Verbatim report of proceedings

Wednesday, 11 May 2016 - Strasbourg

15. Restoring a fully functioning Schengen system (debate)

Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia są oświadczenia Rady i Komisji w sprawie w sprawie przywrócenia w pełni funkcjonującego systemu Schengen (2016/2700(RSP)).

  Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, let me be clear, the creation of the Schengen Area, in which the free movement of persons across internal borders is ensured, is one of the greatest achievements of the Union. Without any doubt, it has brought important benefits to European citizens and businesses alike. Yet over the past months, the system has been severely tested by the migration crisis, leading several Member States to reintroduce internal border controls.

Now as you all know, the aim is to ensure that any and all remaining obstacles are removed by the end of the year at the latest, for the costs of losing free movement within the Schengen Area would be huge. Now to overcome what emerged originally as a patchwork of unilateral decisions, we are developing a coordinated European approach, within the framework of the Schengen rules of course, and let me also underline that the practice of waving through has now ended.

Clearly, securing the EU’s external borders, ensuring efficient border controls and improving the functioning of the asylum system are prerequisites for restoring normal free movement within the Schengen Area. This is a shared responsibility involving all our institutions as well as the Member States. In other words, proper control at our external borders is our common responsibility, hence the need to reinforce our collective ownership over that common good.

Now, as we all know, last December the Commission presented a proposal for a European border and coast guard. It is imperative that we adopt this proposal as soon as possible so that it becomes operational and it is therefore of great importance to work together in order to start trilogues in June and strike a political agreement soon thereafter.

In February, the European Council made itself very clear. Member States must grant access to asylum procedures for all applications made at their borders. At the same time they should refuse entry to third country nationals who do not satisfy the entry conditions of the Schengen border code and who have not submitted an application for asylum despite having had the opportunity to do so.

The European Council also underlined the importance of restoring the normal functioning of the Schengen Area in a concerted manner while giving full support to Member States facing difficult circumstances. I am of course referring to Greece, whose external border has been under immense pressure.

Now fortunately this pressure has, since the EU—Turkey statements of 18 March, significantly reduced. However, serious deficiencies in external border control persist today – even if many of them have been, and are being, tackled by Greece. That is why the Commission presented on 4 May a proposal on Article 29 of the Schengen Borders Code, a proposal recommending a coherent EU approach to the reinstatement of internal border controls until the structural deficiencies are remedied, as well as proposing border controls only at the sections of the border where they are necessary and proportionate.

Now in closing, the effective application of all these policies and measures taken together, and the effective application by all of us, should contribute to fully reinstating free movement within the Schengen Area and I sincerely hope that we will succeed before the end of the year.

  Dimitris Avramopoulos, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, the Schengen Area, as you know, is an area of free movement without internal borders. We have repeatedly said here that it is maybe the most tangible achievement of the European integration. This Commission, from the very beginning, has done everything in its power to make sure that we preserve it in accordance with the steps set out in our Back to Schengen roadmap.

Our objective is to return to a normal functioning of the Schengen Area with no internal border controls as soon as possible and within six months at the latest because the costs of internal border controls are already visible. We see transporters complaining about increasing delays and costs and we see the tourism industry in some Member States suffering and this is only a small part – a fraction – of what would happen if border controls were systematically re—established.

But the political cost of non—Schengen would be much greater still. It would be a highly symbolic reversal of a major achievement of European integration. This is why we need to take coordinated action at European level, making use of the tools that the same Schengen Borders Code provides us with so as to allow Member States to do what is necessary in the current circumstances, while preserving Schengen as a whole. This is what our proposal under Article 29 of the Schengen Borders Code is meant to achieve.

Let me first acknowledge that Greece has made significant progress in the last few months. However, not all deficiencies identified in the management of external borders control have been remedied. This concerns in particular sea border surveillance, reception capacities and registration on the mainland of migrants who were not registered upon arrival in the islands.

Despite the reduction in the flows due to our cooperation with Turkey, the sustainability of this reduction still has to be confirmed. Moreover, a number of these unregistered migrants remain in Greece or in other countries of the Western Balkans. They may seek to move irregularly to other Member States.

In other words, the reasons that led several states to unilaterally introduce temporary border controls still exist. The persistent threat of secondary movements puts at risk the overall functioning of the Schengen Area. Therefore a coherent, coordinated and sustainable common approach to temporary internal border controls, as foreseen in Article 29 of the Schengen Borders Code, is needed at EU level. Article 29 is a tool to safeguard the functioning of the whole Schengen Area and this is the first time that the Commission has made use of it.

As a result, we propose that the Council recommend that Austria, Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Norway maintain their internal border controls at specific border-crossing points for up to six months. Controls will be regularly reviewed by the Schengen states concerned and adjusted to the level of the security threat addressed. The states concerned will also report to the Commission every two months.

Let me be clear about two things. Article 29 is not a sanction against a Member State nor a means to expel it from the Schengen Area. I want to be very clear on that. We do not propose the introduction of border controls at Greece’s Schengen border, namely at airports and ports. In addition, we clearly state that the controls introduced should be proportionate and limited to what is strictly necessary to respond to the serious threat and safeguard public policy and internal security. They should impede border crossing for the general public as little as possible.

The Commission will continuously monitor the situation and will report to this Parliament and the Council, after four months, on the possible need to adapt the application of its initial recommendation. The principles of necessity and proportionality are the guiding principles for this and any future decision. Let me therefore reiterate that our proposal is an exceptional – temporary – measure to ultimately allow for the safeguarding and return to a normally functioning Schengen Area as soon as possible.

It is expected that, by the end of the six—month period at the latest, the implementation of other tools will allow the lifting of all internal border controls and a return to a normally functioning Schengen. I refer in particular to the European border and coast guard, to the further sustained implementation of the EU—Turkey statement, and the full application of EU asylum rules, as well as the swift agreement by the co-legislators on the recently presented proposals for reforming parts of the Common European Asylum System, in particular the Dublin System. We look forward to the Council adopting the proposed recommendation tomorrow.

  Milan Zver, v imenu skupine PPE. – Pridružujem se vsem, ki pozdravljate prizadevanja Evropske komisije za ponovno vzpostavitev schengenskega sistema. Prepričan sem celo, da je to ena od ključnih nalog Evropske unije v teh mesecih do konca leta. Jasno je – bolj ko bodo trdne zunanje meje "schengena", več svobode bo navznoter.

Vzpostavitev "schengena" je bil v osemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja eden od največjih eksperimentov v zgodovini Unije, toda uspeva lahko le, če v območju obstaja ustrezna klima, predvsem zaupanje in pa varnost. Danes vemo, kakšne blagodejne gospodarske učinke je prinesel schengenski sistem. Vemo pa tudi, da bi nas neuspeh stal na desetine milijard evrov letno.

Spoštovani. Prepričan sem, da bi konec schengena lahko pomenil tudi konec Evropske unije, ki je nastala na pogorišču druge svetovne vojne z namenom ohranjanja trajnega miru. Danes nista ne Evropska unija ne mir samoumevna. Zato se moramo vsak dan truditi, da ju ohranimo.

V Evropi se tudi pod vplivom različnih dejavnikov destabilizacije ponovno prebuja protekcionizem. Protekcionizem! V začetku zelo nedolžna doktrina je v prvi polovici dvajetega stoletja peljala neposredno v dve svetovni vojni, dve veliki moriji. Naj nam bo zgodovina učiteljica. Delajmo na konceptih, ki bodo utrdili vrednote, na katerih temelji Unija. Polno delujoči schengenski sistem je eden od njih.

  Tanja Fajon, v imenu skupine S&D. – Dejstvo je, da je bil evropski schengenski sistem zaradi migrantske krize ogrožen. Dejstvo je, da je zaradi preteklega dogajanja COREPER danes sprejel predlog Evropske komisije za polletno podaljšanje mejne kontrole na notranjih schengenskih mejah.

Res je, da so te meje ponekod še vedno občutljive, da situacija še ni povsem in dokončno stabilizirana. Vendar pa je daleč od tega, da so razmere alarmantne. Bolj se zdi, da so vzroki za tokratno podaljšanje vprašljivi. Ne smemo pristati na princip podaljševanja notranjih kontrol kar tako »na zalogo« in po volji posameznih članic. 

S tem se ustvarja dodatno notranje zaostrovanje, tudi med novimi in starimi članicami Unije, česar v tem trenutku absolutno ne potrebujemo. Prav tako ne potrebujemo izrabljanja sprememb nadzora nad mejami za politične kampanje, kar si je nedavno privoščila Avstrija, ko je na sicer prazen bremenski prehod poslala kar vojsko.

Tovrstno ustvarjanje nekih strašljivih razmer in navidezni boj proti nevidnemu sovražniku so zelo slab signal za evropske državljane. Pač pa moramo vztrajati na tem, da Komisija čim prej po uvedbi podaljšanja nadzora na notranjih mejah pripravi poročilo, ali in koliko je ta ukrep proporcionalen.

To mora storiti tudi v luči dejstva, da je zaradi uvedbe mejnega nadzora v nekaterih članicah ohromljen transportno-logistični sektor celotne Evrope in da bodo posledice tega nadzora povzročile od 5 do 18 milijard evrov neposrednih stroškov letno, zlasti v cestnem in tovornem prometu, pa tudi v turizmu in čezmejni mobilnosti.

Namesto izoliranja članic – kar ne bo preprečilo notranjih terorističnih napadov, ki so jih povzročili evropski državljani – moramo svoje sile in sredstva usmeriti v zagotavljanje učinkovitega delovanja zunanje schengenske meje in pomagati državam, ki so še vedno soočene z velikim migracijskim pritiskom.

  Monica Macovei, în numele grupului ECR. – Domnule președinte, din păcate organizațiile teroriste au fost subestimate, radicalizarea a fost subestimată. Cetățenii europeni care au trecut de partea Jihadului au fost subestimați. A venit momentul, în al doisprezecelea ceas, să dăm dovadă de luciditate și să acționăm. Din septembrie 2015, câteva state membre din zona Schengen au reintrodus controalele interne. Am fost și rămân o susținătoare a spațiului Schengen, este una dintre realizările cele mai importante ale Uniunii pentru cetățeni și pentru mediul de afaceri.

Este momentul ca România să intre în Schengen. De câțiva ani folosim Sistemul de Informații Schengen cu succes.Ca stat aflat la granița externă a Uniunii, România vrea să intre în Schengen și să își asume partea sa de responsabilitate în domeniul securității europene. Așa cum a spus și comisarul pentru migrație, o zonă internă fără controale la granițe este posibilă numai dacă avem o protecție solidă a granițelor externe ale Uniunii. Securizarea granițelor externe ale Uniunii este o condiție obligatorie a menținerii libertății de circulație în spațiul Schengen și nu numai. Trebuie să identificăm cine și de ce trece granițele Uniunii, acest lucru se poate face prin introducerea controalelor la granițele externe ale Uniunii atât pentru cetățenii europeni, cât și pentru cei din state terțe, prin verificarea în bazele de date, dar condiția pentru orice verificare este ca bazele de date să fie actualizate cu informații în timp real de către toate statele membre. Astăzi avem douăzeci și trei de state membre care nu au actualizat bazele de date Schengen.

  Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, on behalf of the ALDE Group I am very glad that we are having this debate. We requested it because we welcome the roadmap that was presented by the Commission for restoring a fully-functioning Schengen system. However, in practice we do not see much progress. We see more, rather than less, border controls. We see walls being put up, not broken down, and a couple of days ago we even heard about a violent incident on the border of one of the Schengen countries with refugees being shot at, so the situation is actually getting worse, not better. Maybe Schengen is not yet dead but it is certainly on life support.

What I would like to know from the Commission is how strictly are you applying the criteria, because you keep saying it has to be necessary and proportionate, but that seems to have become a bit of a mantra because we do not see border controls disappearing. I do not see any steps in the direction of abolishing them. We seem to think that it is a kind of replacement for a fully-fledged refugee and security policy or a replacement for a European border and coast guard, but this is in the hands of the Member States. The Member States should take their responsibility and no longer hesitate about a common asylum policy, the common security policy and a border and coast guard, rather than reinstating border controls.

I think it has been said by others that Schengen is a great achievement and the current border controls come at a huge economic cost, so we have every interest in abolishing the border controls as quickly as possible.

I would really like to know from the Commission: how do you assess the recurrent requests from the Member States for authorising border checks? Quite frankly I have not seen many cases where the Commission has said: sorry, this is simply not justified. When we say it has to be ‘exceptional and temporary’ we are talking about, I believe, six Schengen countries now, or eight, for a very extended period of time. That does not sound like exceptional and temporary. I understand that you are under a lot of pressure from the Member States who want the Commission to actually clean up the mess left by the Member States, but I really hope that you will resist the pressures.

  Κώστας Χρυσόγονος, εξ ονόματος της ομάδας GUE/NGL. – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η ελεύθερη κυκλοφορία των ανθρώπων αποτελεί έναν απ̕ τους ακρογωνιαίους λίθους της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και η δημιουργία του χώρου Σένγκεν έχει συμβάλει στην αποτελεσματικότερη ενάσκηση της ελευθερίας αυτής. Εντούτοις, η πίεση που δημιουργήθηκε στα εξωτερικά σύνορα λόγω της εισροής μεταναστών και προσφύγων οδήγησε επτά κράτη μέλη στο να επαναφέρουν τους ελέγχους σε ορισμένα εσωτερικά σύνορα μέσα στον χώρο αυτό. Έκτοτε όμως οι συνθήκες έχουν αλλάξει ριζικά και, ειδικότερα, σε ό,τι αφορά την Ελλάδα, η χώρα έχει κάνει αποφασιστικά βήματα για τον έλεγχο των εξωτερικών της συνόρων. Το μέλλον της Ευρώπης χωρίς τη Σένγκεν είναι τουλάχιστον αμφίβολο. Η επανεισαγωγή των συνόρων μεταξύ των κρατών μελών θα κόστιζε πολλά δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ ετησίως στις ευρωπαϊκές οικονομίες, με βαριές επιπτώσεις, κυρίως στους τομείς των μεταφορών του εμπορίου και του τουρισμού.

Περαιτέρω, υπάρχουν μειονεκτήματα που δεν κοστολογούνται, όπως η πτώση της ποιότητας ζωής για τα περίπου δύο εκατομμύρια Ευρωπαίους πολίτες που καθημερινά διασχίζουν σύνορα προκειμένου να μεταβούν στην εργασία τους. Ανεξάρτητα όμως από τα οικονομικά αποτελέσματα, η κατάργηση της ζώνης Σένγκεν θα αποτελούσε οπισθοδρόμηση στην πορεία προς την ευρωπαϊκή ενοποίηση. Χρειαζόμαστε συνεπώς την κατάργηση των ελέγχων στα εσωτερικά σύνορα, όσο νωρίτερα τόσο το καλύτερο.

  Ska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, overcoming borders, it has been said, is at the heart of the European idea. Borders that used to be once the cause of war could be crossed easily in the past, and I believe it is really at the borders where European citizens can see and experience the true value of the European idea and what Europe really means. But the fences and the borders that have been erected in the past month destroy pretty much all of that. They divide people, it is harmful to the economy and it destroys the fundaments of Europe. Just look at the Brenner Pass, look at Malmö and Copenhagen. Then look at the French-German border, and look at how all these border regions have integrated and how we are trying to do that much more to the East, and all of that is being disrupted – if not completely destroyed.

That is why I believe, and that is why we believe, that this closing of borders has to end immediately and not just in a couple of months, at the end of the year, or whenever. And our internal borders are on the way to be coming as deadly as our external borders are. Slovak border guards have been shooting at refugees; a boat sank just yesterday in the sea between Denmark and Sweden. This is the situation we are in right now. Do we want the Øresund to become the new Aegean in this respect? Closing borders does not stop people from coming; it only makes their journey more distressful and increases the death toll.

Fences are not a solution for anything, neither at the internal borders nor at the external borders. This Schengen debate really is a debate about the future of the European Union; about where we will stand tomorrow, but this future starts today. Whatever we do wrong right now cannot be mended tomorrow. This is why we need to pull down the fences and to overcome the borders once again, because this is what Europe is for. Let us not destroy this fundament, this stuff that Europe is really built on.

(The speaker declined to take a blue-card question by Korwin-Mikke under Rule 162(8))

  Beatrix von Storch, im Namen der EFDD-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Das Schengen—Abkommen garantiert Reisen ohne Grenzkontrollen an den Binnengrenzen, doch der Verzicht auf die Grenzkontrollen setzt sichere Außengrenzen voraus. Diese Außengrenzen waren schon morsch, und dann kam Frau Merkel und hat sie gänzlich abgerissen. Schengen ist tot. Wer Schengen zurückhaben will, der muss die Außengrenzen sichern, und zwar die Außengrenzen des Schengen-Raumes, und nicht eine Mauer oder einem Zaun bauen in dem Nicht-Schengen-Staat Mazedonien, oder von einem Despoten fordern, die türkisch-syrische Grenze zu schützen. Wir brauchen eine australische Lösung, bevor sich die Flüchtlinge wieder nach Lampedusa auf den Weg machen. Wir müssen den Seeweg über das Mittelmeer konsequent sperren, und wir brauchen Auffanglager für Flüchtlinge und mehr Geld für Flüchtlinge, um außerhalb Europas helfen zu können. Wer verantwortlich, aber nicht willens oder in der Lage ist, die Schengengrenzen zu schützen, muss den Schengen-Raum verlassen.

  Harald Vilimsky, im Namen der ENF-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Wieder einmal diskutieren wir über Schengen, und anhand dieser Debatte heute zeigt sich, dass Schengen in dieser Form ein ganz zentraler Konzeptfehler der Europäischen Union ist: gut gemeint, aber sehr, sehr schlecht entsprechend umgesetzt. Im Prinzip muss man ja nichts gegen das Prinzip der offenen Grenzen haben, es müssen nur alle Umfeldbedingungen entsprechend dem angepasst werden, man muss sich sicher fühlen. Das ist zurzeit nicht der Fall.

Man könnte es vergleichen mit seiner Wohnung oder seinem Garten. Wenn ich die Türe offen lassen kann, keinen Zaun errichten muss, ist es eine sehr sichere Situation, und jeder, der zu mir kommt, wird willkommen sein. Nur – die Situation zurzeit ist eine andere, weil niemand mehr die Übersicht hat, wer nach Europa kommt, wer sich durch die diversen Länder bewegt, wieviel Kriminelle dabei sind, wieviel Terroristen dabei sind. Daher reklamiere ich für mein Land – für Österreich – die unbedingte Forderung, dass wir wieder die Kontrolle über unsere Grenzen zurückerlangen können, auch für alle anderen Länder, bis zu dem Zeitpunkt, wo sichergestellt ist, dass weder Kriminelle noch Terroristen noch Personen, deren Aufenthalt und deren Herkunft niemand genau bestimmen kann, in unser Land und in unseren Kontinent hereinkommen.

  Λάμπρος Φουντούλης ( NI). – Στην πραγματικότητα το ερώτημα σήμερα θα έπρεπε να ήταν αν πράγματι θέλουμε την αποκατάσταση της λειτουργίας της Σένγκεν. Με δεδομένες τις δομικές αδυναμίες της Ένωσης, η συνθήκη αυτή έχει αποδειχτεί πως εξυπηρετεί σε μεγάλο βαθμό διάφορα παράνομα κυκλώματα εμπορίας όπλων, ναρκωτικών, ανθρώπων και, γενικότερα, λαθρεμπορίου. Δεν μπορεί με κανέναν μέχρι σήμερα τρόπο να ελεγχθεί η μετακίνηση εξτρεμιστικών ή τρομοκρατικών ομάδων από το ένα κράτος της Ένωσης στο άλλο, προκειμένου να διαφύγουν της προσοχής των αρχών. Πέρα από τους λόγους ασφαλείας που αμφισβητούν πραγματικά την ανάγκη ύπαρξης της Σένγκεν, πρέπει να συνυπολογίσουμε τον ρόλο που έχει παίξει η συνθήκη αυτή και στην αποδυνάμωση των ασθενέστερων οικονομικά κρατών από πολύτιμο επιστημονικό ή εξειδικευμένο εργατικό δυναμικό το οποίο, μη έχοντας σχεδόν κανένα εμπόδιο, μετακινείται στη Βόρεια και Δυτική Ευρώπη καταδικάζοντας τις χώρες προέλευσης σε μόνιμη ύφεση ή έστω σε μεγάλη καθυστέρηση ανάπτυξης. Πριν λοιπόν γίνει συζήτηση για το πώς θα αποκατασταθεί η Συνθήκη, θα ήταν καλύτερο και πολύ πιο χρήσιμο να αποφασίσουμε αν όντως θα πρέπει να υπάρχει. Θα ήταν πολύ καλό να ακούσουμε με μοναδικό γνώμονα το συμφέρον των ευρωπαϊκών λαών πειστικά επιχειρήματα υπέρ αυτής, επιχειρήματα πραγματικά, όχι συναισθηματισμούς και ιδεολογήματα.

  Емил Радев (PPE). – Г-н Председател, събитията от 2015 година, а именно безпрецедентният брой мигранти и терористичните атаки в Париж, показаха, че досегашните действия, предприемани за управлението на външните граници на Европейския съюз, не са ефективни за справяне с днешните предизвикателства. Още по-важно – събитията доказаха неизменната връзка между необходимостта от защита на външните граници на Европейския съюз и запазването на свободното движение на хора вътре в Европейския съюз и в Шенген.

Вярвам, че в момента обсъжданите законодателни предложения като Европейската гранична служба, ще доведат до по-добро и ефективно управление на външните граници, като най-важното е да се гарантира общоевропейски подход, а не поединични действия на държавите членки. Единствено по този начин ще може да се гарантира също целостта и бъдещето на шенгенското пространство.

Тук искам да подчертая факта, че Европейският съюз и Шенген ще бъдат по-сигурни, ако България бъде приета като член на Шенген колкото се може по-скоро. Като външна европейска граница ние сме отговорни за гарантиране на сигурността не само на българските граждани, но и на всички над 500 милиона европейци.

Работата на българската гранична полиция в борбата срещу чуждестранните бойци и нелегално преминаване на европейските граници от мигранти се е доказала като изключително успешна и е често давана за пример. Смело мога да твърдя, че България опазва границите по-добре от някои членове на Шенген.

Приемане на страната в Шенген и предоставянето на пълен достъп до съответните информационни системи неминуемо ще допринесе за повече европейска сигурност.

Бъдещето на Шенген зависи от готовността ни за повече европейски действия и това включва приемането на България в Шенген.

  Knut Fleckenstein (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es geht nicht um Ideologie, wie Sie eben gesagt haben. Es geht schon ein bisschen auch um Emotionen, aber in erster Linie geht es um das, was diese Europäische Union eigentlich ausmacht. Die Freizügigkeit für Personen in der EU ist eines der wenigen wirklich sichtbaren, anfassbaren Erlebnisse, und vor allem auch für junge Menschen, die in der EU einen Vorteil sehen für ihr persönliches Leben.

Die Freizügigkeit für Warenströme ist ein wichtiger Bestandteil des Binnenmarktes. Und Wirtschaftskreise haben ausgerechnet, dass es uns jedes Jahr weit über 40 Milliarden Euro kosten würde, wenn diese Grenzen dicht sind. Es ist völliger Unsinn, Zäune aufzurichten, weil sie in Wirklichkeit nicht zum Schutz dienen, sondern nur zur Verlagerung eines Problems – nämlich des sogenannten Flüchtlingsproblems – auf den Nachbarn. Und diese Zäune und die Grenzkontrollen sollen uns irgendeine Form von Sicherheit vorgaukeln, die es in diesem Maße und durch diese Maßnahmen gar nicht gibt.

Ich habe am Montag zwei Stunden lang Europatag feiern können. Nämlich von Offenburg bis Straßburg, weil drei Polizeibeamte, die angewiesen waren – die haben das ja nicht freiwillig gemacht –, sich gegenseitig Witze erzählt haben und die Fahrbahn auf eine Spur verengt ist. Wo da mehr Sicherheit sein soll, werden sie keinem Menschen in Deutschland und keinem Menschen hier im Elsass erklären können. Und insofern, Herr Kommissar, bin ich sehr unglücklich über ihre Vorlage. Sie ist lauwarm! Indem Sie sagen: Lasst uns sechs Monate dieses unsinnige Spiel weitermachen, und wir berichten alle zwei Monate. Sie brauchen nicht alle zwei Monate zu berichten. Sie können den Bericht morgen früh fertigstellen, wenn Sie jetzt anfangen. Es ist Unsinn, es gaukelt Sicherheit vor, die es nicht gibt, und es schadet und schädigt unsere Europäische Union insgesamt.

  Cecilia Wikström (ALDE). – Herr talman! Jag tror att en aspekt av Schengensamarbetet som vi borde ägna mycket mer uppmärksamhet är de ekonomiska konsekvenserna av ett sönderfall.

Företag som är beroende av leveranser på exakt tid kommer att få problem och tappa i konkurrenskraft. De tidsfördröjningar som alla som arbetspendlar till ett annat EU-land kommer att få utstå uppskattas till mellan 1,3 och 5,2 miljarder euro. Turistnäringen förväntas tappa omkring 1,2 miljarder euro per år, och gränskontroller kommer att kräva personal som väntas kosta bort emot 6 miljarder euro per år. Och skattebetalarna får stå för hela notan.

Resultatet av allt detta är dyrare priser för konsumenterna, mindre konkurrenskraftiga bolag, mindre marginaler för att anställa folk och i slutändan mindre tillväxt och försämrad välfärd i hela EU.

Återinförda gränskontroller är kanske det mest effektiva sättet på vilket vi kan ta död på vårt ekonomiska välstånd, och jag frågar mig själv varför vissa politiker är så besatta av att såga av den gren som vi alla sitter på.

  Mike Hookem (EFDD). – Mr President, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels it was understandable that national governments would reinstate border controls to increase security and try to monitor who was coming in and out of a country. An alleged plot was uncovered yesterday by Italian police revealing that an ISIS-linked group was using migrant routes and open borders to plan terror attacks in Britain, Italy, France and Belgium. Just like this latest plot, the perpetrators of the Paris and Brussels murders crossed internal EU borders unchecked, including between France, Belgium and Hungary. Some of them had even been to Syria and returned.

In calling for borders to once again become a terrorist’s dream, the EU has shown it puts its diehard dogma of a European superstate above the safety of the European people whom it is supposed to represent and who pay for it – in the case of Britain, to the tune of GBP 8 billion net. And ‘die’ is a pertinent word, for the EU has blood on its hands. Schengen is not only the free movement of people: it is also the free movement of terrorists and Kalashnikovs. I question the principles of all those urging the UK to vote to remain in the EU. I also question the principles of those senior British military personnel who, like me, swore an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty The Queen, but who have been telling voters we are safer in the EU. It is my sincere belief that the British people are safer outside of this leaking terrorist haven of a political union.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))

  Janusz Korwin-Mikke (NI), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Ja chciałem spytać, czy nie uważa pan za dziwne, że tutaj z lewej strony sali wszyscy mówią, że trzeba zostawić otwarte granice, że żadne mury nie pomogą, a nikt nie powie, że trzeba usunąć przynętę dla tych imigrantów, mianowicie zasiłki socjalne. Jedynym wyjściem, jeżeli chcemy zachować strefę Schengen, jest likwidacja socjalizmu, likwidacja zasiłków, które przyciągają do nas tych ludzi. Czy zgadza się pan ze mną?

  Mike Hookem (EFDD), blue-card answer. – Yes, I do agree with you, but as I say, to me this is a matter of safety and security for the people of Europe. Open borders is perpetuating the ISIS and the Daesh to come into Europe and kill and murder wholesale. We have to put back up the borders.

  Janice Atkinson (ENF). – Mr President, Schengen is a failed project – I do not know why we are even discussing it. I really do not buy the economic argument; it is security that matters. What price do we put on our security?

Schengen’s open borders have allowed thousands of illegal migrants to camp at Calais for onward illegal entry into the UK. The French authorities have even given them safe passage via trains to Calais.

Dublin is being dumped, not because it did not work, but because the State has turned a blind eye. Now nation states are putting up borders – borders work, that works. I was in Calais again last week; five and a half thousand migrants are camped there, all waiting illegally to break into my country. I have been there quite a lot of times, I have spoken to the various nations represented there, and I have asked them: are you refugees? But they are not refugees, they are economic migrants. Because I go there and ask them – I do not listen to the Commission, I do not listen to the left and the human rights industry that are promoting this – I go there and listen to them myself.

When I was there last week, they were deciding they were refugees because the human rights industry was telling them they were. Real refugees do not pick and choose the borders where they want to stay. That is Schengen. That is allowed, and that is why it has failed.

  Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Strefa Schengen to nie tylko fundament wspaniałej idei Unii Europejskiej, dowód na istnienie prawdziwej wspólnoty, ale także kluczowy element unijnej gospodarki. Z tych powodów powinniśmy dbać o jej nienaruszalność. Z drugiej jednak strony musimy dysponować możliwością działania w sytuacjach kryzysowych, a do takich należy zaliczyć kryzys migracyjny oraz występujące w Europie zagrożenie terrorystyczne. Z tych powodów wydaje się, że można zaakceptować, ale jedynie w określonych sytuacjach i tylko na określony czas, zawieszanie strefy Schengen i to tylko w określonych miejscach. Pamiętać jednocześnie należy, iż takie rozwiązania nie znoszą zagrożeń, o których wspomniałem i zabezpieczają nas tylko w ograniczonym zakresie. Europejczycy czekają natomiast na skuteczne i ostateczne rozwiązania, ograniczenia działania strefy Schengen do takowych nie należą. Podobnie kary nakładane na państwa nawet jeśli wyłamują się z zasady solidarności. Mam więc nadzieję, że w bieżącym roku uwolnimy strefę Schengen od ograniczeń i tym samym doczekamy się rozwiązań przywracających wolność i swobodę przemieszczania się w Unii Europejskiej.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, a Comissão e o Conselho querem fazer crer que estamos no caminho da restauração de Schengen, descobrindo significativos progressos, vejam só, na situação na Grécia, onde há, vergonhosamente, milhares de refugiados bloqueados, presos e ameaçados de deportação, enquanto na fronteira entre a Hungria e a Eslováquia forças policiais e militares disparam sobre refugiados.

Ao mesmo tempo, a Comissão recomenda que Estados-Membros como a Áustria, a Alemanha, a Dinamarca e a Suécia mantenham as fronteiras fechadas por ameaça à ordem pública e à segurança interna.

A negação da realidade até dói. Mas é temporário, diz a Comissão, legitimando que Estados-Membros se associem para violar Schengen, liderados pela Áustria, mas telecomandados pelo Governo alemão, que, sem o proclamar, fechou repentinamente a porta aberta aos refugiados, anunciada pela chanceler no verão passado.

A Comissão e o Conselho têm, na violação de Schengen, pesadas responsabilidades por não terem agido contra o Primeiro-Ministro Orbán quando desafiou a União, recusando partilhar a recolocação e começando a erguer muros e a atacar refugiados.

O Conselho e a Comissão tudo agravaram com o dirty deal com Erdogan, que, para além de imoral e ilegal, é também impraticável, como desenvolvimentos na própria Turquia comprovam; e é ineficaz, só desvia os refugiados e as redes de passadores para outras paragens.

A proposta da Comissão sobre a revisão do regulamento de Dublin, que há muito vem sendo pedida neste Parlamento, assenta na partilha de responsabilidades e na solidariedade entre Estados-Membros.

O Conselho e a Comissão têm de encarar este problema como sendo europeu, desde já. Precisamos desesperadamente de mais Europa, e mais Europa é Schengen. E também precisamos de liderança estratégica, que hoje, desgraçadamente, não temos.

Președinte: ADINA-IOANA VĂLEAN
Vicepreședinte

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η ζώνη Σένγκεν έχει καταργηθεί στην πράξη εδώ και μήνες. Η Γερμανία, η Γαλλία, η Αυστρία, η Δανία, η Σουηδία έχουν αναστείλει τη Σένγκεν. Με τη σημερινή απόφαση - εισήγηση της Επιτροπής, νομιμοποιείται πλέον και η επίσημη, για δύο χρόνια, αναστολή της Σένγκεν που θα οδηγήσει σε κλειστά σύνορα και θα μετατρέψει την Ελλάδα σε ένα απέραντο στρατόπεδο προσφύγων. Αντί λοιπόν για μετεγκατάσταση των χιλιάδων προσφύγων από την Ελλάδα στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, τελικά η Ελλάδα μετατρέπεται σε ένα απέραντο προσφυγικό Νταχάου. Η συμμετοχή της Ελλάδας στη Σένγκεν την έχει μετατρέψει σε μαγνήτη για τους χιλιάδες πρόσφυγες που βρίσκονται στην Τουρκία, οι οποίοι προτιμούν να διακινδυνεύσουν να πνιγούν στο Αιγαίο για να φτάσουν στην Ελλάδα παρά να πάνε με ασφάλεια στη Βουλγαρία, η οποία όμως δεν είναι χώρα Σένγκεν. Προτιμούν λοιπόν την Ελλάδα, ως χώρα Σένγκεν, που χορηγεί ταξιδιωτικά έγγραφα Σένγκεν και τους επιτρέπει να ταξιδέψουν στη Γερμανία. Μόνη λύση λοιπόν πλέον για την Ελλάδα είναι η αποχώρησή της από τη Σένγκεν εδώ και τώρα, για να πάψει να είναι μαγνήτης των προσφύγων. Αυτό πρότεινα ήδη από τις 11 Δεκεμβρίου και ήρθε η ώρα να εφαρμοστεί.

  Jérôme Lavrilleux (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, je voudrais faire un rappel au règlement, parce que ce n'est pas la première fois que M. Marias compare les camps de réfugiés, ou ce qui peut se passer en Grèce, à ce qui s'est passé dans les camps de concentration. J'ai entendu, selon la tradition, qu'il comparait cela au camp de Dachau.

Je voudrais rappeler qu'en France – et le Parlement est situé à Strasbourg, en France –, la loi punit toute tentative de négationnisme. Comparer à Dachau ce qui se passe aujourd'hui est une manière de nier le génocide qui a eu lieu pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale.

Je pense qu'en tant que présidente, vous devriez vous opposer à ce que de tels propos soient tenus dans notre hémicycle.

President. – I am sorry but you cannot make a statement now because it is not part of our debate. If you wanted to address a blue card, you should have raised a blue card. I am sorry I had to interrupt you but this is not a point of order.

  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ζητώ τον λόγο επί προσωπικού ζητήματος, διότι ο συνάδελφος αναφέρθηκε σε μένα προσωπικά. Εξηγώ λοιπόν στον συνάδελφο ότι είμαι απ̕ αυτούς που έχω καταδικάσει και το Νταχάου και τα στρατόπεδα συγκέντρωσης, είμαι απ̕ αυτούς που ξεκάθαρα στην πολιτική μου ζωή έχω καταδικάσει αυτές τις πράξεις και γι̕ αυτόν το λόγο έχω ζητήσει και αποζημίωση από τη Γερμανία για τους Έλληνες που πέθαναν στα ναζιστικά στρατόπεδα. Επομένως είναι ξεκάθαρη η θέση μου. Αυτό που είπα, για να το καταλάβει ο συνάδελφος, είναι ότι όταν εγκλωβιστούν χιλιάδες πρόσφυγες στην Ελλάδα, θα είναι εγκλωβισμένοι...

(Η Πρόεδρος διακόπτει τον ομιλητή)

President. – Mr Marias, we are out of the debate right now with all these statements. Would you please stop there. Everything you said has already been noted in the minutes. You will have it reflected there. Thank you very much. I think it is enough for now.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE). – Madame la Présidente, pour revenir à Schengen, je dirais que le terme est devenu un "paradoxe", une sorte de paradoxe vivant. Aujourd'hui, il est utilisé par certains qui, pour supprimer la liberté de circulation, s'en servent comme bouc émissaire de tous nos maux et de tous leurs maux. Pour d'autres, dont je fais partie avec encore – je le souhaite et je le sens – beaucoup de citoyens européens, c'est l'élément le plus concret qu'apporte l'Europe, c'est – comme l'a souligné le commissaire – l'acquis le plus tangible.

À cet égard, si vous me permettez, dans ma circonscription, qui est voisine de trois pays européens – le Luxembourg, les Länder allemands et la Belgique –, Schengen fait partie du quotidien de ces hommes et de ces femmes qui travaillent de l'autre côté, dans un État membre. Derrière Schengen, il y a donc des hommes, des femmes, des activités, des échanges, de l'économie. À cela s'ajoutent 1,250 milliard de déplacements dans l'espace européen, sans compter les étudiants.

Bien sûr, il y a des améliorations qui peuvent et doivent être apportées pour renforcer l'accord, notamment à travers la communication de la Commission "Back to Schengen", mais les réponses sont multiples. L'une d'entre elles, dont nous avons déjà débattu, va être soumise au vote du Parlement: celle des frontières externes, d'un corps européen – qui soit pleinement européen – de gardes-frontières et de garde-côtes. Schengen, c'est aussi l'aide aux pays qui sont aux frontières externes et qui se heurtent à des difficultés. C'est avoir une coopération excellente en matière de renseignement. C'est notre intérêt commun, mais c'est surtout notre responsabilité européenne, et celle-ci doit être partagée.

  Gilles Lebreton (ENF). – Madame la Présidente, le Conseil et la Commission de Bruxelles annoncent leur volonté de restaurer un système Schengen pleinement fonctionnel. Dans le jargon eurocratique, cela signifie qu'"il faut sauver le soldat Schengen". Cette lubie va nous coûter très cher: 6 milliards d'euros donnés à la Turquie et des promesses de visas pour 78 millions de Turcs. Pourquoi tout cela? Pour la persuader de bien vouloir reprendre 72 000 migrants, pas un de plus! Les autres migrants, qui se chiffrent par millions, seront relocalisés dans les États membres. Malheur aux États qui voudront résister. Il leur en coûtera 250 000 euros par migrant refusé.

Il est temps de voir la réalité en face. Schengen est un échec total, une passoire dont il est impossible de boucher les trous. Les peuples européens n'en veulent plus. L'Union européenne devra les écouter ou elle disparaîtra.

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, podle mého přesvědčení právě narušení svobody pohybu je jedním z nejviditelnějších ohrožení nabytých práv občanů Evropské unie. Byly zde již v debatě zmíněny dopady na konkurenceschopnost našich podniků, podnikatelů. Myslím si, že pokud v debatě zaznělo, že se může jednat o ekonomický kolaps, že to je možná poněkud přehnané. Nicméně náklady, které jsou vyčísleny v souvislosti právě s ohrožením schengenského prostoru a svobody pohybu, jsou skutečně alarmující. Je z toho patrný jednoznačný politický úkol pro Komisi a samozřejmě také pro Radu, aby se zasadily plnou silou o obnovení právě schengenského prostoru.

Ty náklady, které můžeme změřit v té ekonomické rovině právě v negativních číslech, jsou ovšem nezměřitelné v té politické rovině. Jak se skutečně dotkne myšlení občanů Evropské unie, pokud ztratí jeden z těch nejviditelnějších znaků evropské integrace? To si myslím, že nemůže dneska nikdo ještě ani dostatečně předvídat, takovéto budoucí vidění.

Mluví se velmi často o bezpečnosti. Samozřejmě jasným politickým úkolem vlád členských států je zajištění bezpečnosti svých občanů. Ale není možno na oltář bezpečnosti obětovat jednu z těchto hlavních viditelných svobod, a to je tedy svoboda pohybu. Podle mého přesvědčení je politickým úkolem všech, jak členských států, tak institucí Evropské unie, aby se důsledně uplatňovala návratová politika, aby byla účinná a efektivní. To nám zajistí právě fungování schengenského prostoru.

  Péter Niedermüller (S&D). – Elnök Asszony, Schengen az Európai Unió talán legjelentősebb vívmánya, ami a polgárok számára is kézzelfogható, érzékelhető. Nem csak a hétköznapi életben jelent nagy könnyebbséget, hanem gazdasági jelentősége is óriási. Schengen ugyanakkor a szabadság, az egység és a közös Európa nagyszerű szimbóluma is. Éppen ezért kiábrándító látni, ahogy tagállami kormányok könnyű szívvel adják fel azt, amiért olyan sokat kellett küzdeni. Önmagunk becsapása azt gondolni, hogy a bezárkózás, a kizárás, az egyre szigorúbb ellenőrzés, a schengeni határok felfüggesztése majd valahogy megoldja a migráció okozta nehézségeket. Nem oldja meg, sőt, csak súlyosbítja a konfliktusokat. Hiszen azt a látszatot kelti, hogy van külön tagállami megoldás, pedig tudjuk, hogy nincs.

Az értelmetlen „law and order” politika csak a szélsőjobboldalt erősíti. Hogy mennyire így van ez, azt jól mutatja mindaz, ami az elmúlt napokban Ausztriában történt. Meg kell végre érteni, nem lehet a szélsőjobb eszközeinek átvételével kifogni a szelet a demagógok vitorlájából. Az igazán súlyos árat azonban ismét a háború elöl menekülők fizetik meg. A héten a magyar-szlovák határon sebesült meg súlyosan egy 26 éves szíriai nő, amikor a határőrök tüzet nyitottak rá. Ez lenne ma Európa? Ide jutottunk volna? Mindannyiunk közös feladata megvédeni Schengent. Nem lehet engedni a tagállami önzésnek, a populista szélsőjobboldali politikának. Nem a menekültek veszélyeztetik Európát és Schengent, hanem a bezárkózás, a nacionalista önzés, az ostoba populizmus.

  Angelika Mlinar (ALDE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ein wesentlicher Teil unserer Diskussion rund um Schengen ist Griechenland gewidmet. Es stimmt: Derzeit steht Griechenland im Mittelpunkt des Interesses. Aber betrachten wir hier nicht nur einen kleinen Teil des Problems? Wenn sich die Route verschiebt, werden wir zu unserer Überraschung feststellen, dass an den anderen Außengrenzen ebenso große Defizite herrschen. Wir müssen erkennen, dass Schengen zu retten keine wirkliche Frage ist, die mit ja oder nein beantwortet werden kann. In Wahrheit ist es eine moralische Verpflichtung, unsere Außengrenzen mit einem gemeinsamen Grenzmanagement zu schützen, um die Binnengrenzen offenhalten zu können. Diese Grenzsicherung muss auf Vertrauen, Solidarität und Fairness gegenüber Angehörigen von Drittstaaten basieren. Das Europäische Parlament und die Kommission haben hier schon Schritte in die richtige Richtung unternommen. Wie so oft, scheint es allerdings an den Mitgliedstaaten zu scheitern.

Wir müssen ehrlich zu uns selbst und zu unserer Bevölkerung sein: Schengen ist mehr als das Wegfallen der Passkontrolle, Schengen ist eine europäische Errungenschaft, das Kernstück der Union und eine notwendige Bedingung für Wohlstand und Wachstum.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Ministra, é bom vê-la representar o Conselho, Senhor Comissário, não apoiamos quem quer destruir Schengen. Criticamos a inação, a falta de solidariedade, o retrocesso nas conquistas da Europa. Os controlos nas fronteiras internas podem ser um analgésico para ganharmos tempo para debelar a doença. Mas temos de continuar a resolver os problemas de longo prazo enquanto respondemos aos de curto prazo. No imediato, temos de ser solidários com a Grécia e pedir ao Governo grego mais determinação e eficácia.

A proposta de decisão apresentada pela Comissão para o prolongamento dos controlos nas fronteiras internas é um passo previsível. Não destrói Schengen, mas prolonga um período caótico de transição, em que os Estados-Membros têm usado esta prerrogativa de forma totalmente descoordenada. E enquanto alguns, como a Alemanha, tentaram acolher melhor os requerentes de asilo, outros apenas o fizeram para alimentar discursos populistas. Ora a proposta da Comissão vem, pelo menos, mitigar este problema.

Mas esta decisão não deve servir para justificar as irracionalidades e os egoísmos nacionais que temos visto.

Aliás, esta proposta de decisão resulta da avaliação das fronteiras externas da Grécia, cujas falhas não terão sido ainda corrigidas. Ora, sozinha, a Grécia nunca o conseguirá fazer. Como reconhece, aliás, a Comissão. Por outro lado, se é certo que existem problemas na gestão das fronteiras, é consensual que é no domínio do asilo, que não faz parte das avaliações Schengen, que está a verdadeira origem do problema!

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Die abermalige Verlängerung der Grenzkontrollen ist ein schwerwiegender Eingriff. Er provoziert die Gefahr, dass wir uns daran gewöhnen und dass damit das Europa, das wir kennen, entscheidend verändert wird, bis zu seiner Unkenntlichkeit verändert wird. Viele sehen heute in der Wiedereinführung von Grenzkontrollen ein innenpolitisches Allheilmittel, wie zum Beispiel am Brenner.

Es ist positiv, dass die Kommission und der Rat die Problematik sehen, aber ich bin mit den Lösungsansätzen nicht einverstanden. Das hängt auch mit der schlechten Qualität der Diskussion zusammen. Solche gravierenden Maßnahmen müssten eigentlich intensiv und transparent diskutiert werden und nicht nur auf Botschafterebene und in einem Entwicklungshilfe-Ministerrat, wie das jetzt passiert. Das Europäische Parlament müsste mit eingebunden sein und nicht nur informiert werden. Ich erinnere Sie daran, dass wir vor drei Jahren als Europäisches Parlament verlangt haben, beim Schengen-Bewertungsmechanismus mit eingebunden zu werden. Der Rat hat uns damals die kalte Schulter gewiesen. Das war eine sehr schlechte Entscheidung.

  Pavel Telička (ALDE). – Madam President, first of all I would like also to reiterate that Schengen is just unprecedented; its value cannot be matched and we need to maintain it and of course develop it, but in order to do that, we really need to safeguard the external borders. The Commissioner has identified the deficiencies but I think, Commissioner, that any Member State will always have a difficulty and I think this is just yet one more argument for having a European coast and border guard – a European one, an efficient one, with all the capacities.

If we have that, and if we also reform the asylum system but with a strict return policy, and if we are efficient with it and if we will really identify the key issue, which is the real refugees, then we will also have solidarity. We need solidarity and unity in order to perform and to deliver. The 250 000 is going in the opposite direction; I am sorry to say so but that is killing unity. Otherwise if we work on these aspects then we will achieve it for sure.

One final remark. There were some views from the left of the Hemicycle, saying that Schengen is basically contributing to terrorism. With that logic we would have to build borders in London, in Paris and between the States. That is just a stupidity and a nonsense.

  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, the Schengen agreement is one of the most important achievements of European integration. The current migrant crisis, however, has severely damaged the possibility of Schengen’s further unaltered functioning. Every state has the right to promote its security by whatever legal means available, but the introduction of internal border controls within Schengen takes place mostly unilaterally, without any serious assessment of the underlining systemic consequences. As a result, should the border controls ever be fully re-established, the EU economy, cooperation and development across many areas shall severely suffer. That, quite frankly, makes the estimated yearly costs of EUR 5 to 18 billion a serious understatement. Ensuring better protection of the external borders and assisting the Member States that suffer the most is absolutely necessary. However, since one of the main reasons for reintroduction of border controls was and still is their thoroughness, revision of internal cross-border security measures is highly warranted. The only one who can fix this situation are the Europeans themselves, no deals with rather untrustworthy and unpredictable neighbours will ever do that for us.

  Εύα Καϊλή ( S&D). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, αντιλαμβανόμαστε όλοι πως έχετε από τα πιο σύνθετα χαρτοφυλάκια και η έκτακτη αυτή κατάσταση, παρότι προσωρινή, είναι δύσκολο να εκτιμηθεί πότε θα τεθεί υπό έλεγχο σε κάθε της διάσταση. Θα ήθελα να σας ζητήσω να προβείτε σε ορισμένες διευκρινίσεις, καθώς όλες οι χώρες θα έπρεπε να σεβαστούν τις συμφωνίες, αλλά κυρίως η Ελλάδα που περνάει δραματική και συνεχή λιτότητα. Ποιο θα είναι το κόστος της προστασίας των εξωτερικών θαλασσίων συνόρων της και τι ποσό είναι διατεθειμένη η Ευρώπη να αναλάβει; Θα μπορούσατε επίσης να μας δώσετε ένα χρονοδιάγραμμα της δράσης της Frontex και του ΝΑΤΟ και να μας αναφέρετε ποιο είναι το σχέδιο για μετά; Επίσης, αν δεν ικανοποιηθούν οι απαιτήσεις της Τουρκίας, ποιες είναι βασικά οι δικές σας ανησυχίες και τι νομίζετε ότι θα απογίνουν οι άνθρωποι που είναι ήδη εγκλωβισμένοι στην Ελλάδα; Και μια τελευταία ερώτηση: μπορούμε να έχουμε και ένα χρονοδιάγραμμα για το ποια θα είναι η άμεση αποκατάσταση της Σένγκεν και η βελτίωση της λειτουργίας της, καθώς και τη διαβεβαίωσή σας ότι δεν θα υπάρξει έξοδος οποιασδήποτε χώρας από τη Σένγκεν;

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Ivana Maletić (PPE). – Gospođo predsjednice, poštovani povjereniče, odustajanjem od Schengena prihvatili bismo strah koji nam teroristi žele nametnuti. Troškovi nefunkcioniranja Schengena ogromni su i iznose između 15 i 18 milijardi eura godišnje prema procjeni Europske komisije. Puno bolje je ta sredstva uložiti u jačanje zajedničke vanjske granice, u jačanje Frontex-a i timova europske straže. Zato svakako podržavam Akcijski plan Europske komisije. Rađen je zajedno s državama članicama i važno je da one osjećaju vlasništvo nad planom i odgovornost za njegovu provedbu.

Čula sam u govorima nekih zastupnika da ne vide poboljšanja u vraćanju Schengena. Ja imam potpuno drugačije iskustvo. Sada se iz Hrvatske može automobilom zaputiti preko Slovenije, Austrije, Njemačke do Francuske, a da se ne gube sati na svakoj granici.

Na kraju jedna poruka za povjerenika: molim Vas da Hrvatsku, koja je izvan Schengena, a želi ući što prije, na tom putu podržite i ubrzate proces ulaska.

  Cécile Kashetu Kyenge (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la fine di Schengen vorrebbe dire l'inizio della fine del progetto europeo. Le conseguenze dannose sarebbero incalcolabili per tutti i cittadini europei, che si troverebbero di colpo in un'Europa frammentata in piccoli Stati, in preda ad egoismi nazionali. Perderemmo la grande conquista della facilità di spostarci da un punto all'altro in Europa: un danno per la nostra economia, per il nostro turismo e anche per il nostro trasporto.

Se penso al mio paese, l'Italia si troverebbe sola a gestire il flusso migratorio. Schengen si può e si deve salvare per il futuro di una vera Europa, con un approccio globale e olistico di tutto il fenomeno migratorio, insieme per una modifica ambiziosa di Dublino, per istituire corridoi umanitari, visti e ammissioni umanitari, per rafforzare i canali legali di immigrazione, per intervenire sulle cause profonde che muovono le persone dalle loro terre. E infine per una forte politica estera e di cooperazione allo sviluppo.

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Kolegyně a kolegové, svoboda pohybu v rámci schengenského prostoru je jistě velmi symbolickou výhodou evropské integrace. Ale svoboda je možná jen tehdy, je-li doprovázena odpovědností. V tomto případě odpovědností za bezpečnou vnější hranici schengenského prostoru. Vnější hranice není dostatečně chráněna a já zcela chápu obavy občanů o bezpečnost, a proto také chápu dočasná opatření, která některé země v rámci schengenského prostoru na svých hranicích prostě udělaly. Ostatně Komise nenavrhuje v tuto chvíli nic jiného. Dokud tedy nebude vnější hranice dostatečně chráněna, bude existovat ilegální migrace, pak budou nezbytné i tyto dočasně vytvořené kontroly. Ještě jednou bych zopakovala, že svoboda bez zodpovědnosti prostě není možná a není ani udržitelná.

  Илхан Кючюк (ALDE). – Г-жо Председател, шенгенското пространство е едно от най-значимите постижения на съвременна Европа. То гарантира свободното движение на стотици милиони граждани на Европейския съюз. Въпреки това през изминалата година шест от членовете на Шенген въведоха отново контрол по вътрешните си граници поради съображения, свързани с бежанската криза. Това временно въвеждане на граничен контрол се отразява негативно на търговията, но преди всичко има важни последици за европейския проект, изразени в евроскептицизъм, антиимигрантска и популистка риторика.

Ето защо считам, че трябва да възстановим нормалното функциониране на шенгенското пространство най-късно до края на тази година. За целта трябва да гарантираме защита на външните граници на Европейския съюз, а това може да се постигне с новосъздадената европейска служба за гранична и брегова охрана. Тя трябва да бъде основана на съвместната отговорност и солидарност, а държавите членки, които все още не са част от шенгенското пространство, като България и Румъния, следва също да участват в нея.

Вярвам, че завръщането към нормалното функциониране на шенгенското пространство е завръщане към основите на европейската интеграция.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ripristinare la piena operatività del sistema Schengen rappresenta la condicio sine qua non per la realizzazione di una vera Europa. Mai come in questo momento dobbiamo difendere, con tutte le nostre forze, il trattato di Schengen, ponendo fine a miopi e sterili nazionalismi. La libera circolazione delle persone già figurava tra gli obiettivi dell'Atto unico europeo e Schengen è da considerarsi uno degli avanzamenti più concreti compiuti dall'Unione europea.

Chiudere le frontiere per frenare i flussi migratori equivale a spostare indietro le lancette dell'integrazione. La sospensione del trattato di Schengen può solo tamponare nell'immediato l'emergenza sicurezza, ma non potrà supplire all'assenza di una policy comune a tutti gli Stati membri in materia di immigrazione e asilo e alla mancanza di un sistema concretamente integrato e funzionante di polizia e di controllo delle frontiere esterne. È responsabilità comune e un dovere nei confronti della storia far prevalere la solidarietà sugli scetticismi e sulla paura.

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Dimitris Avramopoulos, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, dear colleagues, first of all, I would like to express my thanks for your interventions and your contributions. Ms in ‘t Veld and Ms Fajon, I will answer your concerns. What prevailed is the need to ensure a coordinated and coherent European approach. We have set a timetable; a roadmap, and we implement it. We clearly state that we will be monitoring the application of our recommendations. Member States are expected to adjust the controls to the level of the threat. And yes, some Member States have stopped the controls when they were not necessary.

And yes, on a different case, on the Brenner for instance, I have sent a very clear letter that we do not agree with the reintroduction of border controls and border checks as the situation currently stands. Our very constructive discussion gives me confidence that most of us in this House believe in, work for and support the need for more Europe. The message is clear: we will walk this way together – together and united with a spirit of true solidarity and responsibility as our Treaties expressly stipulate. Going back to Schengen will allow the reorientation of our common European endeavour towards a deeper and more integrated Union – an achievement with tangible important benefits in the everyday life of the citizens of Europe and businesses.

May I now draw attention to those who are in favour of building walls, erecting fences and fortresses, afraid of outside enemies. Beware of the Trojan horse carrying xenophobia, racism, populism and extremism. Europe has suffered in the past from elements like this. Border controls should take place only as long as required to address the threat to public policy and internal security. It is an exceptional measure to be used only in exceptional circumstances; it should not obey myopic, short-term domestic policy and tactics.

Since you asked me about Greece, allow me to answer as well in Greek now.

Κυρίες και κύριοι, κυρία Καϊλή, μου θέσατε πολύ σημαντικά ζητήματα. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή θέτει τέλος στα σενάρια και την παραφιλολογία, που παραδόξως ακόμα κρατεί, για αποβολή κρατών μελών από τη Συνθήκη Σένγκεν και την επιβολή δήθεν ποινών. Το άρθρο 29, που ενεργοποιούμε για πρώτη φορά, σκοπό έχει όχι να τιμωρήσει, αλλά να εξασφαλίσει την προστασία της ορθής και ασφαλούς λειτουργίας της ζώνης Σένγκεν. Δεν επιβάλλονται έλεγχοι στα αεροδρόμια και στα λιμάνια. Με την αμέριστη συμπαράσταση και στήριξη της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής, όπως είχα την ευκαιρία να πω και στην πρωτολογία μου, η Ελλάδα έχει να επιδείξει σημαντικότατη πρόοδο τους τελευταίους μήνες στον τομέα της αποτελεσματικής διαχείρισης των κοινών εξωτερικών μας συνόρων. Σίγουρα, δεν παραβλέπουμε τις αδυναμίες και τις ελλείψεις, γιατί, ναι, υπάρχουν ακόμα. Δεν παραβλέπουμε όμως και το γεγονός ότι η Ελλάδα κλήθηκε να αντιμετωπίσει μεταναστευτικές και προσφυγικές ροές πρωτόγνωρης έντασης. Ακολουθεί σωστή πορεία, πρέπει όμως να ολοκληρώσει την αποτελεσματική αντιμετώπιση όλων των ζητημάτων που της έχουν επισημανθεί. Ενεργοποιούμε κάθε διαθέσιμο χρηματοδοτικό πόρο. Κινητοποιούμε κάθε διαθέσιμη τεχνική βοήθεια, έχουμε συγκεκριμένο και συνεκτικό σχέδιο, εφαρμόζοντας μια ολιστική στρατηγική, της οποίας τα πρώτα αποτελέσματα έχουν ήδη αρχίσει να γίνονται αισθητά Στο πλαίσιο αυτό, η αρχική εφαρμογή της συμφωνίας Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης Τουρκίας καθώς και οι εν εξελίξει επιχειρήσεις της FRΟΝΤΕX και του ΝΑΤΟ, κυρίως στο Αιγαίο, έχουν συμβάλει στη δραστική μείωση του αριθμού παράτυπων μεταναστών και αιτούντων άσυλο.

Αξιότιμα μέλη του Κοινοβουλίου, το ευρωπαϊκό παράδειγμα αποδεικνύει ότι μέσα από κρίσεις η Ευρώπη εξέρχεται ακόμα πιο ισχυρή, ακόμα πιο δυνατή και, βέβαια, αυτό θα συμβεί και τώρα.

  Jeanine Hennis-Plasschaert, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, I think that Mr Zver touched upon the essence of what we are discussing when he said that the better the control of our external borders, the more freedom we can allow within our borders. I agree with all of you –or most of you, I have to say – that it is of the greatest importance to restore full freedom of movement in the Schengen area as soon as possible and as soon as the circumstances allow us to act accordingly.

Some of you remarked that things are getting worse rather than better. I beg to differ. The utter chaos that we experienced at our borders earlier this year is disappearing. We are regaining control. But it is true that we need to further stabilise the situation, and this further stabilisation of the situation is necessary before we can lift all controls and return to normal again. I agree with all who have said that the controls need to be exceptional, temporary and proportionate. That is exactly what the Commission proposal aims to do and that is why we hope to adopt a decision tomorrow at the Foreign Affairs Council.

Of course Mrs in ‘t Veld is totally right when she says that Schengen is one of the greatest European achievements – I totally agree with her – and Mrs Fajon and others are right in pointing out the economic consequences if the Schengen area were to fall apart. We have heard things like ‘I don’t buy the economic argument’ or ‘I do buy it’. It is of great importance for all our citizens and businesses alike. So, as I said earlier, the aim is to ensure that any and all remaining obstacles are removed by the end of the year at the latest, and I sincerely hope that we will collectively succeed soon.

President. – The debate is closed.

  Francisco Assis (S&D), por escrito. – O funcionamento integral do espaço Schengen é algo que acredito ser fundamental para o projeto europeu e lamento a sua suspensão parcial, já que constitui uma das consequências mais negativas da crise de refugiados com que estamos confrontados.

Impõe-se destacar negativamente os comportamento de alguns Estados-Membros que violam o espírito subjacente à nossa união. Existem, na Europa, governos que promovem um discurso de exclusão, ultranacionalista e com carácter xenófobo, com consequências muito negativas, como a já referida suspensão do espaço Schengen.

Um dos pilares do projeto europeu é o princípio da livre circulação e, antes de fazer uma análise do impacto económico negativo destas medidas, é importante concluir que o projeto europeu está a ser posto em causa por estas atitudes.

Espero que a Comissão Europeia prossiga o seu esforço no sentido de chamar a atenção dos Estados-Membros para que permaneçam fiéis ao espírito europeu.

  Birgit Collin-Langen (PPE), schriftlich. – Ich unterstütze die Resolution. Auch wenn ich die Möglichkeit vorübergehender Grenzkontrollen im Rahmen der gesetzlichen Vorschriften begrüße, so darf es sich hier nur um zeitlich befristete Maßnahmen handeln. Schengen ist das Herzstück der EU, Grundstein für den freien Waren-, Dienstleistungs- und Personenverkehr. Schengen steht aber noch für viel mehr, als eine Grenze ohne Kontrolle überqueren zu können. Schengen ist ein Symbol des Zusammenwachsens der Europäischen Union. Wir dürfen dieses Symbol nicht leichtfertigt aufgeben. Wir müssen unsere Außengrenzen wirksam schützen und an Schengen darf nicht gerüttelt werden!

  Nicola Danti (S&D), per iscritto. – Il superamento del sistema Schengen potrebbe avere ripercussioni gravissime nel settore dei trasporti e del turismo e rischierebbe di mettere a repentaglio la sopravvivenza del mercato interno, con costi stimati tra 5 e 18 miliardi di euro all’anno per l’economia europea. A questi costi ingenti in termini economici, si sommerebbero gli inestimabili costi politici, le cui conseguenze potrebbero essere ben più durature e onerose. Per questo abbiamo il dovere di salvare Schengen, non soltanto per garantire ai nostri cittadini e lavoratori il loro diritto alla libera circolazione e movimento, ma soprattutto in nome del lungimirante progetto politico di integrazione europea, così come era stato immaginato dai padri fondatori dell’Unione. Per raggiungere questo obiettivo, mi auguro che vengano rispettati in maniera rigorosa i tempi previsti dalla tabella di marcia della Commissione per il ritorno al funzionamento normale dello spazio Schengen, che prevede di eliminare tutti i controlli alle frontiere interne entro la fine di questo anno, modificare il sistema di asilo europeo e rafforzare il controllo delle frontiere esterne. Auspico progressi molto più rapidi da parte degli Stati membri nell’attuazione della Roadmap della Commissione, prima che sia troppo tardi per salvaguardare una delle principali conquiste raggiunte dall’Unione europea.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE), napisan. – Prostor slobodnog kretanja tzv. schengena među europskim zemljama je najveća vrednota europskog jedinstva. Zato taj sustav treba očuvati i stvoriti efikasnu kontrolu na vanjskim granicama Europske unije. Neophodno je uspostaviti potpunu suradnju među svima državama članicama po svim pitanjima koja ugrožavaju funkcioniranje schengenskog prostora. Gubitak slobode kretanja ljudi i roba na području schengena je neprihvatljiva i stoga treba uložiti sve neophodne napore kako bi se do kraja godine ponovo uspostavio normalan režim među državama članicama.

  Claudia Tapardel (S&D), în scris. – Instituirea sistemului Schengen a adus un suflu nou libertăților europene, făcând un pas uriaș către crearea unei adevărate piețe unice. Prin eliminarea controalelor vamale s-au pierdut cozile interminabile de la granițele dintre state și s-au câștigat timp și prosperitate pentru cetățeni. Cu toate acestea, pe fondul crizei actuale a migrației, unele state au decis să își închidă granițele, în speranța că acest lucru le va proteja de valul de refugiați. Aceasta este o măsură greșită, lipsită de viziune și împotriva a tot ceea ce înseamnă Uniunea Europeană. La o problemă de o asemenea magnitudine avem nevoie de o soluție europeană, nu de un mozaic de reacții divergente. De aceea, consider că un spațiu Schengen puternic poate fi parte din soluția pe care o căutăm și nicidecum sursa problemelor. Un Schengen eficient trebuie să includă toate statele membre, inclusiv România și Bulgaria, care deja au arătat că îndeplinesc toate criteriile impuse. Dincolo de faptul că acceptarea lor ar da semnalul că toate statele sunt egale între ele, am putea în sfârșit să ne concentrăm pe întărirea frontierelor europene. Trebuie, așadar, să dovedim că suntem uniți în interior, dar și că ne putem proteja de problemele care vin de dincolo de granițele UE.