Пълен протокол на разискванията

Вторник, 27 октомври 2015 г. - Страсбург

9. Работна програма на Комисията за 2016 г. (разискване)

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärung der Kommission zum Arbeitsprogramm der Kommission für 2016 (2015/2853(RSP)).

Ich weise darauf hin, dass es bei dieser Aussprache kein Catch-the-eye-Verfahren gibt und auch das Blue card-Verfahren keine Anwendung findet.

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, the motto of our Work Programme this year is ‘no time for business as usual’ and anybody in this room or around Europe who has followed this morning’s debate will agree with me that this is no time for business as usual. That is why the Commission today commits to making bold, focused and pragmatic proposals to allow us to overcome our common challenges and emerge stronger in the spirit of European solidarity and responsibility.

President Juncker’s ten priorities, which are both our mission statement and the basis on which we were appointed to office by you, remain the right ones. Last year we said we would do different things and do things differently. We are concentrating on the big things. We have set out our vision and the concrete measures necessary in various areas: investment plan, digital single market, energy union, European Agenda on Security, European Agenda on Migration, capital markets union, action plan for fair and efficient corporate taxation, new trade strategy, deepened and strengthened economic and monetary union. Tomorrow we will present the single market strategy.

Still this year, we will complete the picture with our plans for a sustainable circular economy, labour mobility and better management of our external borders.

The Work Programme the Commission adopted today and its 23 key initiatives is focused on implementing these strategies. It represents a substantive legislative agenda. There will be a lot of work on the table for this Parliament.

Members have all received a copy of the Work Programme hot-off-the-press so I assume not all of them will have read it. That is why I would like to point to five important issues which I would like to stress in particular.

First, we will continue to prioritise the refugee and migration challenge. The European Agenda on Migration provides a comprehensive response. Immediate actions have been taken and I am very grateful to this House and its President for the speed with which you have acted and for the leadership you have consistently shown. We now propose new measures to improve migration management both to overhaul the Dublin system for asylum and to set out a new approach to legal migration. This will complement the strengthened border management proposals we will table by the end of the year, including a European border and coastguard.

Secondly, we have to keep our sights firmly on creating jobs, growth and investment. The Investment Fund is now operational, thanks again to the commitments of this House and the speed with which it has worked, and is delivering high quality investments to further boost the European economy, including in research. We now will focus on improving the investment environment and deepening the single market so that it delivers better outcomes, fewer barriers and the right environment for innovation, especially among SMEs and start—ups. We will present a range of concrete proposals to implement the digital single market strategy. We will also present sectoral strategies on space and defence.

Thirdly, the EU being a lead player in the Paris climate talks, we will follow up with three important packages under the energy union. We will deliver a circular economy package to maximise resource efficiency throughout the whole value chain. We will set out a new approach to ensure Europe’s economic, social and environmental sustainability, taking into account the Europe 2020 review and the United Nation’s sustainable development goals.

Fourthly, we want to make 2016 a year of real social progress. We will present a new skills agenda aimed at helping people get quality jobs, in particular in the digital era. We will set out legislative and non-legislative action to give a new start to work/life balance for parents, including to support women in the workplace. The labour mobility proposals we will present still this year will help people use the opportunities of free movement whilst addressing abuses in the benefits system and social dumping. Free movement should not be a threat to social protection.

The 2016 European Semester will put a stronger focus on the economic and fiscal situation in the euro area as a whole and on Member States’ employment and social performance. This will be complemented by the development of a European pillar of social rights which will modernise and address the gaps in existing social protection legislation and identify social benchmarks built on national best practices with a view to upwards convergence, in particular of course in the euro area.

Fifthly, the Commission will also press for further progress towards fair, efficient and growth–friendly corporate taxation, based on the principle that companies should pay taxes in the country where profits are generated. We will present a set of measures to enhance transparency of the corporate tax system and fight tax avoidance. We will also present an action plan for a more efficient and fraud–proof VAT regime.

I wanted to stress these five points to you today as I cannot list everything here. The Commission will, of course, also continue to implement the European security agenda to tackle terrorism and organised crime and follow up on the trade and investment strategy as well as the Five Presidents’ report for a more resilient and prosperous economic and monetary union.

Given all these challenges, it is essential to make the best use of all our resources. The EU budget must be geared to results and the mid–term review of the multiannual financial framework will look at how to make sure that we target our funding better on priorities such as the refugee crisis while also putting a stronger focus on achieving results.

The challenges such as migration, access to energy and other resources, and climate change also show the need for an effective external dimension to deliver on major internal policy objectives. Today more than ever before you can no longer distinguish between internal and external – I just want to point to the sustainable development goals, they can no longer distinguish between the two elements.

The Commission will make a substantive contribution to the new global strategy on foreign and security policy – also, here, internal and external go hand in hand.

Two final points. One: this Commission also said we would do things differently. All the actions we propose are underpinned by our new better regulation agenda. We remain committed to making sure that when the EU intervenes it does so in a way that will deliver results and make a positive difference on the ground.

Our Work Programme includes our plans to review key areas of existing legislation such as health and safety at the workplace, to ensure that they are fit for purpose and continue to deliver on our ambitious policy objectives.

We also propose a number of withdrawals of initiatives which have become obsolete or watered down and have no chance to be adopted. The list is considerably shorter than last year which was a moment of political discontinuity. In line with our commitment under the Framework Agreement we will only enact the withdrawals once we have heard your views.

My second concluding point is that the Work Programme cannot deliver results without sufficient ownership of the co–legislators. Again, here, it takes, strangely enough, three to tango. The Commission’s Work Programme reflects the Commission’s right of initiative and we take full responsibility for the choices we make. But for the EU to be strong it needs to be able to demonstrate that all our institutions are ready to set Europe’s agenda together and can work together swiftly and in agreement to reach our goals.

In preparing our Work Programme we have taken account of the views you have expressed, including in your resolution and I think there is a very broad degree of convergence. I think everyone will agree that our joint working methods for this years’ dialogue were much improved, for instance with the new cluster format in the College–Conference of Committee Chairs (CCC) discussions, and I am grateful for all the input we have received from the committees and their Chairs, as well as the Groups and the Group leaders. I want to thank all the Group leaders for their leadership in this. I want to thank President Schulz for having taken this so seriously and helped us to organise the work better. I also want to thank President Buzek for taking the responsibility for doing the same with the CCC.

I hope this will help us reach a common understanding of the pending and future proposals on which we hope the co–legislators will commit to proceed quickly. I am looking forward to working closely with you in 2016 as well and I am glad that we were able to improve our working methods to the satisfaction, I hope, of both our institutions.

  József Szájer, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, after a very long two months’ negotiations in September we have agreed among several parties in this Chamber, and it was a very wide foundation for the Commission Work Programme, which we have been communicating to the Commission. Maybe it is because of the agreement that there is not much excitement in the House or in the press outside about this; if it were voted down or there were no agreement, there would be much more excitement. But it is very important that Parliament and the Commission work together on this because this Parliament, or most of this Parliament, was elected so that the message of how the European Institutions work should be changed considerably; they should be more effective.

I can shortlist why the EPP or in what areas the European People’s Party can support the Commission’s line, especially in methodology. We welcome the concentration on the 10 priorities of the Juncker plan. Also in the methodology, the key issues should be in line with subsidiarity and proportionality. We have seen very long Commission work programmes in the past not fulfilled, so implementation and checking red tape impact assessment and all the legislation throughout the process is an important issue which we should do all the time. Still on a methodology line, we asked the Commission to align the legislation to the delegated and implementing act provisions, which is my personal issue, although it is much more important than my single person. This is something which we are still in debt after long years after the Lisbon Treaty. The Commission should focus on the implementation of the existing legislation and a simplification in the area when we are speaking about the common agricultural or cohesion policy.

There are two priorities in this area which the EPP found very important: firstly, the mobility and the flexibility of the labour market has to be improved and youth employment skills have to be developed to keep our savoir faire and to develop innovation. Also, the completion of the internal market is a key priority on the energy field and on the digital area. The competitiveness of the EU industry, especially in the area of small and medium-sized enterprises, remains a top priority to creating and saving jobs in Europe.

However, everyone is overwhelmed with the urgency of the refugee crisis. The EPP believes in a European approach to secure the European external borders and to help those who are in danger, but we must ensure the security of our citizens as our first priority. In this area there is much legislation and Parliament has already demonstrated its readiness to cooperate and act swiftly in this area. I welcome the Commission’s proposal for the Work Programme 2016.

  Maria João Rodrigues, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, we agree with the First Vice-President that this is not the time for business as usual. In our opinion, the ten priorities remain valid but they need to be articulated in a completely different way. We can see that our most important challenge now is to address the refugee crisis and to prevent a humanitarian crisis on this front in such a way that we are also able to protect the Schengen Area. We know that this requires a real asylum system in Europe, a real European border and a real immigration policy.

So we will support the Commission in building up these new instruments. But at the same time we need to turn Europe into a real space for prosperity. We believe that this year should be the time for this Commission to deliver a real update of the Europe 2020 Strategy. This is not only about energy transition, but about a circular economy to better manage our resources. This is not only about research and development, but about providing new digital solutions and innovation, again to create quality jobs. We need to make the best of our investment plan, and of the revision of the budgetary instrument, to deliver much better on this strategy.

But at the same time we are concerned with something which is happening now in Europe, namely a race to the bottom. There is a risk of a race to the bottom and of Member States competing with each other by downgrading their social standards. That is why we believe that this is the time for a strong pillar of social rights, this is the time for a mobility package to come, but this is also the time to tackle tax evasion in such a way that taxes are paid where profits are made.

We really consider these a top priority and we think that the ambition to complete economic and monetary union should be driven by a central goal. The central goal is upward convergence. We consider that, if we want to deliver this upward convergence, we also need to complete the banking union and to build up a real fiscal capacity in the euro area.

But then we say that none of these ambitions are effective if we are not supported by a more ambitious external action. Yes, Mr First Vice-President, we agree with you. We need to have an updated global strategy and the first test for this would be for Europe to lead the next Paris conference, for Europe to lead in the implementation of the sustainable development goals, and let me also address the importance of bringing about a real partnership with Africa as our neighbour continent.

So these are our expectations for the year to come. This Parliament was very active in delivering a resolution and you can count on us to be very active in pushing in the right direction.

  Vicky Ford, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, we need to focus on the economy, boosting competitiveness, innovation and trade, both across the single market and beyond, in traditional sectors and in the digital age. There is much in the work programme that I can agree with.

I have said that every EU initiative should face that simple test: will it make it easier or harder for businesses to thrive? The Commission has cut back on new legislation; you are making sure that existing laws work, and you have promised to remove more bureaucracy. You have taken 70 proposals off the table. Commissioner, thank you for listening to the ECR.

However, Parliament’s resolution on the Work Programme called for a deeper political union, including European standards on welfare, health care and education. I disagree – these are matters that are better left to our national governments, and I know that many colleagues across this Parliament felt the same. The Single Market is meant to help economic opportunity that delivers growth and jobs. You have said that this is no time for ‘business as usual’. Let us not be hoodwinked by the Left into proposals that could leave Europe no place for business as usual.

  Sophia in ‘t Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, It is not ‘business as usual’, because the Vice-President of the Commission has achieved one thing that is pretty revolutionary, and that is keeping the Work Programme confidential until today. That is a real achievement for which I congratulate him.

So I have not really had time to read it in great detail, but going through it I note a lot of very positive things for which the Vice-President will get the support of my group. These are the border and coastguard proposal and the proposal to revitalise the ‘blue card’ in the chapter on migration and asylum. I also note the proposal on the work-life balance. I suppose that is new eurospeak for maternity leave, which will at least be in there. I also note a proposal for the external representation of the euro, the common currency. We all welcome that, and I am sure there is a lot more in there that the Vice-President will get our support for.

There are also a couple of things missing, and a couple of question marks. Regarding the security and counter—terrorism chapter, one of the things that we have urgently needed for many years – and which has been requested by this House – is a thorough, detailed evaluation of security and counter—terrorism measures already in place and their effectiveness. That is part of better law-making. Another thing we need – I do not know if it is in there – is a reference to somehow unblocking the horizontal anti-discrimination directive and the transparency regulation. I will come back to that.

Then there is something that this House has been calling for – and I will have the honour and pleasure to elaborate on this – a mechanism for the enforcement of fundamental rights, the rule of law and democratic governance. Finally, on the digital agenda, I very much welcome the Vice-President’s words but wonder how I should then interpret the words of Mr Oettinger, who said that instead of creating an open worldwide web we are going to put a fence around the European cloud and the European internet. I hope the Vice-President does not share his views.

One final remark, because we are talking a lot about political topics here: better law—making is not about the outcome of political debates, it is about the process itself. There the Commission could and should do a lot more. I have already mentioned transparency. We need to make some leaps forward because we are still in the era of diplomats and civil servants meeting behind closed doors.

We also need to look at enforcement. I only need to mention ‘safe harbour’ and ‘dieselgate’. We also need to look at the quality of legislation and look at ourselves in a more critical manner, because I am sick and tired of passing legislation that we know is legally unsound and will end up before the European Court of Justice sooner or later.

There is a whole lot more that can be said about the process, but I would like to see more emphasis on the process, because the final outcome is a matter of political choice, political preference. There are no objective criteria, but how we manage the process is something that we all share in.

  Martina Michels, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Kommissionspräsident Juncker hat heute Morgen im Parlament berührende und deutliche Worte gegenüber der verfehlten Flüchtlingspolitik gefunden. „Gut gebrüllt“, meinen wir. Doch was sind nun eigentlich die mutigen Konsequenzen? Das Festhalten an einer kleingeistigen Wettbewerbsideologie, eine fragwürdige Privatisierung von Investitionen wie mit dem Investitionsprogramm von Herrn Juncker? Nein, soziale Ungleichheiten sind oftmals ein Nährboden für die Ablehnung europäischer Lösungen, im schlimmsten Fall für Rassismus.

Gute Vorhaben für Beschäftigungs- und Regionalpolitik, für soziale und kulturelle Integration oder für Verbraucher- und Datenschutz bleiben in Ihrem Programm am Ende lediglich Reparaturprogramme. Denn ohne die Beseitigung der grundlegenden Webfehler der Europäischen Union nützen die besten Ideen nichts, bleiben die europäischen Werte von Freiheit, Gleichheit und Solidarität nur schöne Füllwörter in Präambeln und in Sonntagsreden. Sie hätten die Chance gehabt, liebe Kommissionsmitglieder, Sie haben sie aus unserer Sicht leider nicht genutzt.

  Philippe Lamberts, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Vice-Président, j'ai observé, au cours de l'année 2014 et surtout 2015, la Commission, et en particulier sur le front du défi que nous présente l'afflux de réfugiés en Europe, agir avec promptitude, avec sens de l'urgence et avec ambition. Alors bien sûr, certains diront que ce n'est jamais assez, mais il n'empêche que vous avez été prompts à réagir et, en tout cas, n'avez pas hésité à enfoncer des portes qui étaient fermées. Je voudrais vraiment vous voir faire la même chose sur les sujets qui préoccupent les Européens. Parce que j'ai bien entendu votre catalogue de propositions à venir, dont la densité, me semble-t-il, n'a d'égal que la densité de la présence des députés dans cette salle.

Je voudrais commencer par la question du dumping social. Vous avez fait la campagne de 2014. Vous avez senti, comme tout le monde ici, à quel point ce sujet est un sujet absolument crucial pour les Européens. La Commission a été installée fin 2014 – bon, disons à l'automne 2014 –, on est donc un an plus tard. Jusqu'ici, là-dessus, rien. En fait, ce n'est pas vrai qu'il n'y a rien. Parce qu'entretemps, les recommandations par pays, dans le cadre du Semestre européen, continuent à aller vers plus de flexibilisation du marché du travail et plus d'affaiblissement de la négociation collective, autrement dit, à aggraver le dumping social entre les États membres. Donc, non seulement vous ne l'arrêtez pas, mais on attend toujours la première proposition pour rebrousser chemin.

Concurrence fiscale: il y a un an, on avait LuxLeaks. Depuis, une petite mesure: l'échange automatique d'informations sur les décisions fiscales, mesure affaiblie par le Conseil – qui brille par son absence ici –, et donc tout le reste est à venir. Donc nous devons vous croire sur parole que oui oui, mañana! Demain viendra la solution. Mais en attendant, je ne sens ni sens de l'urgence ni ambition. J'ajoute que sur le dumping social, fiscal et environnemental, ce que vous voulez faire avec le TTIP et ce que vous voulez faire avec le programme pour une meilleure réglementation va plutôt dans le sens contraire de ce qu'il faudrait faire.

Sur la zone euro: vous le savez, il y a blocage au Conseil. Mais qu'attendez-vous pour mettre sur la table les propositions qui dérangent et mettre les États et ce Parlement devant leurs responsabilités? Que ce soit le fonds de garantie des dépôts, les stabilisateurs automatiques, le budget de la zone euro et consort, vous avez le droit d'initiative. Mais saisissez-le!

Enfin, je voudrais terminer sur le cas Volkswagen. Là-dessus, je vous attendais vraiment. C'est un scandale en matière de santé publique, en matière d'environnement, en matière de respect de la loi, en matière de distorsion de marché, bref rien que des sujets pour lesquels la Commission est compétente, et que nous dit la commissaire Bieńkowska? "Oh, écoutez, que les États membres fassent leur boulot, nous observons, mais ne comptez pas sur nous pour prendre une initiative". Savez-vous, en fait, ce qu'il se passe? L'industrie automobile est un tabou, et on sait que c'est en Allemagne qu'elle est le plus puissamment établie, et donc, on n'y touche pas. De grâce, s'il vous plaît, sens de l'urgence et ambition! Prouvez-nous dans un an que vous avez vraiment pris la mesure des défis.

  David Borrelli, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, oggi la Commissione europea che si è riunita qui a Strasburgo ha voluto dare un segnale forte sull'adozione del programma di lavoro 2016, affermando che non è più l'ora per una gestione convenzionale. E dunque vorrei sottolineare alcuni temi trasversali e strategici che sicuramente richiederanno "misure non convenzionali".

Qualunque sia la configurazione pratica del Work Programme 2016, è comunque importante fare tesoro di alcune lezioni che l'Unione europea ha avuto nel 2015. Anzitutto la lezione greca: occorre prevenire le dinamiche che hanno portato una nazione dell'Unione europea a vivere oggi una povertà diffusa e penetrante; in questo settore ci aspettiamo implementazioni legislative incisive.

La lezione libico-siriana: l'incapacità di agire in modo strategico ci ha messo di fronte a situazioni pericolose e urgenti; serve una capacità d'iniziativa efficace nel generare azioni di moderazione delle crisi.

La lezione Volkswagen: occorre che i grandi gruppi vengano meglio controllati e che vengano monitorati anche i controllori, che in questo caso hanno fallito. Cosa sarebbe successo se la truffa avesse riguardato prodotti alimentari o farmaceutici? Ci aspettiamo un'iniziativa legislativa adeguata.

Una riflessione a parte meritano tre temi di carattere economico che ci accompagneranno per tutto il 2016: il TTIP, il MES a favore della Cina e l'uso del FEIS. Noi chiediamo che sulle politiche macro-economiche e sugli accordi commerciali di portata maggiore vi sia una valutazione d'impatto "non convenzionale". Troppe volte Bruxelles ha dato prova di miopia per aver voluto accentrare nelle sue mani le analisi d'impatto. Si sta facendo lo stesso errore nel caso del MES Cina. Chiediamo che siano gli Stati, ciascuno per le proprie competenze, a produrre le valutazioni dell'impatto atteso sulla propria economia. Alla Commissione spetterà il compito di fare la sintesi e fornire alle altre istituzioni europee la mappa dei paesi su cui brillerà il sole e di quelli sui quali invece si addenseranno le nubi. E vogliamo che passi il principio secondo cui se anche un solo paese – uno solo – dovesse finire nella tempesta, questo non va bene per l'insieme dell'Europa.

Infine, vorrei ricordare un dato che su tutti esprime la condizione attuale dell'Europa. Gli ultimi dati Eurostat indicano che un cittadino europeo su quattro si trova in condizione di povertà. Noi crediamo che misure come il reddito di cittadinanza ed il microcredito non siano solo promotrici di sviluppo economico, ma siano oggi strumento fondamentale per dare il segnale di un'Europa che ritrova la sua identità e i suoi valori più autentici di solidarietà. E su questo chiediamo che la Commissione concentri i propri sforzi nel 2016.

Infine, il modello di better regulation deve assumere la sfida di riuscire a coinvolgere il livello locale, e non solo gli addetti ai lavori. Ha davanti la sfida di interpretare le diversità geografiche in termini di impatto economico delle politiche legislative, e questo è possibile soltanto decentralizzando il procedimento della consultazione pubblica e aggregando i dati per macroregioni.

  Matteo Salvini, a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il deserto di quest'Aula ci dice come la Commissione dell'Unione sovietica europea viva su un altro pianeta.

L'immigrazione è un disastro. Stamattina il Presidente Juncker ci ha detto che, dopo mesi di chiacchiere e di trionfi, il bel risultato raggiunto è che solo nove paesi hanno dato la disponibilità ad accogliere 700 immigrati – ne mancano alcune centinaia di migliaia. E qualcuno pensa di far entrare la Turchia in Europa. No: la Turchia non è mai stata, non è, né mai sarà Europa, e nessuno si permetta di usare l'immigrazione come merce di scambio e di ricatto per svendere i diritti dei cittadini europei.

Non si sente niente relativamente ai venti di guerra che ci sono. Cosa intendono fare questa Commissione e questo Parlamento per sterminare l'ISIS, che sta facendo scappare centinaia di migliaia di persone? Intendiamo andare avanti con le folli sanzioni economiche contro la Russia, che quest'anno solo per l'Italia hanno causato 2 miliardi di euro di danni? I diritti umani in Ucraina valgono forse di più rispetto ai diritti umani siriani calpestati dall'ISIS, finanziati da chi agevola questa invasione clandestina? Secondo me è vergognoso che questa Europa che ha chiesto all'Italia e a tutti gli altri paesi sacrifici per le pensioni e per il lavoro ritrovi la flessibilità solo quando ci sono di mezzo gli immigrati.

Niente sulla Cina economia di mercato, che qualcuno in questo palazzo vorrebbe portare per esportare i suoi macchinari e che produrrebbe altre centinaia di migliaia di disoccupati. Niente sulla tutela del "made in" e sull'etichettatura obbligatoria dei prodotti, che tutelerebbe i consumatori e i produttori e che solo per l'Italia eviterebbe 60 miliardi di euro di danni.

Togliamo ulteriori protezioni alle nostre persone. Quest'anno arrivano 80 000 tonnellate di riso dal Vietnam senza controlli, 35 000 tonnellate di olio d'oliva dalla Tunisia senza controlli, ci sono più disoccupati in Europa e più gente che sbarca in Europa: c'è qualcosa che non funziona.

Fortunatamente quando la gente vota, sceglie: ha scelto a Vienna, ha scelto in Polonia, l'anno prossimo sceglierà al referendum in Gran Bretagna. Spero possa scegliere anche in Italia, e poi sarà evidente che questa Europa è una gabbia da cui prima usciamo, meglio sarà per tutti.

  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Az itt jelenlévő Frans Timmermans úrtól, az Európai Bizottság elnökhelyettesétől szeretném megkérdezni a következőt. Egyetért-e velem abban, hogy ami itt most folyik, a Bizottság 2016-os munkaprogramjának a megvitatása a Parlament ugye hétszázötvenvalahány tagjából húsz jelenlévő és a Bizottság között, ez kb. az az Európai Unió szintjén, mint a nemzetállamokban a kormányprogramnak a vitája. Gondolom, hogy ez elfogadható ez az állítás. Kérdezem, hogy milyen magyarázatot tud arra adni, hogy az Önök által szeretett vezérünk, Juncker úr és Ön által vezetett Bizottság az ő programját, kvázi kormányprogramját – ami ugye 500 millió Európai Uniós polgár életének számos területét határozza meg nagy mértékben – nos, ezt a programot negyed órával a vita kezdete előtt juttatta el a választott képviselőknek. 14.45-kor e-mail-ben kaptuk meg az Önök kormányprogramját, három órakor kezdődött a vita.

Kérem, hogy adjon valami magyarázatot az 500 millió európai polgárnak arra, hogy ezt mégis hogy gondolják. Nem gondolják-e, hogy ez megalázó? És kérem Martin Schulz urat is, hogy az Európai Parlament elnökeként is nyilatkozzon ugyanebben a kérdésben. Elvben a migrációs politikáról szerettem volna beszélni, amelyik egyik fejezete ennek a szedett-vedett programnak. Gondolom, hogy most még ebédszünetben volt egy kis idejük leírni, hogy mégis mire kötelesek majd a tagállamok az elindult és vadonatúj jelenségként létező népvándorlással összefüggésben. Mi magyarok többségünkben úgy gondoljuk, hogy ez a magyar népnek a joga, hogy eldöntsük, hogy mit fogunk tenni és mit nem fogunk tenni a népvándorlással összefüggésben – tekintettel arra, hogy nem mondtunk le a szuverenitásunkról ezen a területen.

Ez egy vadonatúj jelenség, az Európai Unió csak olyan területen szabályozhat, amelyekről kifejezetten lemondtak a nemzetállamok a szerződésekben, illetőleg az EU-ba való belépésről. A migráció nem tartozik ide, ez a szintű migráció, tehát a népvándorlás. Köszönöm szépen, várom válaszukat.

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, the best news today is that Ms Morvai called President Juncker her beloved leader. This is something I will cherish and take back to the Commission.

Secondly, perhaps I should explain very briefly, this is just a presentation of the Commission Work Programme; nothing more nothing less. We will have ample opportunity in time to discuss all the elements of the Commission Work Programme. I count on Parliament not to make statements about something else or to make big grandstanding gestures on certain political issues, but to take us to the task of looking precisely at the precise proposals the Commission makes, and come to common conclusions on that.

This is extremely important, and sometimes this Commission takes this Parliament more seriously than some of the Members of this Parliament on the extremes of these benches do. This Commission will engage fully with Parliament to make sure that what we do is in line with both your priorities and ours and that we take common decisions that are highly needed. I was just reading a report from the Bertelsmann Foundation, let me quote it directly: ʻtoday in Europe 26 million children and young people are threatened by poverty and social exclusionʼ. This is what should be driving our work. This is what we should be doing, in concrete measures.

Do you know how much unemployment there is among young people in so many of our Member States? That is why we want structural reform, that is why we have the EFSI, that is why we want to create opportunities in the digital single market and in the internal market. That is why we need to make sure that people no longer see freedom of movement as a threat to their social position but as an opportunity to perform better and to create careers. That is why we need to put proposals on the table that will lead to better social protection for European citizens, as long as the European Union is competent in these areas.

Yes, there are always elements where we could do better, that is why we are here to listen to you, so that we can do better. But in the process, let me end on this. We are now talking intensively with your institution, the European Parliament, represented by Guy Verhofstadt, and the Council to make sure that we do better in the way we legislate together. I hope we can come to a conclusion between the three institutions that shows clearly that we have understood the message from our constituents and our citizens. The message is that we need to do better in the way we prepare legislation so as to avoid making mistakes, and to avoid what Ms in 't Veld was pointing to: that we sometimes adopt decisions knowing full well that they are good because they represent a compromise, but are not good because once you apply them in the Member States businesses suffer and citizens suffer and the Court will have to correct them. Let us try and prevent this from happening by having full and detailed impact assessments before we take a decision, so that we can avoid creating more and more red tape for our businesses and that we can start cutting red tape, instead of the other way around.

This is where this Commission stands, and action is highly needed. I think this is one of the few moments in our common history that the project itself is being challenged in an existential way. Everything has come together like a perfect storm: the economic crisis, the financial crisis, the refugee crisis, international threats, the climate crisis, the environmental crisis and the sustainability crisis. Everything has come together and threatens the very livelihood of Europeans.

The European project should be an answer to that. This modest Commission Work Programme is part of a bigger answer we need to give to this challenge. But without this Commission Work Programme, the way we do business between the three institutions would not be as efficient. Let me reiterate that this Commission stands ready to work closely with the European Parliament to make sure that we deliver results for European citizens.

  Der Präsident. – Die Aussprache ist geschlossen.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162 GO)

  Dan Nica (S&D), în scris. – Salut adoptarea programului de lucru al Comisiei și așteptăm propunerile concrete pentru implementarea strategiei privind piața unică digitală, astfel încât aceasta să devină complet funcțională. Privind domeniul energiei, subliniez că Uniunea Energetică trebuie să aibă ca element central o piață internă a energiei eficientă și funcțională, care să asigure creștere economică, locuri de muncă, prețuri accesibile și competitive pentru consumatorii individuali și pentru consumatorii industriali, precum și protejarea consumatorilor vulnerabili. Comisia Europeană și Consiliul vor stabili cadrul de guvernanță după 2020 și trebuie să se asigure ca toate propunerile legislative care fac parte din Uniunea Energetica să urmeze procedura legislativă ordinară, astfel implicând pe deplin Parlamentul European. Comisia ar trebui să prezinte anual un raport privind punerea în aplicare a Uniunii Energetice, inclusiv detalii cu privire la punerea în aplicare a legislației privind energia. Regret faptul că, până acum, Comisia nu a venit cu nicio propunere privind o schemă armonizată de compensare pentru emisiile indirecte de carbon, care acum este lăsată la latitudinea statelor membre. De asemenea, ar fi important să avem un plan de acțiune european privind sărăcia energetică.

  Sirpa Pietikäinen (PPE), kirjallinen. – Komission uusi työohjelma tukee hyvinvointia parantavia innovaatioita. Olen erityisen tyytyväinen komission digitaalisten sisämarkkinoiden kehittämistä sekä kiertotaloutta koskeviin linjauksiin. Digitaalisten palvelujen kehittyminen luo uusia liiketoimintamahdollisuuksia ja sitä kautta uusia työpaikkoja. Komission laskelman mukaan digitaaliset sisämarkkinat voivat tuoda jopa 250 miljardin euron lisäkasvun. Entistä nopeammat ja kattavammat tietoverkot yhdessä uusien innovaatioiden kanssa parantavat myös hyvinvointiamme ja elämänlaatuamme merkittävästi. Esimerkiksi e-terveyteen liittyvät sovellukset antavat mahdollisuuden seurata terveydentilaa kotona tarvitsematta aina matkustaa terveyskeskukseen saakka. Järjestelmät mahdollistavat näin aiempaa paremman terveydentilan seurannan. Komission työohjelmassa esiteltyihin tärkeimpiin uusiin aloitteisiin kuuluu myös kiertotalouspaketti, jonka tavoitteena on luonnonvarojen tehokkaampi käyttö ja näin syntyvän jätteen määrän vähentäminen.

  Igor Šoltes (Verts/ALE), pisno. – Evropska komisija je na oktobrskem plenarnem zasedanju predstavila svoj delovni program za leto 2016, v katerem državljanom sporoča, da je čas za drugačen pristop. V ospredju je deset prednostnih nalog, h katerim se je Komisija zavezala že v svojih političnih usmeritvah, in njihovo uresničevanje. Komisija se bo v letu 2016 osredotočila predvsem na ukrepe za obvladovanje begunske krize, ustvarjanje delovnih mest, krepitev rasti in enotnega trga, zagotavljanje davčne pravičnosti ter spodbujanje ekonomske, socialne in okoljske trajnosti. Tudi sam sem prepričan, da mora Komisija odločno prekiniti trenutno stagniranje EU. Usmeritve, ki so veljale do danes, žal temeljijo na prioritetah predkrizne Evrope in ohranjajo toge ekonomske politike, ki so pravzaprav privedle do te krize. Komisija naj se v svojem prihodnjem delovanju predvsem močneje zaveže k ustreznemu medinstitucionalnemu posvetovanju in v okviru programa ustreznosti in uspešnosti predpisov pripravi seznam zakonodaje, ki bi jo bilo treba revidirati. Opozoril pa bi rad, da naj se program ne uporablja kot izgovor za nižanje ambicij, za deregulacijo ali nižanje socialnih in okoljskih standardov. Pomembna je kakovost, ne količina.

  Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE), in writing. – The Commission’s Work Programme for 2016 impressed me, yet I must make a tiny comment related to certain aspects of this year’s preliminary activities. We often hear complaints that the rules and procedures to make EU funds available for SMEs are too complicated, slow and even controversial. The Commission has rightly begun to look for ways to ease them and cut out red tape.

However, it is more than unpleasantly surprising that the responsibility for the high level working group on this topic has been given to the person who is actually responsible for all the complexity, obscurity, non-transparency and other problems within the existing system. Indeed, that person spent 10 years in the Barroso Commissions complicating everything! Yet Mr Juncker and the College of Commissioners have allowed him to preside over the U-turn in policy.

The appointment of former Commissioner Mr Siim Kallas to such a position is like getting a wolf to guard the sheep. Or even an attempt to put a square peg in a round hole! It is indisputably a misuse of European tax-payers’ money.

  Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – O plano Juncker representa um pilar principal da estratégia da atual Comissão Europeia. Em vez de pôr o Banco Central a financiar o investimento ou de alterar as regras de contabilização dos défices, de modo a relançar o investimento público e atrair o investimento privado, a Comissão Europeia apresenta—nos um exercício de engenharia financeira que nem sequer é novo, pois já foi experimentado no passado, e sem sucesso.

Este fundo não vai resolver nada. Primeiro, porque não terá o impacto esperado, dadas as premissas totalmente irrealistas. Ainda que venha a ser realizado algum capital, este irá financiar projetos com base em critérios de rentabilidade financeira. No regulamento, e apesar das nossas sugestões, não existe qualquer critério de distribuição geográfica ou de coesão regional. O fundo é totalmente gerido por tecnocratas, e as linhas de orientação estratégica serão definidas por uma administração onde os votos são proporcionais ao volume do capital investido.

Isto é a antítese do que defendemos para a Europa. Este é mais um plano destinado a alimentar parcerias público-privadas, e serão, mais uma vez, os países ricos a ficar com a parte de leão.

IN THE CHAIR: MAIREAD McGUINNESS
Vice-President