were before to face crisis, if crises like the ones we have seen come in the future. Of course you can say, ‘but there are still many difficulties’. Yes, and I am going to say a word about this in a moment, regarding the prospects for growth, but please do not forget where we were. We were very close to the default – a less polite word would be bankruptcy – of some of our Member States, and look at where we are now. Out of the countries that had to ask for adjustment programmes, Portugal and Ireland have exited the problem successfully – Ireland is now one of the fastest growing countries in Europe – and in fact all the others that were under the imminent threat of collapsing are now in a much more stable mood. Spain has asked for a programme for its banks to also exit the programme successfully.

So in fact only two countries out of all those – because we should not forget that the Central and Eastern European countries also had adjustment programmes even if they were not yet in the EU area – are still completing their adjustment programmes. On average, the deficits now in the eurozone are 2.5. This is much less than in the United States or Japan. In terms of stability, we are much better now than before.

The eurozone has a trade surplus. In the European Union in general we now we have a surplus in goods, in services and, for the first time in many years, in agriculture. I am saying that because very often the opinion in some political sectors is that we are losing with globalisation. This is not the case. Some countries in our Union are in fact not winning that battle but, on average, you can say that Europe is winning the global battle in terms of competition, namely in terms of trade and investment.

Of course, growth is still timid. I think that basically we cannot say that it is completely done, because threats remain. But we have won the battle of stability. Today nobody in the world will honestly bet on the end of the euro. The euro has shown that it is a very strong, credible and indeed stable currency. The reality is that our growth is still timid and clearly below expectations.

So what can we do for growth? This is the important question. For that I need to make a reminder, once again. I know very well that very often European Union policy, and mainly Commission policy, has been presented as completely focussed on austerity. I think this is a caricature. We have constantly asked at least for three important lines: fiscal consolidation, certainly, for the countries that were feeling the pressure of the markets – and it would be completely irresponsible if they could not frontload a programme of rigour to correct their poor finances – but we have always insisted with equal vigour, although probably some would not like to listen, on the need for structural reforms, for competitiveness, because the reality is that even before the crisis we were growing beneath our potential.

That is the reality: there were serious problems of lack of competitiveness in some of our countries, so that is why we did more ambitious structural reforms, but we have always argued in favour of investment. I have always said that what we need for Europe is more investment – public and private investment. Private investment will come, the more we can show that we have competitive economies and that we can attract private investment. Indeed, I am very happy to see that most of our countries, certainly at different paces, are pursuing ambitious structural reforms; strict reforms which would have been considered completely impossible before the crisis. The reality is, if we want to be honest in terms of analysis, that the countries that have suffered the most during the financial crisis were precisely those which had lost in terms of cost competitiveness before the crisis.

For instance, the reforms that have been made by Spain, by Ireland, by Portugal and by Greece are impressive and confidence is coming back precisely because of that. Apart from the fiscal consolidation and the structural reforms, we have always signalled the need for more investment: private investment, but public investment as well. You remember the debate about the MFF? President Schulz remembers, certainly. We were together in many meetings, asking the Member States to do more in terms of investment and the most important instrument we have had at European level for investment is the Multiannual Financial Framework, which is around one trillion euros. If there is not more ambitious investment, it was not because of the lack of ambition of this Commission or lack of ambition of this Parliament, it was because of the opposition of some capitals.

This is the reality: we are for solid investment, targeting investment for growth. This is the reality. Not only with the MFF. Remember the proposals that, for instance, I put forward here in the State of the Union speeches with you, the increase of capital for the EIB that was finally agreed? The project bonds that the Member States accepted but, oh yes, as pilot project bonds; the facility that we have created for SMEs with loans from the EIB and structural funds from our budget – unfortunately only two countries wanted to go along those lines. Or, for instance, the programme for a Youth Guarantee that we proposed and the Member States agreed on, but now with the Youth Employment Initiative only two countries have accepted a dedicated programme for youth employment.

So, my dear colleagues, let us be clear that we are for investment. I wish all the best to the new Commission and to my friend and colleague, Jean-Claude Juncker, that they may have the support of the Member States for a more ambitious investment programme over the next years. I believe it is possible now. I believe there is much greater awareness today on this matter. But once again, this is part of a comprehensive strategy combining fiscal consolidation with structural reforms and investment and, of course, all the measures taken by us in terms of banking union and financial regulation for stability. This is the way, and I am saying that with vigour because I think it will be our mistake, after everything we have done, to give up, to show less determination, to abandon the road of structural reforms.

I think basically we have done a part of the job: stability is broadly there, so is growth, even if it is lower than we would have liked, but now we need the determination to complete the reforms, so that we have sustainable growth, not growth fuelled by debt, excessive public debt or excessive private debt, because this debt is artificial. It is a fictional debt and sooner or later we are going to pay the price. But sustainable growth: that I believe is possible, if we continue the courageous path of reforms and stronger governance for the European Union.

I have not the time, because I respect this Parliament very much and certainly I admire your patience, to now go into all the other policies we have been developing over the years. But just let me now highlight one or two, because I think they are very much at the point of decision now, and this is important. I am extremely proud that it was my Commission in my first mandate in 2007 that put forward the most ambitious programme for climate protection in the world and that we are still leading in the world in terms of the climate agenda. In fact, we were able to join the climate agenda with the energy security agenda. I am saying this because this week we are going to have an important discussion in Brussels at Heads of State and Government level and I hope that the European Union will keep its leadership role. Not, of course, to be isolated but to be with others, because we have a responsibility towards our planet. Certainly, one of the great advances of these years is that the European Union was able to make the most important bold steps in terms of fighting climate change.

Another area where I think we could be very proud is that, in spite of all the restrictions because of the financial situation, it was possible in the MFF to get 30% more for Horizon 2020 for research and technology. I think there is a great situation now, with great opportunities for us to do more in that area, and also on the cultural side with our programme Europe Creative. So the reality is that in some areas it was possible, in spite of the economic and financial crisis, to increase investment at European level.

I am also very proud that in spite of the pressures of our budgets, we could always be there in terms of development aid and a policy for our neighbourhood. Whenever there was a big tragedy in the world, from the tsunami in Indonesia and now to the Ebola crisis, from the Syrian refugee crisis to Darfur, we were there. We were among the first. I think we Europeans should also be proud of that, because together with our Member States, the European Union is still the most important donor for development aid in the world. That is something that corresponds very much to our values and I am happy that in spite of all the crises we did not abandon our obligations in terms of development cooperation.

I have already said a word about trade. I think it is very important to keep an ambitious trade agenda, an open Europe, but for free and fair trade. The Commission has concluded a record number of agreements, with South Korea, Singapore, Central America – the first region to reach an agreement – Peru, Ecuador, recently with Canada, recently with Western Africa, Eastern Africa and Southern Africa, and I could also mention some others that are not progressing like Japan, United States and an investment agreement with China. So we are the most important trade bloc in the world. We are the biggest economy in the world. I am saying that because today I know it is very fashionable to be pessimistic and defeatist about Europe – what I call the intellectual glimmer of pessimism – but I believe that we have a good record to show and I believe that together, collectively, we are much stronger and we can better defend our interests and protect our values.

Dear colleagues – I call you colleagues because I believe we have sometimes been through discussions but we have been colleagues in this great enterprise, this European project – I think politically we have some lessons to draw.

One is that we have shown great resilience. I think we can say that the forces of integration are stronger than the forces of disintegration. I believe that, day and night, sometimes in very dramatic moments, sometimes when I have to make dramatic appeals to some capitals, to the richer countries, asking them to show more solidarity, or to the poorer countries asking them to show more responsibility. Sometimes we have done it very discreetly, it is true. The European Commission is probably more discreet than others. I did not want the Commission to be part of the cacophony of different voices during the most acute moments of the crisis. It was extremely market-sensitive, that situation. But I can tell you, in my full conscience, that we have done everything we could with existing instruments to avoid the fragmentation of the euro and to avoid division in the European Union. I very often had to call on my colleagues in the European Council, Heads of State and Government, to show the ethics of European responsibility. But one of the lessons I draw from this is that, in the end, it was possible to come to decisions. It is true that it was sometimes extremely painful and difficult and took time, and we have also said – and I think it is something we can all agree on – that democracy is slower than the markets. So the Commission would have preferred, and I am sure this Parliament as well, for decisions to be bolder, more comprehensive and faster, but we are a union of democratic states, we are not a super-state, and we have to respect different sensitivities. One of the conclusions I draw from these 10 years of experience is the need to cooperate between institutions. I know sometimes it is more popular to put forward impossible ideas and criticise others, but I firmly believe that we need to engage with different institutions and that it is not a solution to put countries in opposition to the European Union. On the contrary, we have to show our countries that they are stronger if they are part of the European Union; that we are not diluting their national identity but on the contrary that we are asking them to share their sovereignty so that they can better project their interests globally. I am fully convinced of this. I am saying this to you now. I am leaving in some days, and my only interest is that these lessons be learned, so that we do not repeat the same mistakes in the future. At the same time I think we can say that it is not through confrontation, but through cooperation that we can attain the objectives.

At the moment I am preparing to hand over this very challenging and interesting job to my good friend, Jean-Claude Juncker. I want to say here, on behalf of myself and all my colleagues at the Commission, that we wish the new Commission all the best. They have, of course, a great challenge ahead of them, but they can also count on our support and I am sure on the support that this Parliament is going to give to them.

Mr President, relations were not always perfect but I think you can agree that we were able to establish a cooperative relationship between Parliament and the Commission. I have been to this Parliament over 100 times. No Commission was ever so often in Parliament as my two Commissions. We have established this cooperation and I am so grateful, because this Parliament sometimes has very – shall we say – strong demands, but it has always supported the Community method. It always supported the Community institutions and I believe this is very important for the future of Europe.

My dear colleagues of the European project, the way to solve the problems we have in Europe is not through revolution and even less through counter revolution. It is by compromise, it is by reform: evolution and reform. We have to reform to adapt to new challenges, but not with new clashes between the institutions, not with clashes amongst our countries. I believe that if this idea of strong cooperation, of putting the European common good first, is pursued, then my colleague and friend, Jean-Claude Juncker, and his new Commission will have success – based, of course, on the support that I am sure you are going to give them. Because – and this is my last time and also my last comment – the European Union is a Union of values. In these last days I have had to face many journalists and they have asked me, ‘What was your most emotional moment? Which moment did you prefer?’ I have many. I also had very difficult ones, to be honest. But one of my most emotional moments was when, on behalf of the European Union, together with Martin Schulz and with the President of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, we received the Nobel Peace Prize for the European Union.

(Applause)

I think this was a powerful reminder, sent to us from the global community, that we count in the world and that what we do is very important; that the values that were at the origin of the creation of our Union, namely the values of peace, are still of the essence today and that we have to fight for them. This is the moment I really said I want to share with all those in the different institutions, including this Parliament, who have been working for a united, open and stronger Europe. When I leave this office, with all my colleagues from the Commission, I can tell you we have not achieved everything we could or everything we would have liked to have achieved, but I think we have worked with the right conscience, putting the global interests of the European Union above specific interests, and I believe that now there are conditions to continue working for a united, open and stronger Europe.

Thank you for your attention. Auf wiedersehen! Goodbye! Au revoir! Adeus, muito obrigado!

(Sustained applause)

  Manfred Weber, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Kommissionspräsident, liebe Kommissare, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es ist eine Woche der Weichenstellungen für die Europäische Union: morgen eine neue Kommission und heute der Tag des Abschieds von den Kolleginnen und Kollegen, mit denen wir als Parlamentarier die letzten Jahre arbeiten durften. Deswegen freut mich, dass meine Fraktion präsent ist und wir diesen Tag heute auch würdig begehen. Ich möchte als Vorsitzender der EVP-Fraktion dem Kommissionspräsidenten danke sagen, aber auch allen anderen Kommissarinnen und Kommissaren, die die letzten fünf Jahre ihre Arbeitskraft, ihre Überzeugung und ihre Begeisterung für unsere gemeinsame Sache eingebracht haben. Ein herzliches Dankeschön!

(Beifall)

José Manuel Barroso hat auf 10 Jahre zurückgeblickt. Wenn ich zunächst einmal persönlich beginnen darf, dann darf ich darauf verweisen, dass ich vor zehn Jahren frisch gewählter Abgeordneter in diesem Parlament war. Ich habe den damaligen neugewählten Kommissionspräsidenten in diesen Jahren als einen überzeugten, starken Europäer kennengelernt, der vollen Einsatz bringt, der für seine Sache brennt, der Antreiber ist, der Respekt hat vor uns, der Europäischen Kammer, dem Europäischen Parlament, und der vor allem dabei Mensch ist, mit allen redet, auf alle zugeht, egal ob Funktionsträger oder nicht.

Insofern hatten wir einen guten Kommissionspräsidenten, der seiner Aufgabe gerecht geworden ist. Die Bilanz ist beeindruckend. Wir haben heute von José Manuel Barroso einige Daten gehört. Der Start am Anfang, die Chance, die Frage, ob das mit der Osterweiterung, mit der Wiedervereinigung Europas klappen wird im Alltagstest – es hat geklappt.

Die Verfassungsdebatte, die Europa demokratischer gemacht hat. Wir konnten dieses Jahr das Konzept der Spitzenkandidaten auf Grundlage des Vertrags von Lissabon umsetzen, Europa noch einen Schritt demokratischer machen. Europa ist Vorreiter im Klimaschutz. Wir brauchen uns auf globaler Ebene nicht zu verstecken.

Dann, in der zweiten Periode der Amtszeit Barroso, die Euro- und Finanzkrise. Vor der Krise standen die Eurostaaten alleine im Sturm der Märkte. Heute haben wir die Solidarität des ESM. Vor der Krise war schuldenbasiertes Wachstum das Zentrale auf diesem Kontinent, heute haben wir stärker nachhaltige Haushalte. Vor der Krise waren ungeregelte Finanzmärkte tätig, heute haben wir eine Bankenunion und eine starke europäische Bankenaufsicht.

Ich möchte ausdrücklich feststellen, dass diese Krisen, die wir erlebt haben, maßgeblich nicht Krisen der Europäischen Union waren, sondern maßgeblich Krisen der Mitgliedstaaten, weil dort auf nationaler Ebene Fehler gemacht worden sind. Der Rahmen, den José Manuel Barroso beschrieben hat, war die Lösung des Problems: Schluss mit den Schuldenmachen, stattdessen Stärkung der Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und mehr Investitionen.

Der Rettungsweg war richtig. Das gilt es, immer wieder zu unterstreichen. Irland, Spanien, Portugal sind zurück auf den Märkten, die Governance ist gestärkt worden, und mit Slowenien 2007, Zypern 2008, Malta 2008, der Slowakei 2009, Estland 2011 und 2014 Lettland haben viele neue Mitgliedstaaten den Euro als ihre Währung übernommen. Das zeigt, weiß Gott, den Erfolg.

Mancher hätte sich vielleicht manchmal einen lauteren, aggressiveren, einen pointierteren Kommissionspräsidenten in der öffentlichen Debatte gewünscht, auch wenn es um die Frage ging, die nationalen Mitgliedstaaten zur Räson zu rufen. Ich sage diesen Kritikern: Liebe Freunde, in der existenziellsten Krise, die wir als Europäer seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg erlebt haben, ist wahrscheinlich das Miteinander, das ehrliche Makeln, das Aufeinander zugehen, das Herausarbeiten des Teamansatzes der bessere Weg. Vielleicht weniger Showmaster und etwas mehr substanzielle Arbeit, das ist, glaube ich, der richtige Ansatz.

Es gibt viele weitere Bereiche, die man erwähnen könnte, die wichtig sind. Ich denke nur an die Polizeizusammenarbeit, weil ich selbst in diesem Bereich arbeiten durfte. Wir haben Europa in den letzten Jahren für die Bürgerinnen und Bürger auf diesem Kontinent sicherer gemacht – und viele andere Punkte. Die Krönung war dann sicher 2012 der Friedensnobelpreis, die Rede in Oslo, in der unser Kommissionspräsident die Geschichte unseres Kontinents seit dem 2. Weltkrieg beschrieben hat, und ich zitiere ihn: „Frieden ist nicht die Abwesenheit von Krieg, sondern Frieden ist eine Tugend und eine Geisteshaltung!“ Barroso hat uns allen die Geisteshaltung der Europäer in Erinnerung gerufen. Dafür dürfen wir auch dankbar sein.

Die Bilanz ist beeindruckend, und wenn ich zum Schluss zusammenfassen wollte, dann würde ich die Hauptbotschaft, die Barroso und seine Amtszeit uns hinterlassen, mit dem Hinweis zusammenfassen: Wir Europäer schaffen das. Wir Europäer können das. Wenn wir Mut haben, wenn wir kreativ sind, wenn wir zusammenhalten, dann können wir die Schicksalsstürme, die uns auch die Zukunft geben wird, mit Gelassenheit und mit Mut angehen. Ich sage herzlichen Dank im Namen der gesamten EVP-Fraktion.

(Beifall)

  Gianni Pittella, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente Barroso, sono sicuro che lei apprezzerà la schiettezza con cui mi rivolgo a lei quest'oggi. Il mio non sarà un intervento di forma, non lo meriterebbe la sua intelligenza, né la correttezza e la serietà che ha sempre dimostrato. Le dirò con franchezza che il bilancio che il mio gruppo fa della sua Commissione è un bilancio critico.

In questa stessa Aula, dieci anni fa, lei giustamente ci invitava – cito le sue parole – a non abbassare la guardia di fronte all'apatia e allo scetticismo che toccano la democrazia europea. Condividiamo insieme – diceva – la consapevolezza delle minacce populiste, non dobbiamo dare loro nuovi argomenti. Dieci anni dopo, il nostro continente sprofonda nella disoccupazione e mi spiace che lei non abbia citato questa parola, che indica la peggiore piaga che oggi noi stiamo vivendo, la mancanza di lavoro, e nella deflazione sfuma la speranza nel sogno europeo e i movimenti antieuropei mai sono stati così forte come oggi. Certo, so bene che ci sono fattori causali interni ed esterni che prescindono dalla vostra scelta. Lo so bene, però dobbiamo essere onesti nell'ammettere che ci sono stati anche dei seri errori di politica economica.

Il peccato originale si chiama austerità, in nome di una visione ideologica, si sono ridotti gli investimenti, si è tagliata la spesa produttiva, impedendo così agli Stati membri di scommettere sul loro futuro, di completare la necessaria transizione verso la società della conoscenza, e ora stiamo male. Ammettiamolo!

Paradigmatica è la vicenda della Grecia, un paese troppo spesso dimenticato, ma che è lo specchio del disagio europeo. La Grecia, improvvisamente nel 2010 vi siete resi conto che i conti greci non erano affidabili. Nessuno vuole negare le responsabilità di quel paese, ma si è tentato di forzare i greci a mettere in ordine i conti e non vi si è riusciti, ma in compenso la società greca si è sfarinata.

Ed anche sul patto di stabilità: si è insistito sulla stabilità e mai sulla crescita, mentre questo è un patto di stabilità e di crescita. I due pilastri vanno tenuti insieme. Io sono d'accordo con il collega Weber, bisogna non rinunciare alla disciplina di bilancio ma allo stesso tempo incrementare la crescita e creare nuovi posti di lavoro mentre in questi anni si è puntato soltanto al primo pilastro.

Con questo non voglio sottovalutare le cose importanti fatte dalla sua Commissione: penso ad esempio alla lotta contro il cambiamento climatico, penso alla regolamentazione finanziaria, penso alla politica commerciale, penso all'avvio di una politica industriale, penso al rigore della politica di competition, di concorrenza, e all'impulso al mercato interno europeo.

Desidero rinnovare a lei, signor Presidente Barroso, a tutti i suoi Commissari, la nostra stima e il riconoscimento dell'impegno personale che lei e i suoi colleghi Commissari hanno profuso. Tutto questo purtroppo non è bastato, ora serve un cambio di passo per salvare l'Europa prima che sia troppo tardi.

  Syed Kamall, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, the European Conservative Reformists are a Group that prefers to look forward, not back to the past. While my Group has not always seen eye-to-eye with Mr Barroso on a number of different issues, with his Commission there have been times when we have been able to find common ground. So, Mr Barroso, as you look forward to your next role may I, on behalf of our Group, wish you all the best and your Commissioners all the best for the future.

As you yourself said, your Commission has been a Commission of crises, not all of them your fault. Your first term began with an institutional crisis, after the French and the Dutch voted to reject the European Constitution. But instead of listening to the very real concerns expressed by voters in two of the founding Member States, instead of lifting your eyes from the institutional navel gazing, the Commission resurrected and repackaged the Constitution as the Lisbon Treaty, under a new guise.

Your second term was marked by a financial crisis and a banking crisis and then a currency crisis and a debt crisis. These changed the political agenda and consumed much time and energy. But despite a slew of financial regulation over the last five years, we are still in a position where some banks are considered too big to fail and we have not ended taxpayer bailouts. Given the scale of the eurozone crisis at times, it would have been better if you have could have been more open. We know you can be open. After all, you have been very open with the British people in the last few days, and in the same way that you have said what you think about freedom of movement, in the same way that you have been clear what membership of the EU entails, will you now be open with the taxpayers of Germany, the Netherlands, Finland and other richer eurozone countries about what euro membership entails?

Will you be open that the only way to sustain the eurozone in the long-term is fiscal transfers from the richer countries to the poorer economies of the eurozone, probably forever? These crises are enormous and are not over and we will have long-term consequences for years to come, but these crises are a symptom of a larger crisis, and that is dealing with global competitiveness. But there are people who are deeply worried about being left behind; left behind as leaders come to Brussels to pursue political integration; left behind as our share of the world economy shrinks; left behind as too many of the political elite look back to the past rather than forward to the future.

At times we have agreed with you on the Services Directive, free trade agreements and measures to pursue the completion of the Single Market. But it is time that we look at how we help businesses grow. Instead of creating more red tape, ask entrepreneurs what stops them from creating new jobs. Instead of environmental targets, ask companies what makes them greener and more environmentally friendly. Instead of rules which ban investors from investing outside the EU, ask them what encourages them to invest in start-ups.

So while I think it is fair to say that your Commission has not always had the chance to look forward, I also think it is fair to say that we hope that the next Commission will be in a position to sometimes take a step back, focus on the bigger picture and face the challenges of the future.

  Pavel Telička, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, first of all let me both personally and on behalf of the ALDE Group start by thanking the President of the Commission for all the efforts that he and his colleagues have put in throughout the years.

Mr Barroso, you have described to us today the track record of your Commission – in fact of your two Commissions – and, while it primarily focused on the successes with very little on the self-critical side, I would say that in general on many of the issues one would agree with you. So, once again, I offer you my thanks and appreciation.

Let me also say a few words about what might have been missing during the past two periods. It is not easy to evaluate someone from the outside. One cannot fully comprehend and understand some of the bottlenecks and difficulties you are facing – some of the information that an outsider might not have – but it is equally not easy probably for the Commission, and even for the Commission President, to comprehend the serious aspects of the issues that daily life brings to our citizens and the difficulties that we sometimes face.

In this respect, one thing that I would like to highlight – something that I really missed – is a real lack of leadership. You have mentioned a number of issues where you took the lead and where you were in contact with the Member States, but the fact is that the Commission did not always use the power of initiative sufficiently in difficult times. Sometimes the initiatives were insufficient, weak or too late. I would even say that sometimes I felt that the right of initiative lay with the capitals. Sometimes we had the feeling that it was Paris and Berlin highlighting the issues and tabling them, and the Commission was somehow in the shadows. This is one thing that we surely have missed.

Secondly, you have said rightly that we succeeded in stabilisation. That is absolutely true. You have contributed to stabilisation, but what we have not sufficiently achieved is that we did not come with growth, with structural reforms and with something that takes courage immediately after the stabilisation. We were weak on some of the policies. You mentioned climate-change policy. I could not agree more: that is important. But on industry, on energy, on the administrative burden – on some of these policies we should have done much more. That is where I would have expected the Commission to take the lead and for the rest to follow, really.

I will finish by saying that we did win the battle on stability, but we did not win the battle on reforms, growth, competitiveness or recovery. Sometimes we need less regulation, better regulation, but we need more common policies. This is where I would have expected the Commission to take a much stronger lead.

Having said that, clearly there are policies where you have succeeded. Transport is definitely one of them. I think you had a very strict and very good record on competition policy and on some others. But, all in all, these would be the critical remarks that I would have to make on behalf of the ALDE Group. We could have been more advanced and we could have dealt with some of the challenges that we face in a better way.

  Patrick Le Hyaric, au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Président Barroso, à vous entendre vous satisfaire de votre bilan de dix ans, on a du mal à comprendre pourquoi tant d'Européens ne se rendent pas compte qu'ils vivent dans le meilleur des mondes et pourquoi, désormais, ils refusent d'aller voter.

Dans votre plaidoyer, vous parlez de vous, sans cesse de vous, mais très peu de ces millions de gens qui travaillent dur, de ceux que le chômage, la pauvreté et l'austérité accablent jour après jour. En dix ans, vous avez réussi à faire haïr jusqu'à l'idée européenne elle-même, tant vous vous êtes acharné à livrer les grands secteurs publics au privé, à déréglementer le rail, l'énergie et la poste, et à porter une gestion de la monnaie unique au service quasi-exclusif de la spéculation au lieu de donner la priorité au travail et à l'investissement productif et écologique.

Non content de cela, vous avez, avec les États, réussi cet exploit de transformer des dettes privées en dettes publiques et poussé l'audace jusqu'à faire appel, pour les régler, au Fonds monétaire international et à ses thérapies de choc, dont les jeunesses et les peuples de Grèce, du Portugal, d'Irlande, d'Espagne et maintenant d'Italie et de France, subissent désormais les conséquences avec une violence inouïe.

On nous avait dit que la stratégie de Lisbonne était un échec retentissant; celle de l'Europe 2020 l'est aussi. Vous avez refusé d'inscrire tout critère de progrès social et de progrès écologique dans les grandes décisions européennes. Récemment encore, vous avez refusé le projet de revenu minimum européen, l'extension de la directive sur le congé de maternité et une vraie modification positive de la directive sur les travailleurs détachés. Non content de la mise en concurrence sauvage des travailleurs et des entreprises au sein de l'Europe, vous avez proposé d'élargir le domaine de l'exploitation avec l'activation du projet de grand marché transatlantique.

L'avenir passe par la sortie de ces choix austéritaires et régressifs qui mènent tout projet européen dans l'impasse. Il faut au contraire inventer une Europe humaniste. Il faut maintenant imaginer une politique de relance sociale, remplacer l'acharnement à faire baisser le coût du travail par une chasse au gâchis du capital et aux attaques contre l'environnement. À la rigidité de la Banque centrale européenne il faudrait opposer ce que nous avons cessé de défendre ici: un nouveau fonds pour le développement social, humain et écologique et un grand plan coopératif d'investissements, sans quoi il n'y aura pas d'avenir pour notre projet européen.

  Philippe Lamberts, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur Barroso, on vous présente souvent comme quelqu'un qui suit plutôt qu'il ne mène. Je crois, au contraire, que vous êtes quelqu'un qui est capable de décider et de faire des choix.

Le premier choix que je me souviens vous avoir vu faire, c'était en 2003, avant que vous ne soyez président de la Commission. C'était lorsque vous aviez fait le choix résolu de vous ranger aux côtés de MM. Bush, Aznar et Blair pour soutenir l'invasion de l'Iraq, mais passons! C'est de l'histoire ancienne.

Au cours de vos dix ans de mandat, vous avez fait une série de choix et j'en pointerai trois. Le premier a été de répondre à la crise, d'une part, essentiellement par la troïka et, d'autre part, par la révision de la gouvernance économique de l'Union européenne des modes d'action qui sont à la fois sourds aux inégalités, complètement insensibles aux défis écologiques et complètement aveugles à l'exigence de légitimité démocratique, le tout en plaçant à un rang suprême les droits des créanciers.

Vous avez fait aussi le choix de refuser de faire le pari que l'Union européenne reconquiert sa compétitivité et sa capacité de créer de la valeur en choisissant délibérément d'être, sur la planète, le continent qui devienne le champion du monde de la sobriété en ressources et en énergie, la seule manière pour nous de conquérir notre autonomie stratégique mais aussi notre compétitivité de manière durable.

Enfin, vous avez fait le choix de ne pas mettre un terme au chantage permanent auquel nos démocraties sont soumises, un chantage exercé par les marchés financiers, par les entreprises financières réputées trop grosses pour faire faillite et par les multinationales auxquelles, par des accords commerciaux, vous voulez donner des droits qui leur conféreraient une légitimité et une souveraineté supérieures à celles de nos démocraties.

Résultat des courses: aujourd'hui, 25 % des Européens – chiffre que j'ai souvent cité ici –, soit un Européen sur quatre, sont exposés au risque de pauvreté et d'exclusion sociale. C'est 4 % de plus qu'il y a cinq ans. Vingt-sept millions d'Européens et d'Européennes sont au chômage, sans emploi, et je ne vous parle pas des travailleurs pauvres et des sous-emplois. Ce sont trois millions de chômeurs de plus qu'il y a cinq ans. Soit dit en passant, où est la croissance? Si quelqu'un l'a vue, qu'il me le dise, je ne l'ai pas aperçue. Si quelqu'un a vu aussi une réduction de la dette publique, qu'il me le dise, elle m'a échappé. Résultat des courses: aujourd'hui, moins d'un tiers de nos concitoyens ont encore confiance dans le processus d'intégration européenne alors qu'ils étaient près de la moitié il y a cinq ans. Voilà le résultat des courses!

Alors, ce serait un mauvais procès de vous dire que c'est votre responsabilité et votre responsabilité seule. Tout le monde sait bien que ce n'est pas vrai. Néanmoins, Monsieur Barroso, j'aurais attendu de votre part que vous fassiez preuve d'une initiative beaucoup plus forte pour défendre cet article du traité de l'Union européenne qui rappelle que l'Union place au cœur de son projet la solidarité, notamment entre les générations, et la justice sociale. C'est pour cela que nos citoyens, aujourd'hui, ne font plus confiance à l'Europe, parce que cette partie-là des traités, on l'a oubliée.

J'aurais compté sur vous comme gardien des traités pour la rappeler, y compris aux chefs d'État ou de gouvernement et, y compris, de temps en temps, à la majorité de ce Parlement.

  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President. Well, Mr Barroso, for ten years we have been trading blows in this Parliament, and indeed I am the only person on today’s list of speakers who was involved ten years ago. I have found you – I have to say for the vast majority of that time – to be very civil, but often bemused by what I have had to say and by events in Europe as they have unfolded. In fact, I remember the first speech I gave. You presented your new Commission, and I pointed out to you that your nominee from France, Monsieur Jacques Barrot, was a convicted embezzler who had received a two-year suspended prison sentence and had been barred from public office. To my shock, at that moment you simply showed in your face that you had no idea that it was true, but of course it was. Perhaps that comes from your early days as an active student Maoist, when you believed in big ideas but did not perhaps have much to do with practical reality.

I have enjoyed much of what you have said over the years. Indeed, I particularly enjoyed you the day after Ireland – the only country indeed that had a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty – had voted ‘no’ to Lisbon. You stood up and said that the Irish did not really mean ‘no’. I particularly enjoyed that. I also enjoyed you saying that the European Union was the first ever non-imperial empire, because in that you showed so much of what this project has now become. I do not think that anybody doubts that those who got together in the 1950s after two ruinous world wars with the genuine intention of getting the French and Germans to sit around a table in order to talk together and to trade together were doing the right thing. But it has morphed and changed into something else, and it is your analogy to an empire that has led to the current failure. It is the expansion to allow in more and more countries; it is the expansion of the eurozone to let in Mediterranean countries which should have never have joined in the first place and which are now suffering so horribly.

So I view you as a fantasist, but at no point have I ever, ever implied that you were dishonest. You are not. You are very honest indeed. I remember you telling Martin Callanan, who led the Conservative Group here for some time while the Conservative Party under David Cameron’s leadership became more Eurosceptic with each British parliamentary by-election, not to try to be like UKIP because the voters will go for the real thing. And you were right. We won the European elections. But thank you for last Sunday, thank you for appearing on British television, thank you for confirming that the real fantasist is not you – it is David Cameron. The British Prime Minister who pretends that we can restrict free movement and remain members of the European Union. You made it clear that he was wrong and that he was deceiving the British people. You made it clear that you were the boss and not him, and for that I thank you and wish you a very happy retirement indeed.

  Gianluca Buonanno (NI). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli deputati, signor Presidente Barroso, io ho sentito il suo intervento, non le voglio parlare da europarlamentare, ma le parlo da sindaco. Io ho un figlio che ha più o meno dieci anni; dieci anni fa gli potevo dire che l'Europa era il futuro, che l'Europa poteva combattere la disoccupazione, che l'Europa poteva combattere l'aumento delle tasse, delle spese, che era contro i clandestini, che era per il lavoro. Cosa è venuto fuori?

Io le voglio fare la pagella, visto che è il suo ultimo giorno da Presidente della Commissione: è aumentata la disoccupazione, sono aumentate le tasse, sono aumentate le spese, sono aumentati i poveri, non c'è lavoro! Gli immigrati clandestini sono dappertutto! Sono aumentate le malattie! L'Europa nel mondo conta sempre di meno! L'euro è una moneta che invece di portare benessere sta portando povertà. Questo è il risultato della sua Commissione?

A mio figlio cosa gli devo dire? Che l'Europa è stata una cosa positiva in questi ultimi dieci anni o gli devo dire la verità? E cioè che l'Europa è stata un disastro! Questo è quello che sta capitando e io da sindaco, e incontrando la gente, sempre di più, senza lavoro, senza soldi, neanche i soldi per campare, per dare qualcosa ai propri figli, cosa gli devo dire come sindaco? Che l'Europa ci sta dando una mano? Io vivo in un paese, l'Italia, che è formato da un governo per certi aspetti anche di invertebrati.

Le devo solo dire una cosa per dirle grazie, su una vicenda: la vicenda dei marò, questa, dove ci sono due soldati italiani ostaggio dell'India: lei li ha difesi dicendo che non devono avere la pena di morte; io la ringrazio, però se fossero stati due soldati di Kiev a quest'ora sarebbero ancora in India? O sarebbero stati già portati in Europa? Io le chiedo di difendere l'Europa che deve difendere i nostri soldati, perché se non è capace di farlo il governo italiano, lo deve fare l'Europa. Questi sono due eroi! Uno adesso è a casa per gravi motivi di salute, ma l'altro è ostaggio degli indiani da tre anni. Non facciamoci prendere in giro, perché l'Europa deve tirare fuori le palle, altrimenti il mondo ci schiaccerà.

  Steven Woolfe (EFDD). - Mr President, I have a point of order under the Rules of Procedure. The procedure is Chapter 2, Rule 123 in relation to statements by the Commission. It relates to part of paragraph 1 and all of paragraph 2. If the President of the Commission makes a statement, when that statement is placed on the agenda before a debate, it is an option for the Parliament to have a wind-up debate on a resolution. I have such a resolution in my hand. In that resolution, if Parliament decides to wind up a debate with a resolution, there must be a committee or a political group of at least 40 names. I have the signatures of 56 names of Members of this Parliament to present in terms of that resolution.

(Applause from certain quarters on the right)

The resolution will state that under the presidency of Barroso, the euro has initiated or contributed to the crisis in Europe and contributed with misguided austerity policies ...

(The President cut off the speaker)

  Der Präsident. - Herr Woolfe! Sie brauchen das nicht vorzulesen, das ist verstanden worden.

(Zwischenrufe)

Das, was Sie hier beantragen, ist eine Änderung der Tagesordnung. Änderungen der Tagesordnung müssen montags bis 16.00 Uhr eingereicht werden. Außerdem müsste ich, wenn ich über eine Entschließung abstimmen ließe, eine Frist für Änderungsanträge festsetzen, was sichtlich unmöglich ist. Insofern ist Ihr Antrag unzulässig. Tut mir leid.

(Zwischenrufe)

  José Manuel Barroso, membre de la Commission. - Monsieur le Président, vous m'avez déjà écouté avec une grande patience et je ne vais évidemment pas répéter mes arguments. Je voudrais simplement répondre à quelques questions évoquées par les orateurs qui m'ont précédé.

Tout d'abord, je crois que la preuve que la Commission que j'ai eu l'honneur de présider était sur la bonne voie, c'est que les critiques viennent des deux extrêmes de la salle et, très souvent, avec le même ton qui révèle un refus de voir, de façon catégorique, les difficultés et les extraordinaires défis auxquels nous avons dû faire face, et la même tendance à ne donner, bien entendu, aucune réponse cohérente.

La vérité est que nous avons probablement vécu la plus grande crise économique et financière depuis le début de notre intégration européenne, et que ce n'est pas l'Union européenne qui en a été la cause. C'est cette vérité que certains "souverainistes" – pour utiliser leur expression – ne comprennent pas ou ne veulent pas comprendre.

En effet, ce n'est pas l'Europe qui a été à l'origine de la dette privée excessive et du manque de responsabilité du domaine financier. Au contraire, tout cela s'est passé sous la supervision – ou le manque de supervision – nationale. L'Europe est la réponse.

À présent, nous avons un des systèmes de régulation et de supervision les plus ambitieux au monde, sinon le plus ambitieux. Dire que l'Europe est pire à cause de l'Union européenne est un mensonge. C'est faire preuve d'un manque absolu de respect et de rigueur intellectuelle. Ce n'est pas l'Europe qui a provoqué la crise financière, celle-ci est née aux États-Unis. Certes, l'Europe était vulnérable, mais l'Union européenne n'a fait que réagir, elle n'était pas la cause. Et nous tous qui partageons l'idéal européen, que nous soyons de droite, de gauche ou du centre, nous devons avoir le courage de le dire, sinon nous allons renforcer – et c'est un avis que je vous donne au moment de quitter mes fonctions – les populismes d'extrême gauche ou d'extrême droite.

J'ai écouté avec attention certains d'entre vous dire "le populisme est maintenant plus fort" et en attribuer la responsabilité à l'Union européenne. Mes chers amis, ce n'est pas vrai. Le populisme et la xénophobie existent très clairement en-dehors de l'Union européenne. Regardez ce qui s'est passé en Suisse, contre les immigrés; regardez ce qui s'est passé en Norvège, avec ce terroriste – un homme dément – qui a tué je ne sais combien de jeunes parce qu'il est contre une Europe multiculturelle; regardez le Tea Party aux États-Unis. Est-ce la faute de l'Europe, l'existence du Tea Party aux États-Unis? Dans le monde d'aujourd'hui, il existe un populisme agressif, avec parfois des arguments de gauche, parfois des arguments de droite, et il est difficile, je dois l'avouer, de faire la différence.

Par conséquent, dire que c'est le résultat de l'Union européenne, c'est un manque de rigueur intellectuelle ainsi qu'un manque d'honnêteté politique.

Ce que nous devons faire en tant qu'Européens, c'est précisément de montrer que ce n'est pas l'Europe qui a créé la crise, ni même les dettes publiques des États membres. L'Europe ne peut pas faire grand-chose quand un État membre, par exemple, falsifie ses comptes. L'Europe a dû faire face à cela. La première initiative de ma deuxième Commission a été de demander aux États membres de nous donner plus de pouvoir de supervision des statistiques nationales, parce que dans la première Commission que j'ai présidée, cela a été refusé. Cela n'a pas été refusé par la Grèce, cela a été refusé par les grands États membres qui ne voulaient pas donner plus de responsabilités à l'Union européenne. Par conséquent, si nous voulons vraiment débattre, soyons précis et soyons rigoureux sur le plan de l'honnêteté intellectuelle et de la rigueur politique.

C'est pourquoi, chers amis, je ne vais pas abuser de votre temps. Je voudrais cependant vous dire quelque chose avec une très grande conviction. L'équipe que j'ai eu l'honneur de présider a travaillé – je vois d'ailleurs maintenant certains d'entre vous dans ce Parlement, et ils le savent bien – avec un grand dévouement et une grande rigueur, toujours en faisant de l'intérêt européen la priorité et je veux vous dire, puisque nous sommes une assemblée réunissant différentes forces politiques, toujours en faisant de l'idée du bien commun européen la priorité.

Ce n'étaient pas des collègues du groupe du PPE, des socialistes ou des libéraux qui composaient ma Commission, c'étaient des hommes et des femmes qui travaillaient pour l'Europe. Vous savez quel est mon parti: c'est le parti du PPE et j'en suis fier. Mais en tant que président de la Commission, mon parti a été l'Europe. C'est un message que je voudrais partager avec vous, notamment avec les grandes forces du centre gauche et du centre droit pro-européennes. Bien sûr, il faut exprimer des différences mais il ne faut que celles-ci affaiblissent le camp européen. Il ne faut pas donner plus de cadeaux à l'extrême-droite et à l'extrême-gauche. Il faut que les forces pro-européennes s'unissent. Il faut qu'elles aient le courage de défendre l'Europe. Il faut qu'elles le fassent aussi dans les capitales et pas simplement, ici, à Strasbourg. Il faut qu'on puisse avoir cette grande coalition pour l'Europe parce que je crois que nous avons l'énergie suffisante pour gagner les batailles du présent et la bataille de l'avenir.

  Der Präsident. - Vielen Dank, Herr Präsident Barroso.

Meine Damen und Herren! Bevor wir die Aussprache abschließen, gestatten Sie mir ein Wort an Sie, Herr Präsident, und an die Mitglieder der Kommission.

Herr Barroso, zunächst an Sie persönlich. Ich habe mich als Vorsitzender einer parlamentarischen Fraktion siebeneinhalb Jahre mit Ihnen herumgeschlagen, dabei lag die Betonung mehr auf Schlagen. Ich war zweieinhalb Jahre mit Ihnen gemeinsam Präsident einer europäischen Institution. Ich will zum Abschluss dieser Aussprache im Namen dieser Institution – unbeschadet aller Differenzen, die es zwischen dem Parlament und der Kommission logischerweise gibt – Ihnen eines sagen, auch unabhängig von dem, was an Inhalten zu Kontroversen führt: Wer zehn Jahre seines Lebens in der Form in die Europapolitik investiert, wie Sie das getan haben – ich konnte das aus unmittelbarer Nähe beobachten –, dem kann man nur danken für den enormen Kraftaufwand, den Sie auch persönlich in Ihre Idee von Europa gesteckt haben. Ich möchte das als Präsident der anderen Institution ausdrücklich mit großem Respekt und großer Anerkennung feststellen.

(Beifall)

Das gilt auch für die Mitglieder Ihrer Kommission, die in großer Anzahl – ich glaube, fast vollständig – hier anwesend sind. Auch Ihnen gilt unbeschadet von Differenzen, die es in der Sache gibt, mein Dank für Ihre Arbeit. Eine Arbeit, die nicht leicht ist, eine Arbeit, die oft zu Unrecht geschmäht wird. Eine Arbeit, die auch ein Stück darin besteht, die Verantwortung für die Politik anderer zu übernehmen, weil die Sündenbockfunktion in der Europäischen Union relativ gut funktioniert. Der Erfolg ist national, der Misserfolg wird häufig den europäischen Institutionen, auch Ihnen als Kommission, zugewiesen. Das ist nicht gerecht. Gerecht ist es aber deshalb, zum Abschluss Ihrer Amtszeit Ihnen von Herzen zu danken für Ihr Engagement. Auch das möchte ich im Namen unserer Institution tun.

(Beifall)

Vielleicht noch ein Wort zur Geschäftsordnung. Die Damen und Herren, die jetzt den Saal verlassen haben, sollten vielleicht für die Zukunft Eines wissen: Die Tagesordnung wird montags festgelegt. Der Antrag, der hier vorgetragen wurde, war ein Antrag zur Änderung der Tagesordnung. Man kann auch Änderungen der Tagesordnung morgens um neun Uhr am Sitzungstag selbst einbringen. Dann bedarf es allerdings der Zustimmung des Präsidenten. In der Regel gebe ich die Zustimmung zu solchen Anträgen. Man kann die Tagesordnung nicht mitten in der Tagesordnung ändern. Ich glaube, das ist doch für jeden, der ein Mindestmaß an parlamentarischem Verständnis hat, nachvollziehbar. Insofern war dieser Antrag sichtlich unzulässig und auch unbegründet.

Im Übrigen: Über Veränderungen der Tagesordnung und über den Ablauf der Sitzungen selbst entscheidet zunächst einmal die Konferenz der Präsidenten. Der hitzige Ablauf hier war durch die Konferenz der Präsidenten – übrigens einstimmig – festgelegt worden. Insofern war dieser Antrag überraschend.

  Bernd Lucke (ECR). - Herr Präsident! Sie haben die Intentionen der Antragsteller falsch wiedergegeben. Die Entschließung, die eingereicht worden ist, war eine Entschließung zu dem existierenden Tagesordnungspunkt. Und das ist ein Recht, das in der Geschäftsordnung des Parlaments vorgesehen ist.

(Der Präsident: Wann ist die Entschließung denn eingereicht worden?)

Diese Entschließung liegt mit den Unterschriften vor. Herr Woolfe hatte sie in der Hand. Sie hätten sie zur Verfügung bekommen können, und er hat Ihnen genau gesagt, auf welche Bestimmung der Regeln des Parlaments er sich bezieht. Sie können das nicht wegbügeln, indem Sie sagen, es sei eine Änderung der Tagesordnung. Es ist keine Änderung der Tagesordnung beantragt worden, sondern zu diesem Tagesordnungspunkt sollte eine Entschließung eingebracht werden. Das Recht dazu ist in den Regeln des Parlaments verankert. Sie haben gegen diese Regeln hier verstoßen, Herr Präsident!

  Der Präsident. - Herr Abgeordneter, vielen Dank. Sie sind ein neuer Abgeordneter in diesem Haus. Deshalb – das habe ich Ihnen ja schon einmal gesagt – sehe ich Ihnen auch Ihre Irrtümer nach.

(Heiterkeit)

Die Tagesordnung wird festgelegt, und es wird bei der Festlegung der Tagesordnung entschieden, ob es eine Aussprache mit Entschließung oder ohne Entschließung gibt. Diese Aussprache war ausdrücklich ohne Entschließung. Insofern hätte der Antrag auf Aussprache mit Entschließung entweder am vergangenen Montag oder heute Morgen eingereicht werden können.

Im Übrigen – ich glaube, das ist ein Mindestmaß an Verständnis: Wenn Sie während einer laufenden Debatte handschriftlich eine Entschließung verfassen, die Sie dann hier einreichen, bin selbst ich nicht in der Lage, sie innerhalb so kurzer Zeit allen Mitgliedern zugänglich zu machen, was aber ein Mindestrecht eines Parlaments ist, dass alle Mitglieder vorab sich eine Entschließung anschauen können. Ich bin eigentlich davon ausgegangen, dass sie das gewusst hätten.

Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162)

  Gerard Batten (EFDD), in writing. – During Mr Barroso’s term of office yet more powers have been transferred from nation states to the EU. I would like to highlight one particular area which is both topical and highly dangerous and concerns Europol, the EU's emergent police force. In a recent BBC radio interview, Mr Troels Oerting, the head of Europol’s Cybercrime Centre, revealed that ‘most of the world’s cybercrime originates from Russia’, that he is ‘increasingly happy’ with Europol’s ‘cooperation’ with Russia’s ‘law-enforcement authorities’, and that he recently visited Moscow and agreed to share information with them on a number of ‘interesting cases’. This is an extraordinary statement given that in Russia it is impossible to distinguish between organised crime and the so-called law enforcement agencies. Meanwhile, a respected internet security company iSIGHT has uncovered a massive Russian cyber-espionage campaign against Western governments and NATO. This is at a time when the British Parliament is on the verge of voting to permanently transfer yet more powers to the EU on policing and criminal justice matters. It is utter madness to share sensitive information with Russia, which is a gangster state, and seriously puts at risk our security and the protection of our citizens.

  José Blanco López (S&D), por escrito. – El balance de la pasada legislatura no puede ser más negativo. Para una mayoría de ciudadanos, Europa ha pasado, de identificarse con la idea de solidaridad, a hacerlo con la de sacrificio. La mayoría conservadora ha impuesto un enfoque ideológico frente a la crisis priorizando la reducción de la deuda y el déficit fiscal frente al crecimiento y el empleo. La Unión Europea es la zona económica mundial con mayor impacto de la crisis sobre el empleo. Nos ha costado la pérdida de más de 2,5 millones de empleos. Se han disparado desigualdad, pobreza y exclusión social. La austeridad ha fracasado en Europa. Mientras Obama apostó por políticas de estímulo. Estados Unidos crece y crea más de 8 millones de empleos. Ahora, enfrentamos la amenaza de una tercera recesión. Pero los promotores de la austeridad siguen apostando por el sufrimiento frente al crecimiento. Como resultado, los ciudadanos se alejan de Europa porque Europa se ha alejado de ellos. Y el populismo crece amenazando la idea misma de Europa. La nueva Comisión tiene la oportunidad y la obligación de corregir el rumbo. Probablemente, no habrá otra.

  Nessa Childers (S&D), in writing. – Mr Barroso may claim, in his defence, that he had to weather the worst crisis in the history of the European Union, but he never acknowledged that the financial crisis was brought about by the same kind of policies he spearheaded, and which in turn made it escalate into a destructive economic crisis across the continent. Acting at the behest of the majority of the conservative governments that appointed him, Mr Barroso consistently let selfish national interests and priorities run over the common interests of European citizens. Incredibly, he claims to have increased the power of the Commission. Mr Barroso chose to run to the virtually unconditional rescue of the financial sector and its creditors, at the expense of the needs of their victims. He chose to ignore how the architecture of the common currency facilitated and exacerbated the crisis, especially in smaller, peripheral countries. Even when he took the first steps to address those flaws, he went down a moralising path that served conservative interests and divided Member States, punishing vulnerable citizens with loss of disposable income, public services and welfare entitlements. Mr Barroso’s sorry legacy should be repudiated.

  Dalli, Miriam (S&D), in writing. – When I look back at the Barroso II Commission there are notable positive features such as efforts in combatting child abuse and child pornography online. Another positive was the introduction of incentives to increase the number of women in the IT industry.

Others, however, are too negative to counterbalance these. Tragedies in the Mediterranean led the EU to create task forces, adopt packages and organise countless debates – but regardless of all this we had more immigrants dying in the Mediterranean, and more EU citizens feeling disproportionate pressures. We still live in a Union were 75% of asylum applications are processed in only 6 out of 28 Member States.

The Barroso II Commission owed an obligation to its citizens to prepare itself for when the recession hit – but it did not. Millions, particularly young people, are still unemployed while rising austerity measures and an increase in financial debt have left 120 million Europeans at risk of poverty and social exclusion. Most worrying of all is that during the last Commission’s mandate the EU failed to connect to its citizens. I sincerely hope that the new Commission manages to learn from these mistakes and makes a true difference for our citizens.

  João Ferreira (GUE/NGL) , por escrito. – Os dez anos de Durão Barroso como Presidente da Comissão Europeia são o mais cabal desmentido das afirmações feitas há dez anos – e repetidas há cinco – sobre a importância para Portugal de ter um português na presidência da Comissão Europeia. Todas as decisões, todas as políticas nucleares adotadas neste período, todas as propostas legislativas da Comissão Europeia mais relevantes se revelaram negativas para o nosso país e para o nosso povo – bem como, aliás, para os povos dos demais países da União Europeia. Legislação relativa à União Económica e Monetária – governação económica, semestre europeu; políticas comuns – PAC, política comercial, política de pescas; Quadro Financeiro Plurianual 2014-2020: em tudo isto Portugal perdeu e perdeu muito. Assume especial destaque o programa de intervenção da troika UE-BCE-FMI. Um programa que – como então alertámos – não resolveu nenhum dos problemas do país, pelo contrário, agravou-os a todos. Portugal é hoje um país mais pobre, mais injusto, mais desigual, mais dependente e menos soberano. Deve-o também a esta Comissão Europeia. Níveis de desigualdade insustentáveis; desmantelamento das funções sociais do Estado; degradação das condições de vida e de trabalho, desemprego, pobreza; escandaloso favorecimento das grandes potências e dos seus grandes grupos económicos. Eis, em três linhas, o balanço da Comissão Barroso.

  Gilles Lebreton (NI), par écrit. – M. Barroso a violé la démocratie en imposant le traité de Lisbonne au peuple français; le droit en sauvant l'euro au mépris des traités; et nos valeurs en affamant les gens. Effroyable bilan d'oligarque.

  Javi López (S&D) , por escrito. – El presidente saliente de la Comisión Europea, José Manuel Durão Barroso, ha realizado su discurso de balance y despedida en la Eurocámara sin hacer ni siquiera mención al desempleo que hoy afecta a Europa, especialmente a países como Grecia y España. Este es el principal reflejo de una década en la que se ha echado en falta en muchos momentos a una Comisión Europea que tendría que haber dedicado sus principales esfuerzos a crear ocupación y combatir la crisis a través de políticas de crecimiento e inversión pública. Sin embargo, en estos años, la Comisión Europea ha centrado sus esfuerzos en aplicar las recetas que los Estados y jefes de Gobierno iban imponiendo desde el Consejo Europeo, difuminando la capacidad de acción y reacción de la Comisión Europea. Actualmente, nos encontramos ante una UE que debe cambiar urgentemente de rumbo para devolver la esperanza a un sueño europeo que ha sido raptado por el auge de los populismos y la extrema derecha y por los efectos devastadores de la crisis y las políticas de austericidio que han provocado el alto nivel de desempleo y el empobrecimiento de las familias europeas.

  Marian-Jean Marinescu (PPE), în scris. – Mandatul Comisiei Barroso a trecut printr-o criză constituțională, geo-politică și financiară. Criza constituțională a fost soluționată prin tratatul de la Lisabona. Criza geo-politică rămâne de rezolvat. Un pas important a fost făcut prin ratificarea tratatului de asociere cu Ucraina, dar Comisia următoare va trebui să definitiveze acordul cu Moldova. Criza financiară a fost o perioadă dificilă pentru statele membre: Comisia Barroso a propus mai multe pachete legislative pentru a atinge un echilibru de responsabilitate fiscală, pentru a avea acces la piața unică europeană și a inițiat o reformă structurală profundă în țările în cauză. S-a creat o uniune bancară. Ca rezultat, sectorul financiar este echipat pentru supravegherea băncilor.

Comisia Barroso a elaborat un plan pe termen lung pentru modernizarea economiei europene. Programele multianuale vor urmări să îmbunătățească competitivitatea punând accent pe cercetare, inovație și dezvoltarea infrastructurii. S-a asigurat ca Orizont 2020 să fie cel mai mare program de cercetare european și a fost dotat cu un buget UE cu 30% mai mare față de programul anterior. Se vrea conectarea Europei în domeniul transportului, energiei și în sectoarele digitale. Toate aceste obiective pentru 2020, convenite de Comisia anterioară, vor stabili un cadru pentru competitivitate, durabilitate și securitate în UE.

  Tonino Picula (S&D) , napisan.– Pet godina Barrosove II Komisije proteklo je prvenstveno u znaku ekonomske i financijske krize. To je, između ostalog, rezultiralo i povećanom koncentracijom moći u rukama Komisije koja je u najvećoj mjeri slijedila korporativni dnevni red. Neki od ključnih zakonodavnih prijedloga su ukinuti, bez adekvatnog objašnjenja razloga njihovog povlačenja.

Europska politika je ostala jednostrana i nastavila naglašavati tržište, a zapostavila socijalnu politiku i politiku zapošljavanja. Drugi mandat ste započeli ekonomskim padom, a završavate ga ekonomskom stagnacijom, rekordno niskom inflacijom i najavama novog pada. Mandat su svakako obilježili i problemi s transparentnošću.

Izostanak Komisije iz izvješća o transparentnosti u EU institucijama i činjenica da gotovo 2/3 lobističkih grupa koje se tiču financijskog sektora nije registrirano umanjuju ionako nisko povjerenje građana. Transparentan ulazak u zgradu neke institucije EU-a ne jamči i transparentnost i zaštitu od zloporabe položaja. Nadam se da će loša ocjena Vaših ekonomskih i političkih "rezultata" biti dobar putokaz novoj Komisiji da ne ponovi iste pogreške.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), in writing. – During Mr Barroso’s term of office yet more power has been transferred from nation states to the EU. I would like to highlight one particular area which is both topical and highly dangerous and concerns Europol, the EU’s emergent police force. In a recent BBC radio interview Mr Troels Oerting, the head of Europol’s Cybercrime Centre, revealed that: ‘most of the world’s cybercrime originates from Russia’; that he is ‘increasingly happy’ with Europol’s ‘cooperation’ with Russia's ‘law-enforcement authorities’ and that he had recently visited Moscow and agreed to share information with them on a number of ‘interesting cases’. This is an extraordinary statement given that in Russia it is impossible to distinguish between organised crime and the so-called law enforcement agencies. Meanwhile, a respected internet security company, iSIGHT, has uncovered a massive Russian cyber espionage campaign against western governments and NATO. This is at a time when the British Parliament is on the verge of voting to permanently transfer yet more power to the EU on policing and criminal justice matters. It is utter madness to share sensitive information with Russia, which is a gangster state, and seriously puts at risk our security and the protection of our citizens.

  Richard Sulík (ECR) , písomne.– Druhú Európsku komisiu pod vedením José Manuela Barrosa považujem za veľké zlyhanie. Zlyhania tejto Komisie bolo možné vidieť už od jej začiatku. Už zhruba týždeň po oficiálnom začatí fungovania druhej Barrosovej komisie, 1. decembra 2009, bola schválená Lisabonská zmluva. No už začiatkom mája 2010, teda len o pol roka neskôr, bola schválená pomoc Grécku, v priamom rozpore s čerstvo schválenou Lisabonskou zmluvou. Krátko na to sa porušovanie Lisabonskej zmluvy dostalo na systémovú úroveň, keďže bol vytvorený najskôr dočasný euroval (EFSF) a neskôr trvalý euroval (ESM). Systematické porušovanie pravidiel Európskou úniou pod vedením Barrosa nebolo jediným negatívom tejto Európskej komisie. Z 27 eurokomisárov na začiatku jej funkčného obdobia malo minimálne 10 komunistickú minulosť, prípadne komunistické myšlienky neodmietajú ani v súčasnosti. Podobne reakcia druhej Barrosovej komisie na krízu bola veľmi nešťastná. Európska únia aj naďalej presadzovala viac toho istého, čo spôsobilo súčasnú krízu – prerozdeľovanie peňazí daňovníkov a vydávanie množstva škodlivých regulácií. Aj v dôsledku toho dnes Barroso zanecháva rozpočet Európskej únie v stave, keď až 4/5 tohto rozpočtu slúžia na platby poľnohospodárom a kohézne fondy, bez výhľadu na zásadnú zmenu.

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D) , írásban. – A Barroso II. Bizottság nehéz körülmények között, saját eredeti szándékaitól eltérően szinte csak a gazdasági válságkezelés különböző aspektusaival foglalkozni kényszerülő, egyfajta ’single issue’ Bizottságként működött. Méltányolandó, hogy a válságkezelésben fontos és részben eredményes, folytatásra érdemes kezdeményezéseket is tett (ilyen például az ifjúsági munkanélküliség kezelése). Ezzel együtt az intézkedések alapját képező szemlélet és a ma is tapasztalható európai gazdaságpolitikai gyakorlat súlyos hiányossága a növekedés és a valóban hatékony, minőségi munkahelyteremtés, valamint szociális területen az európai szolidaritás szempontjainak háttérbe szorulása. Az elmúlt időszak értékes tanulsága, hogy ha szükséges – különösen az európai integráció nehéz időszakaiban – a Bizottságnak is hatékonyabban fel kell tudnia lépni a közösséget, az európai építkezést gazdasági és/vagy politikai szempontból veszélyeztető tagállami kormányokkal szemben.

  Beatrix von Storch (ECR), schriftlich. – Sehr geehrter Herr Barroso, Sie haben sich einen ehrenvollen Abschied nicht verdient. Sie leiteten die Behörde, die als "Hüterin der Verträge" das EU-Recht eigentlich nicht brechen sollte. Dieser gute Vorsatz ist nun Geschichte. Unter Ihrer Leitung hat die EU-Kommission die Verletzung der Nichtbeistandsklausel und des Verbots der monetären Staatsverschuldung durch die EZB und durch die Mitgliedsstaaten geduldet. Das ist ein klarer Verstoß gegen das EU-Recht. Nun sind Sie auch noch im Haushaltsstreit mit Frankreich und Italien eingeknickt. Beide nationalen Haushaltsentwürfe für 2015 verstoßen in schwerwiegender Weise gegen den Euro-Stabilitätspakt, entweder weil das Defizit zu groß ist (Frankreich), oder der Schuldenstand einer der höchsten in Europa ist (Italien). Damit haben Sie bewiesen, dass es entweder keinen politischen Willen gibt, die Eurokrise zu bewältigen oder die EU-Kommission nichts zu melden hat. Sie sagten: "Die EU-Länder müssen auf dem Reformpfad bleiben mit strenger Steuerung durch die Union". Es ist gut zu wissen, wie ernst die EU-Kommission diese "strenge Steuerung" nimmt. Die Tatsache, dass die EU-Kommission natürlich gar kein Recht hat, in die Haushalte der Nationalstaaten hineinzuregieren, steht dabei auf einen gänzlich anderen Blatt.

  Winkler, Iuliu (PPE), (în scris)– Rezistența împotriva valului de populism antieuropean din multe state membre reprezintă cea mai importantă realizare a Comisiei Barosso în cel de-al doilea mandat al său. Cred că această comisie a reușit, în ciuda ezitărilor venite dinspre liderii statelor membre și a sincopelor generate de criza economică și financiară, să ocolească numeroasele tendințe care s-au manifestat în favoarea consolidării metodei interguvernamentale în coordonarea UE. În acești ultimi cinci ani extrem de dificili, Comisia Europeană a dovedit capacitatea de inițiativă și leadership, punând pe baze noi colaborarea sa cu PE al cărui rol politic și responsabilitate au crescut semnificativ. Dacă evaluăm activitatea Comisiei Barosso trebuie să privim la tot deceniul care a trecut. Fără a epuiza enumerarea rezultatelor obținute în această perioadă, trebuie reținut faptul că UE a ajuns de la 15 membri la 28, că s-a reușit adoptarea Tratatului de la Lisabona, iar în urma unor frământări intense s-a mai făcut un pas spre integrare - de la piața unică europeană, unul dintre pilonii Europei unite, s-a trecut la implementarea guvernanței economice. Noua CE va avea o misiune dificilă, însă am convingerea că Jean-Claude Juncker va merge mai departe pe drumul Europei integrate.