Visas tekstas 
Procedūra : 2016/2574(RSP)
Procedūros eiga plenarinėje sesijoje
Dokumento priėmimo eiga : O-000029/2016

Pateikti tekstai :

O-000029/2016 (B8-0362/2016)

Debatai :

PV 09/06/2016 - 9
CRE 09/06/2016 - 9

Balsavimas :

Priimti tekstai :

Posėdžio stenograma
Ketvirtadienis, 2016 m. birželio 9 d. - Strasbūras Atnaujinta informacija

9. Informacija apie derybas dėl tarptautinių susitarimų (diskusijos)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

Przewodniczący. – Kolejnym punktem porządku dnia jest debata nad pytaniem wymagającym odpowiedzi ustnej skierowanym do Komisji przez Claude’a Moraesa w imieniu Komisji Wolności Obywatelskich, Sprawiedliwości i Spraw Wewnętrznych w sprawie informacji dotyczących negocjacji w sprawie umów międzynarodowych (O-000029/2016 - B8-0362/2016).


  Roberta Metsola, author. – Mr President, I will speak on behalf of Parliament’s Committee on Civil Liberties Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE). Article 218 of the Lisbon Treaty strengthened Parliament’s role in the conclusion of international agreements, generalising the application of the consent procedure and providing that Parliament is to receive enhanced information in the process leading to the conclusion of an agreement. The Framework Agreement on relations between Parliament and the Commission details these provisions in paragraph 23 and 24 and, in particular, in Annex 3, as further confirmed by the rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union, for example in case C-658/2011, Parliament v. Council.

This case law has made clear that Parliament’s right to be informed is not limited to requests for information made just by Parliament, but obliges the other institutions to take the initiative. In September 2014, in the written answers to the questionnaire in the preparation of the hearing on the selection process for Commissioners, Commissioner Avramopoulos referred to his intention to keep the LIBE Committee fully informed on the negotiations on international agreements, according to the Treaty provisions and in line with the Framework Agreement.

The LIBE Committee welcomes the information it has received from the Commission services further to its request. However, we understand that the practical implementation of these Treaty provisions could be further improved, and this on the basis of Article 218(10). So under this framework, in this regard, the LIBE Committee asks the Commission to kindly reply to the following questions.

First, what measures does the Commission intend to take to fully live up to the Treaty provisions and the case law in order to improve the current system of informing Parliament on the negotiations of international agreements, thereby guaranteeing that the required information is automatically transmitted to Parliament in an exhaustive manner and this at all stages of the procedure?

Second, how does the Commission aim to ensure that the regular transmission of all relevant information on negotiations contains, at the minimum, indications as to the third country in question, the type of agreement, the stage of procedure and the relevant documents, such as those mentioned in point 5 of Annex 3 of the Framework Agreement? Is the Commission preparing to set up a permanent mechanism in order to strengthen Parliament’s role in this very crucial and sensitive area?

And lastly, in the particular case of concluded EU readmission agreements, how is the Commission planning to report to the LIBE Committee, which it should do at least twice a year as per the Commission declaration annexed to the European Parliament recommendation on the readmission agreement with Pakistan?


  Dimitris Avramopoulos, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, let me start by expressing my thanks to Ms Metsola and, through you, to the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) for having given us the opportunity of this debate to reflect about how the European institutions, and particularly the Commission, can better inform the European Parliament about negotiations for international agreements.

As you know, in the context of the new Inter-Institutional Agreement for Better Law-Making, Parliament, the Commission and the Council have made a commitment to meet within six months of the entry into force of the inter-institutional agreement, in order to negotiate improved practical arrangements for cooperation and information sharing. This trilateral approach reflects the fact that the obligation to inform Parliament fully and immediately falls on both the Commission and the Council, in accordance with their institutional roles. For example, it does not fall on the Commission to inform Parliament about decisions taken or texts adopted by Council.

But let me reiterate the importance that we, in the Commission, attach to our obligations under the Treaty and to our existing commitment under the framework agreement: we are committed to providing Parliament with full and immediate information at all stages of negotiations for international agreements. The Commission stands by this commitment and monitors its implementation closely.

The framework agreement established the practice that information concerning international agreements should, as a general rule, be provided to Parliament through the responsible Parliamentary committee. In line with this sector-specific approach, the Commission has instructed its services to arrange directly with the relevant Parliamentary committees the modalities for the provision of information and documents, to allow for optimal solutions in this area.

The Commission believes that our obligations are, generally speaking, well respected and that Commissioners and their services are doing their part to ensure that Parliament is well informed. This includes the provision of confidential information and documents and the specific arrangements set out in the framework agreement.

As regards specifically the work of the Civil Liberties Committee, Commission services have established a practice of providing regular updates to the committee on pending international agreement. Commission representatives have always been willing to come and give an update on ongoing international negotiations, either in camera or in a public meeting, as appropriate. Likewise, practical arrangements for informing Parliament about re-admission agreements have so far included regular presentations by senior Commission officials to the Civil Liberties Committee in ordinary meetings.

The Commission is ready to provide such information whenever requested, be it in public or, when appropriate, in a restricted meeting. The Commission is also open to discussing with Parliament whether and how practice can be improved. I am looking forward to hearing your concrete proposals, which will fit into the trilateral approach that Parliament, the Council and the Commission, are to start soon.


  Andrejs Mamikins, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, in 2009 the Lisbon Treaty created the European Parliament we know today, although already since 2006 it had been progressively included in more and more negotiations and consultations on numerous important matters, such as the second Schengen information system for example.

The point of retelling these public and well-known facts was simply to point out one rather simple matter: even though over the last decades all of the Union’s institutions have evolved and gained new powers and responsibilities, Parliament has undoubtedly evolved the most. Today it is by right amongst the top four EU institutions in terms of power, the others being the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Council. In fact, in a majority of cases when important decisions are concerned, Parliament has to agree to their implementation, not to mention that quite a few of them may get amended in the process as well. In this instance, it specifically applies to the conclusion of international agreements, something that the Lisbon Treaty has brought to the table.

Moreover, not only does the Parliament in this respect possess the power of the consent procedure, it also has to be provided with comprehensive information on the process leading to the conclusion of an agreement in question, meaning that, even though Parliament can ask for specific information when such a need arises, it should be given to it of the other involved institutions’ own accord.

In other words, I fully support the implementation of additional and the reinforcement of the currently existing measures aimed at a fully functional operation of the system, whose goal is to inform Parliament on the negotiation process of international agreements. It is, of course, fully understandable that, depending on each and every particular case, information may not be fully available for various reasons. However, the points mentioned in the debated oral question should indeed be a bare minimum. The third country in question, for example, the type of agreement discussed, the stage of the procedure and the relevant documents pertaining to the negotiations.

Parliament does not legally have the power of legislative initiative, something that sets it far apart from the national parliaments in our Member States. But then again, the European Union itself is not a federation or a single state, and Parliament is essentially still a consultative assembly. However, it is a consultative assembly with some very advanced powers unlike those of any other similar institutional body around the world, including the ability to ask the Commission to draft the necessary legislation. So, in this respect, Parliament even has a de facto power of legislative initiative. Committee and delegation hearings and non-binding resolutions have an indirect, albeit quite powerful, influence on the Union’s foreign policy. For example: approval of overseas development grants, EU enlargement etc., not to mention the non-binding quotes on new EU treaties, even without possessing the respective veto powers. All of this makes the Parliament an actor to be taken into utmost consideration.

To put the overall idea a bit more simply, thanks to the enormous legitimacy gained through European elections directly from the EU citizens themselves, and due to the long-term constant expansions of various powers through the EU treaties, Parliament has the right to be constantly kept in the loop of essentially every EU-level and international development that concerns the European Union, which undoubtedly also includes information provision concerning negotiations on international agreements involving the EU.


  Ангел Джамбазки, от името на групата ECR. – Поздравявам първо инициативата от страна на докладчика и бих искал да обсъдя предложените от него теми за дебат.

И така, Договорът от Лисабон укрепва ролята на Парламента в сключването на международни споразумения, осигурявайки по-общо прилагане на процедурите за одобрение и подобрена информираност на Парламента по време на процеса, който води до сключване на споразумение. Това е по силата на член 218, параграф 10 от Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз.

Съдебната практика на Съда на Европейския съюз ясно показва, че правото на Парламента да бъде информиран не се ограничава с исканията за информация, отправени от Парламента, а задължава институциите да поемат инициативата. Доста често обаче, на практика мнението на Парламента не се взема при сключването на международни споразумения и това според нас от групата на Европейските консерватори и реформисти е скандално незачитане на правата на пряко избрания орган, а именно Парламента.

Последният такъв случай е споразумението с Турция относно миграцията, с цялата условност на думата „споразумение“. Сигурен съм, че всички присъстващи днес тук колеги, колкото и да не са многобройни, сме наясно с фактите около това споразумение, но въпреки това бих искал отново да припомня, че според официалните изявления на 18 март тази година членовете на Европейския съвет и Република Турция, все още Република Турция, подписаха съвместна декларация за сътрудничество в областта на миграцията, която декларация формално е необвързващ документ, който предвижда обаче точни взаимни ангажименти на страните от политическа и бюджетна гледна точка.

Тук, при това т.нар. споразумение, става въпрос за това, че това е скрито международно споразумение, което според член 218, алинея 6 от Договора за Европейския съюз е трябвало да бъде сключено едва след изрично одобрение от Европейския парламент. Това, уважаеми колеги, означава, че проектът за споразумение с Турция трябваше да бъде обсъден тук в тази зала, да бъде представен на дебати. Първо, европейските представители да решат дали да има такова споразумение, след което да обсъдят конкретните текстове по това споразумение, а не да бъдат поставени чисто и просто в ролята на свидетел, на изслушващ на една PR акция, която направи Европейската комисия, Съветът на Европа и хората, които не са избирани, но претендират да бъдат европейски лидери. Всички сме наясно, че подобно одобрение за въпросното споразумение не е давано. Никой от нас не е декларирал, делегирал права на Европейската комисия и на Съвета да сключва подобни PR-ски споразумения.

Темата бе повдигната за обсъждане в комисията по правни въпроси от колеги от друга политическа група, като в дискусията взеха участие по наше настояване и представители на Правната служба на Европейския парламент. Те изразиха становища, че сключеното споразумение, т.нар. споразумение, няма правна обвързваща стойност, което обаче отказват да изразят писмено. Това е много странно. Казват, че има споразумение, но то няма правна стойност, това е някакво PR съобщение.

Само по себе си това твърдение е скандално. Скандално е, защото признава нещо, което отдавна всички ние, европейските представители, подозирахме, а именно, че самообявилите се, но неизбрани лидери на Европейския съюз правят, меко казано, срамни и скандални сделки зад гърба на европейските данъкоплатци. Съгласяват се да платят рекет, откуп в размер на милиарди евро – пари от джоба на всеки европеец – на един откровен диктатор, какъвто е турският президент Ердоган, за да ги спаси от това, което те сами си причиниха, а именно огромната криза, предизвикана от поканената от немския канцлер Меркел имигрантска вълна. Тази срамна и неевропейска сделка с един агресивен, арогантен и опасен диктатор, какъвто без съмнение е сегашният турски президент Ердоган, потъпква всички т.нар. европейски ценности.

За нас няма нищо по-срамно от това да говориш за свободата на словото и да се привеждаш угоднически пред един диктатор, какъвто без съмнение е Ердоган, който всеки ден доказва на практика, по телевизора, на живо, как се смазва свободата на словото, как се превземат редакции, как се затварят медии, как се съдят журналисти, как се стреля по журналисти в съдебна зала, когато те, тези журналисти, разкриват една отвратителна истина.

За да не съм голословен, ще дам пример с атентата срещу редактора на вестник „Джумхуриет“ – това е турски вестник, а неговият редактор е човекът, който разкри простичкия, ясен и очакван от всички факт, че финансирането, въоръжаването, лекуването, обучаването на бойците на „Ислямска държава“ е от страна на Република Турция. И затова му беше поискана доживотна присъда, а после беше стреляно по него в залата на съда.

Друг пример – превземането на редакцията на най-големия турски опозиционен вестник в Турция, „Заман“.

Смятам, че примерите, които изредих, са нагледен пример за нуждата от информация относно подобни споразумения. Като съзаконодателен орган Парламентът трябва да бъде уведомяван за всички детайли и всички етапи по процедурите. Призовавам Комисията да спазва ангажиментите си.

(Ораторът приема да отговори на въпрос, зададен чрез вдигане на синя карта (член 162, параграф 8 от Правилника за дейността)).


  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D), zilās kartītes jautājums. – Paldies Jums, Dzhambazki kungs, ka pieņēmāt manu zilās kartītes jautājumu. Jūs tikko teicāt, ka esot parakstīta deklarācija no Turcijas politiskās vadības puses un Eiropas Savienības vadības puses, bet īstenībā parakstu uz dokumenta, kas būtu leģislatīvs, nav, neeksistē, ir vienkārši statement, paziņojums. Līdz ar to tad īsti kādu it kā parakstītu deklarāciju starp Turciju un Eiropas Savienību Jūs minējāt savā runā?


  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR), отговор на въпрос, зададен чрез вдигане на синя карта. – Напълно съм съгласен с вас, уважаеми колега. Това е и моят въпрос. Няма споразумение според това, което отговори Правната служба на Европейския парламент. Няма споразумение. Това е заявление, акция за пред медиите, но няма споразумение, което да отговаря на нормите, на правилата, на международното право за сключване на споразумение. Това е скандалното. Тук съм напълно съгласен с вас.

(Ораторът приема да отговори на въпрос, зададен чрез вдигане на синя карта (член 162, параграф 8 от Правилника за дейността)).


  Andi Cristea (S&D), Întrebare adresată conform procedurii „cartonaşului albastru”. – Domnule președinte, stimate coleg, ca să nu fac referire la acord, acest text negociat între Uniunea Europeană și Turcia, din punctul dumneavoastră de vedere, este doar un exemplu de Realpolitik din partea Uniunii Europene, sau mai mult decât atât?


  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR), отговор на въпрос, зададен чрез вдигане на синя карта. – Това е и моето мнение. Според мен, постигнатото между Европейския съвет и Турция не може да бъде наричано споразумение. И да, може би може да го наречем „реал политика“, но според мен, простете, може да не сте съгласен с мен, но това е доста глупава политика, защото Европейският парламент, Европейският съвет отстъпи пред реалната политика на Турция. Турция печели от това, ние губим.


  Dita Charanzová, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I would point out to the Commissioner that more and more citizens are interested in international agreements: from trade to judicial cooperation agreements, to political declarations, and to the negotiations themselves.

In my 12 years of working on international trade, I have never seen such active interest. We, the European Parliament, represent the people of Europe, and if we want to serve our citizens well we must be fully informed.

Commissioner, the Treaties are very clear in this regard. The European Parliament shall be immediately and fully informed at all stages of international agreements. There are no conditional clauses in that sentence. As the guardian of the Treaties, the Commission must fulfil this requirement. Moreover, the framework agreement sets out clearly how this is to be done: Parliament must be informed by the Commission at the same time as the Council, before a mandate is given, during the negotiation and once an agreement is initialled or signed. Again, the wording in the framework agreement on this point is unconditional. It is a requirement. Yet, to this day, we seem to be treated as a second-class institution vis-à-vis the Council.

Commissioner, Parliament must be treated on an equal footing with the Council. There can be no transparency if we learn of items only after the Council has voiced its opinions. The Commission’s agenda must not be set in accordance with the Council’s agenda alone.

All that said, Commissioner, my Group also understands that this must be a two-way street: with greater transparency comes greater responsibility. Leaks, lies and mis-information can destroy the work of years in a single day. The European Parliament has rights but also obligations – and that too is clear in the framework agreement. We, as a Parliament, must respect the rules of secrecy of documents in order to preserve our mutual trust with the Commission, and respect their decisions on the level of secrecy attached to negotiation documents. My Group knows that rights come with responsibilities: responsible transparency means respecting the rules of the game.

In particular, I would like to congratulate Commissioner Malmström on the excellent job she has done so far to push for, and lead, this transparency initiative in the area of trade. The reason I mention the transparency initiative in the trade sector is because I believe that this model could serve as an inspiration in other domains in which the EU negotiates with third countries.

Let me give you another example: the recent deal that the Commission concluded with Turkey on the migration crisis. We all knew that it happened, when it happened and what the key points of it were. But the information was not complete: we were left with a lot of question marks, with information coming instead from the media.

So I hope you will treat us as an equal partner in the coming years.

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


  Diane James (EFDD), blue-card question. – Thank you, Madam, for a very good presentation and some very laudable words. Your comments on the aspects of this whole debate were very worthwhile to listen to. But this important debate has been scheduled at the very end of this plenary session, here in Strasbourg in June 2016, and we have got less than 25 MEPs here in the Chamber to listen to what we have got to say.

So would you agree with me that we are right to raise the subject, but that in fact the European Council and Commission are not really interested in what we MEPs actually have to say and comment upon?


  Dita Charanzová (ALDE), blue-card answer. – I think your question is not connected to what we are actually discussing here. My point here is to ask the Commission to treat this House, the European Parliament – which represents the people of Europe – to treat us on an equal footing, because I want to serve my citizens and in order to do so I need full information, but at the same time as the Council.


  Paloma López Bermejo, en nombre del Grupo GUE/NGL. – Señor Presidente, señor Comisario, Señorías, el secretismo, la opacidad, la falta de transparencia: esa es la política de los acuerdos internacionales de la Unión Europea, porque lo que quiere esconderse es la falta de democracia, una agenda imperialista en lo político y en lo económico. Por eso mismo, este Parlamento ha tenido que batallar cada documento, cada nota que ha extraído de la Comisión. Y por eso mismo, ha sido necesario recurrir a los tribunales para obtener lo que los Tratados disponen: el acceso automático y exhaustivo del Parlamento a todas las informaciones relevantes para las negociaciones de los tratados internacionales de la Unión Europea.

No es que nos sorprenda que esta judicialización sea necesaria: nos hemos cansado en comisiones de investigación como en la de LuxLeaks de recibir papeles con el contenido censurado, por no hablar de la resistencia a que pudiéramos conocer los documentos de la ATCI. Incluso hoy, de manera parcial, sesgada y secreta, como si no tuviéramos que responder ante el pueblo europeo de lo que negocia la Unión Europea en su nombre. Nos tenemos que enterar por filtraciones y notas de prensa de la colaboración de la Unión Europea con Marruecos y de la explotación colonial del Sáhara Occidental, de la violación de los derechos de los refugiados en Turquía, de la entrega de nuestros datos a las agencias americanas y de la venta de nuestra agricultura, nuestra industria y hasta las normas laborales a través del ACS, del AECG o de la ATCI.

La situación es especialmente grave por ser el Parlamento la única institución europea democráticamente elegida. Es obvio que deberán abrirse los Tratados para que, en los asuntos de la política exterior europea, que combina por igual el aventurerismo neocolonial, la subordinación a la OTAN y el servicio a los oligopolios económicos, sea el Parlamento quien opine y quien decida. Pero en aquellos aspectos, como los acuerdos comerciales, en los que el derecho de consulta y decisión ya está reconocido, ¿cómo puede justificar la Comisión que sus actuales prácticas son transparentes, si la información está fragmentada y recoge solo las actas de una parte, impidiendo una visión global de lo que se negocia, si excluye a determinadas comisiones de diputados o se utiliza la confidencialidad como subterfugio para que el acceso se haga solo en salas secretas donde la mayor parte de los documentos, cuando son legibles, llevan la marca de «confidencial» para evitar que el debate se traslade hacia aquellos a quienes representamos, que no es otro que el pueblo europeo?

Por ello, para nosotros el debate sobre la transparencia no es un debate meramente técnico. Es un debate de cómo la Unión Europea se ha alejado tanto de los principios democráticos que su actividad política no resiste la luz y los taquígrafos. Mientras se niega la información al Parlamento se acude a los medios para asegurar que, si hubiera negociaciones, serían para asegurar la democracia, nuestros derechos sociales, nuestra seguridad, siempre respetando la voluntad popular. Si fuera así, ¿por qué no se nos mantiene informados?

¿Cómo nos vamos a creer que no se debate de contrapartidas geopolíticas cuando se aborda la revisión de los visados y de los aranceles? ¿Cómo nos vamos a creer que los derechos humanos no son la última de las consideraciones cuando se discute de acuerdos de migrantes y refugiados? ¿Cómo se decide dónde mandar nuestros barcos y nuestras armas para proteger intereses multinacionales y no la paz global? ¿Quién está presionando para liberalizar al máximo en todos y cada uno de los acuerdos comerciales que nacen en Bruselas, punta de lanza del desmantelamiento del propio modelo social europeo? ¿Quién tiene más voz? ¿La patronal, sus expertos? ¿Es que no tienen ideología los expertos? ¿O es que los intereses de los grandes países, incluidos los Estados Unidos, tienen más voz que los 751 eurodiputados de esta Cámara a la hora de preparar las reuniones y las líneas de actuación exterior?

Si no es así, no tengan miedo, abran sus puertas, sus documentos, regularmente y sin cortapisas, y permitan el acceso a los equipos parlamentarios a toda, absolutamente toda la información, aunque me temo que lo que evidenciarán es la degradación del proyecto europeo contra los derechos de los trabajadores y de los pueblos, en el mundo y en la propia Europa.


  Diane James, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, as part of the United Kingdom Brexit deliberations three critical aspects have been highlighted and they are as follows: European Union decision making and the lack of democracy; secondly, the influence and clout of MEPs in European Union decision making; and thirdly European Union scrutiny of its own processes and procedures. How apt it is that this debate brings into sharp focus all three of those!

Now we know that this debate stems from a LIBE question, from the LIBE Committee, and it is essentially a question to the Commission on the right to be informed appropriately when the European Union is negotiating international arrangements and agreements. The question asks whether the Commission will provide, at the very least, indications as to the third country in question, the type of agreement, the stage of the procedure and the relevant documents to Parliament – to this Chamber! It should be of immediate concern to European Union citizens that this is not already the case.

Let me cite the example of my colleague Stuart Agnew who happens also to be an agricultural spokesperson. On Monday 12 October 2015 he viewed the recently published, restricted, agricultural chapter of the trade TTIP document. He had to sign a document stating that he would not disclose what he read, he had to hand over electronic gadgets and cameras, he was only allowed a pen, no paper, he was in a windowless cell and he was issued with special blank paper which could not be photocopied. He was even told that if he disclosed what he had read he would be punished, penalised with a fine and also at the mercy of punishment from Mr Schulz, the President of this Chamber.

If that is what defines the European Union’s definition of transparency and openness on this critical issue of negotiations on international agreements, then quite frankly not only is that a farce, it is unacceptable.

Then we have the case of another MEP, Mr Ming Flanagan. He also visited the TTIP chamber. He also highlighted what was wrong, and he got an email back from Mr Bernd Lange, a fellow MEP, who seem to think ‘that these confidential documents can be consulted on the premises of the European Parliament has been a great achievement for this institution’ and enabled us MEPs to better exert our role of parliamentary scrutiny in negotiations.

Well I do not agree with what Mr. Lange says, and quite frankly for him to even state that when it is quite patently the opposite is just bizarre. Now it is absolutely farcical what we are faced with, but let’s be serious just for a moment. All too often the European Union raises the red flag and condemns secrecy, breaches of openness and transparency elsewhere in the world. Yet here is the European Union saying one thing but adopting the complete opposite in its own backyard, and actually keeping or restricting any information to MEPs.

Quite clearly the messages should be from us to the Commission to the Council: Put your own house in order, abide by the transparency that you expect, demand and even dictate from others, but finally restore democracy within this organisation and stop the secrecy and withholding of vital information to which we are entitled, which we are entitled to communicate to our voters, and to which our European Union citizens should be entitled.


President. – I cannot imagine the activity of the European Parliament without you, Ms James. It is one reason why I am against a Brexit.


  Jean-Luc Schaffhauser, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, vous êtes et je suis très soucieux des droits d'information du Parlement par la Commission. La véracité de l'information, le recoupement des sources sont les conditions d'un jugement éclairé. Le recoupement des sources est absolument nécessaire pour un travail parlementaire. À ce sujet, j'avais d'ailleurs, dès 1986, soutenu le projet de nos responsables du renseignement de mettre en place une école de guerre économique – car la guerre, aujourd'hui, est souvent économique et elle passe par la manipulation de l'information – et cela, quand j'étais au cabinet du président de l'Assemblée nationale. Je pense également que le travail d'investigation parlementaire est fondamental, car on essaie en permanence de nous manipuler, de manipuler les représentants de la souveraineté.

Je dois cependant vous dire que l'expérience de deux ans dans ce Parlement me fait douter de notre sincérité dans la recherche de la vérité. Je ne parle pas de la Commission, elle est sous influence, comme l'ont montré les travaux de nos journalistes d'investigation dans leur livre Circus politicus, qui a d'ailleurs reçu le prix de la presse internationale. Cette Commission nous manipule avec des informations fausses venues de la propagande d'États, de commissaires liés à des cercles d'intérêt occultes qui n'ont rien d'européens. Cette propagande est éhontée, scandaleuse, conduite par des agences de désinformation présentées comme des émanations de la société civile ou par ces sociétés secrètes travaillant pour des lobbies étrangers. Il y a suffisamment de précision dans le travail d'investigation fait par les journalistes.

Je vous parle de notre Parlement, de notre manière d'accepter l'information donnée, d'avoir également un regard d'intelligence dans l'information qui nous est fournie. Nous sommes quantitativement plus que bien informés mais, qualitativement, sommes-nous vraiment informés? Je vous pose la question. Nos services extérieurs, par exemple, ne travaillent pas les sources, ne recoupent pas le travail de renseignement fait par nos États. Par contre, il y a en France, par exemple, un véritable travail qui irrigue d'ailleurs le parlement national. Ici, un tel travail n'existe pas. Le Parlement est le lieu de l'amplification de la propagande, de la voix mensongère, dite officielle. Nous écrivons des rapports, nous organisons des réunions, souvent dans tous les sens, mais sur le même ton et avec les mêmes gens, dans la même approche idéologique. Ce n'est pas une approche scientifique. Nos experts, soi-disant indépendants, sont choisis dans le même mainstream de la pensée unique formatée dans le monde de la fiction contre la réalité. Ce faisant, nous distillons, sous couvert d'analyses, de la propagande et de l'idéologie qui, une fois transformées en décisions, expliquent la nocivité de l'action du Parlement qui poursuit la voie du mensonge.

Revenons à la Commission, elle a toujours été du côté de la politique du chaos propagée par les États-Unis, et cela sans reconnaître ses erreurs que, même aujourd'hui, l'exécutif américain reconnaît.

Lors de la guerre en Iraq, la Commission, et particulièrement son chef, a été le fidèle relais, pire amplificateur des États-Unis, et le saboteur de la politique de paix initiée par la France et l'Allemagne. Et du côté du Parlement, ce ne fut pas mieux. J'avais rencontré le président Brok, à l'époque, à la demande de la France; il était favorable à cet axe Paris-Berlin-Moscou, mais la politique américaine a été suivie par le Parlement.

En Libye, la Commission et le Parlement ont applaudi la chute d'un régime critiquable mais stable. Là aussi, un dictateur, et la paix, l'éducation, la santé, exemplaires pour un pays d'Afrique. Aujourd'hui, 50 dictateurs, la guerre et le chaos... En Syrie, idem.

Au Proche-Orient, Commission et Parlement réussissent le tour de force d'être à la fois hostiles à la seule démocratie de la zone – je parle d'Israël – tout en faisant les yeux doux aux États du Golfe qui insufflent le poison de l'islam radical jusque dans nos cités. Dans les Balkans, en Ukraine, dans l'espace post-soviétique, la Commission et ce Parlement poursuivent toujours cette même politique et sont les fidèles alliés de l'OTAN contre les intérêts des États membres.

Cet élargissement sans contours ni frontières élève partout des murs au lieu de construire des ponts entre l'ouest et l'est de l'Europe, faisant de notre continent, non pas la pointe de l'Eurasie, mais un pont avancé, instrumentalisé et vassalisé de l'Amérique.

La Commission a une politique nuisible, par son information, à nos intérêts stratégiques. Ses choix ont toujours cherché à promouvoir le libre-échange et la finance au détriment du développement du long terme dans l'investissement stratégique indépendant et souverain.

Je pourrais citer encore de nombreux autres exemples, mais je n'en aurai pas le temps. Je veux simplement vous dire un élément essentiel. L'Europe politique est apparue lorsqu'il y a eu l'invasion musulmane. C'est la première fois dans l'histoire qu'on parle d'Europe politique.

Alors, Messieurs, vous êtes favorables aujourd'hui à cette invasion musulmane programmée par des lobbies étrangers, comme je l'ai montré par l'étude qui a été fournie à tous les parlementaires, présentée cette semaine et qui a été faite par l'école de guerre économique.

Si une Europe politique doit survivre, elle se fera sans la Commission, et ce Parlement devra être l'émanation des parlements nationaux.

(L'orateur accepte de répondre à une question "carton bleu" (article 162, paragraphe 8, du règlement).)


  Stanislav Polčák (PPE), otázka položená zvednutím modré karty. – Děkuji pane kolego, že jste přijal moji otázku. Já se zeptám poměrně jednoduše. Když Vám tak strašně záleží na informacích a když tak usilovně bojujete proti propagandě, mohl byste nám říci, jak to bylo s půjčkou 10 milionů EUR pro Vaši stranu, stranu Front National, protože my bychom si taky měli být jisti, jestli hovoříte za své občany Francie nebo jednáte v žoldu Ruska?


  Jean-Luc Schaffhauser (ENF), réponse "carton bleu". – Mes très chers collègues, c'est très facilement que je vais vous répondre.

Cette propagande a consisté, effectivement, à faire en sorte que toutes les banques européennes, toutes les banques de l'Union européenne à qui nous avons demandé une aide pour financer nos campagnes électorales refusent toutes nos demandes, ce qui montre bien qu'il y a une volonté de détruire le premier parti d'opposition en France aujourd'hui. Nous n'avions malheureusement pas d'autre solution que de recourir à l'étranger; ce fut la Russie, cela aurait pu être la Chine ou une autre puissance extérieure.

Ce que vous dénoncez est la preuve de la manipulation.


  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane předsedající, dámy a pánové, vrátím se zpátky k tématu. Moje kolegyně z PPE Mariya Gabrielová iniciovala minulý rok v červnu otázku na Komisi, která se týkala vyjednávání o zrušení vízové povinnosti pro krátkodobé pobyty pro třetí státy. A já bych chtěl nejdříve Mariyi Gabrielové za tuto otázku poděkovat, protože ji plně podporuji a považuji ji za velmi důležitou. Vždyť jen v roce 2014 devatenáct z třetích zemí požádalo o přidání na seznam zemí, které jsou zproštěny vízové povinnosti vůči Evropské unii. A tento počet by mohl do budoucna i stoupat. Evropská komise, která je za vyjednávání těchto dohod zodpovědná, však není sama, kdo tento proces sleduje a nakonec i schvaluje. Je to i Parlament, který má Lisabonskou smlouvou pravomoc schvalovat mezinárodní dohody. A důvodů je několik. Hlavním z nich je především důležitost těchto bilaterárních dohod a jejich výhody – posílení mezinárodního trhu a usnadnění investic pro oba dva partnery. Nicméně v celém procesu schvalování mezinárodních dohod neustále bojujeme se dvěma procedurálními problémy.

Prvním z nich je fakt, že my, členové Evropského parlamentu, máme nedostatek informací o jejich samotném obsahu, průběhu a harmonogramu. To je v gesci Evropské komise, která však Evropský parlament nedostatečně informuje. Evropský parlament má sice právo získat informace, když o ně sám požádá. Zároveň ale všechny ostatní instituce včetně Evropské komise mají povinnost jakékoliv informace předávat ze své vlastní iniciativy. To je konec konců i to, proč se pan Avramopoulos při veřejných slyšeních k tomuto zavázal. Bohužel po téměř dvou letech musím konstatovat, že vzájemná informovanost nefunguje. Považuji za zásadní, aby Evropská komise vytvořila mechanismus, který by zajistil pravidelné předávání informací o probíhajících nebo plánovaných vyjednáváních. Často nám chybí i základní informace, jako je indikace země, typ dohody, průběh procedury či relevantní dokumenty. Není pochyb o tom, že bez takových údajů není Evropský parlament schopný posílit svou roli při uzavíraní mezinárodních dohod.

Druhým problémem, pane komisaři, který zde chci zmínit, jsou případy uzavírání dohod Evropské unie o zpětném přebírání osob. Dodnes v praxi neexistuje žádný systém, kterým by Evropská komise včas a řádně informovala výbor LIBE, jehož jsem členem, o těchto dohodách. A to i přesto, že tato výměna by měla probíhat minimálně dvakrát do roka. Podle mého názoru stejně jako podle názoru mých kolegů musí Evropská komise tyto nedostatky co nejdříve odstranit.

Vážený pane komisaři, jen skrze systematickou a více konzistentní spolupráci Komise a Parlamentu, ke které jste se zavázal ve svém úvodním projevu, je možné těžit z výhod, které mezinárodní dohody bezesporu přinášejí. A to nejen tím, že dochází k posílení spolupráce se třetími zeměmi, ale i výhodami pro členy a občany Evropské unie.


  Jude Kirton-Darling (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to start by congratulating the Committee on Civil Liberties Justice and Home Affairs (LIBE) and its chair, Labour MEP, Claude Moraes, for taking the initiative to raise this important question. But this question goes beyond the concerns of the LIBE Committee, particularly about readmission agreements. As a member of the Committee on International Trade (INTA), I know how crucial access information is. This is a fundamental prerequisite for us to be able to carry out parliamentary scrutiny, which in turn is our main tool to ensure the legitimacy of the EU’s external action and, in particular, its trade policy.

Ultimately, we need to regain the public’s trust, and this starts with upholding the highest level of transparency, not just towards the general public, but also, crucially, towards us as their representatives in the European Parliament. Certainly, as a former trade unionist, I can see – and I think the vast majority of the public would understand – that some discretion is needed in any negotiation, and that it would be detrimental to disclose certain documents when it is clear that such a disclosure could seriously weaken the EU’s negotiating position. But most people would also assume that discretion should not prevent proper parliamentary scrutiny and that MEPs should have access to all confidential information even when the general public does not.

Sadly, this is not the reality today. The frequent complaints raised by MEPs – and we have heard them today – and national and regional parliamentarians, that they are being kept in the dark when it comes to negotiations on TTIP, TISA or CETA, are not helping to shift the public perception over what is seen as a series of secretive negotiations. This is why we still have a problem with transparency on TTIP, even though in reality the TTIP negotiations are arguably among the most transparent trade negotiations ever conducted, certainly in the case of my Member State and definitely in the case of the EU.

Stories in the media about how limited the access granted to MEPs in reading rooms is certainly does not help and I strongly believe that it would be in the interests of everyone to improve the situation. For instance, as the spokesperson on TTIP for my national delegation, I do not have access to consolidated documents or other restricted documents, even in the reading room. The group of MEPs allowed to see these documents, which include our partner countries’ positions, is extremely limited: less than 5% of all MEPs.

This is just one example of how narrowly the Treaty provisions aiming at ensuring the transparency of international agreements have been implemented by the Commission. This minimalistic approach by the Commission stands in stark contrast with European case law, which has always taken a much broader view of what this obligation to inform entails. It is therefore absolutely justified for Parliament to ask the Commission how it intends to fully comply with the Treaty and guarantee a regular and comprehensive flow of information on international agreements in all areas.

This is not to say that the Commission is the only culprit, and I think it is worth mentioning that we have many problems with the Council, and many problems in terms of transparency around the Council. Parliament could also do things better. For instance, MEPs are not allowed to take notes when consulting confidential documents in the reading room as a result of a decision in this House by Parliament’s Bureau. I very much hope that the Commission will seize this initiative as an opportunity to push its transparency agenda further. Transparency is at the heart of Commissioner Malmström’s ambition for EU trade policy in the 21st century, but it is now time to turn those words into concrete action so that we are able to fully fulfil our role, in terms of parliamentary scrutiny, towards the general public and our constituents.

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


  David Coburn (EFDD), blue-card question. – Instead of having to have 27 countries agreeing to everything, to have such TTIP or any of these other treaties, would it not be better if just went ahead and did it ourselves? We could have trade treaties which are more akin to what the British people require and which our economy requires. We would be much better off having Brexit and be able to do these things ourselves. Surely, Madam, you must agree with me?


   Jude Kirton-Darling (S&D), blue-card answer. Well Mr Coburn, I am sure that it will come as absolutely no surprise to you that I do not agree with you. I am campaigning very strongly for Britain to remain inside the EU; and that is primarily because we are stronger negotiating with our partners; we are stronger as one of 28 countries going and negotiating with billion-person countries, trillion-dollar economies around the world. The UK negotiating a deal with China or the US would be effectively accepting the terms of their deal and not pushing our interests. Within the EU, we are able to get a deal which is in the interests of British people and the whole of the European continent.


  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Αβραμόπουλε, η πρωτοβουλία της Επιτροπής Πολιτικών Ελευθεριών του Κοινοβουλίου μας να υποβάλει αυτή την ερώτηση αναδεικνύει τα προβλήματα αδιαφάνειας και έλλειψης ενημέρωσης που υπάρχουν κατά τη διαδικασία διαπραγματεύσεων διεθνών συνθηκών εκ μέρους της Επιτροπής και για λογαριασμό της Ένωσης. Το άρθρο 218 της Συνθήκης λειτουργίας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης είναι σαφές και δεν χωρούν παρερμηνείες, αφού ρητά αναφέρει ότι το Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο ενημερώνεται αμέσως και πλήρως σε όλα τα στάδια της διαδικασίας των διαπραγματεύσεων. Δυστυχώς η Επιτροπή δεν ανταποκρίνεται σε αυτή της την υποχρέωση, με αποκορύφωμα τη διαδικασία διαπραγμάτευσης της περίφημης ΤΤΙΡ.

Στην περίπτωση της ΤΤΙΡ η Επιτροπή ακολούθησε μορφές κλασικής μυστικής διπλωματίας και μόνο μετά τη γενική κατακραυγή της κοινής γνώμης και τις αντιδράσεις του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου άρχισε η ενημέρωση για την ΤΤΙΡ, αλλά με το σταγονόμετρο. Χρειάστηκε η παρέμβαση της Ευρωπαίας Διαμεσολαβήτριας, που ξεκίνησε έρευνα για την Επιτροπή, για να δεσμευτεί η κ. Malmström για διαφάνεια και ενημέρωση για την ΤΤΙΡ. Τέλος, μετά τη διαρροή απορρήτων εγγράφων της διαπραγμάτευσης Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης-Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών για την ΤΤΙΡ η Επιτροπή αναγκάστηκε να αλλάξει ρότα και η κ. Malmström προέβη σε δημόσιες δηλώσεις. Όμως σε σχέση με την ΤΤΙΡ υπάρχουν και εξακολουθούν να ισχύουν οι απαράδεκτες και υποτιμητικές για τους ευρωβουλευτές διαδικασίες, καθώς υποχρεούνται να διαβάζουν τα έγγραφα διαπραγματεύσεων της ΤΤΙΡ σε ένα απομονωμένο χώρο χωρίς κινητό, προκειμένου να μη φωτογραφίζουν τα έγγραφα, χωρίς καν χαρτί, χωρίς μολύβι, για να μην κρατούν ούτε καν σημειώσεις. Μάλιστα, ήθελα να σας ενημερώσω, κύριε Αβραμόπουλε, ότι δεν ισχύει το ίδιο για τους γερουσιαστές των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών, που έχουν πλήρη και άνευ όρων πρόσβαση. Ταυτόχρονα, οι βοηθοί των γερουσιαστών των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών αλλά και 700 εμπειρογνώμονες των ΗΠΑ έχουν πρόσβαση στα έγγραφα της ΤΤΙΡ. Αυτά μας γνωστοποίησαν, όταν επισκεφθήκαμε ως ECR την Ουάσινγκτον, και τα έχω αναφέρει και άλλη φορά εδώ, στο Ευρωπαϊκό Κοινοβούλιο.

Ζητούμε λοιπόν πλήρη διαφάνεια για την ΤΤΙΡ, γιατί, όπως έχει αποδειχθεί από τα έγγραφα που διέρρευσαν, η συμφωνία αυτή διαλύει την ευρωπαϊκή γεωργία, ενέχει κινδύνους για τη δημόσια υγεία αφού γεμίζει την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση με μεταλλαγμένα και στηρίζει τη δράση των πολυεθνικών εναντίον των κρατών και των μικρομεσαίων επιχειρήσεων. Η μυστική διπλωματία τύπου Μέτερνιχ, από την εποχή της Ιεράς Συμμαχίας, δεν γίνεται αποδεκτή από τους πολίτες, δεν γίνεται αποδεκτή από τους λαούς. Διαφάνεια λοιπόν παντού και στα πάντα!


Przewodniczący. – Dziękuję bardzo, panie pośle. Chciałbym tylko podkreślić, że w ramach „procedury niebieskiej kartki” każdemu z pań i panów posłów przysługuje prawo do jednorazowego zabrania głosu, zadania jednego pytania.


  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, treba nam novi međuinstitucionalni sporazum. To je potpuno jasno svima ovdje u ovoj auli, ali vjerujem i u svim institucijama Europske unije i svim ključnim ljudima Europske unije. Nova su vremena, poštovani gospodine povjereniče. Nova su vremena kada građani od nas i od Vas traže otvorenost, traže drugačiju upravu u odnosu na onu na koju smo svi na neki način bili naviknuti ranijih desetljeća. Treba nam otvorena javna uprava koja će omogućiti da mi zastupnici, a time i građani Europske unije u svakom trenutku mogu doći do kvalitetnih, istinitih i provjerenih informacija.

Sve ostalo neće biti dobro za Europsku uniju. Skrivamo li se, neće biti dobro za Europsku uniju. Imamo puno primjera za to. Ja ću, evo, uzeti TTIP. Mi jako dobro ovdje znamo, u ovoj auli, zastupnici prvenstveno s juga Europske unije, da nećemo glasati za TTIP ako se ne zaštite proizvođači poljoprivrednih proizvoda, zaštićenih poljoprivrednih proizvoda. Vi gospodine povjereniče, kao ugledan čovjek iz Grčke, jako dobro znate da grčki farmeri ne mogu prihvatiti da se feta sir proizvodi u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama, kao što to ne mogu ni talijanski proizvođači gorgonzole ili francuski proizvođači roqueforta, da ne ulazim sada u druge poljoprivredne proizvode.

To je samo jedan detalj jednoga velikoga sporazuma. Imamo puno sporazuma, puno detalja u svakom sporazumu i prihvatite da mi kao Parlament, ako ništa drugo većina u ovom Parlamentu, budemo Vaši saveznici, da budemo saveznici s Vijećem jer ćemo jedino na taj način, iskrenim dijalogom među nama, moći uspješno voditi Europsku uniju. U suprotnome neće biti dobro.


President. – I hope that there was a translation of my statement. I would like to inform everyone that every MEP has the right to one blue card during a debate.


  David Coburn (EFDD). – Mr President, openness and transparency by governing organisations is critical to voter trust and expectation. There is little or no openness and transparency here in the EU. With regard to international agreements, in the UK TTIP is now a major issue which worries all British citizens, as it will harm our National Health Service, and the National Health Service in Great Britain is the nearest thing to Shinto – it is practically a religion, it is inviolable. To see this treaty, Members this of this honourable House have to go to a windowless dungeon and sign a document that we will not disclose what we have read, and hand over all our electronic equipment, we are not given a pen or paper.

This is the EU’s definition of transparency. This affects our NHS, our agriculture and many other matters. The British members of this Parliament including myself have to sit on their hands while an unelected foreign Commissioner – or Commissar – takes decisions for us. The UK will be much better off creating its own treaties with the rest of the world, rather than having to allow 27 other nations to put their tuppence-worth in as well. It would be much better if we did it ourselves after Brexit.

This Parliament thinks consulting documents in a dungeon is a great achievement for the EU. Well I’m sorry, this place looks more and more like the old Supreme Soviet – and it makes it look positively libertarian in comparison.


  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, ta debata, byť je chvílemi emocionální, jasně ukazuje jedno. A to je asi hlavní vzkaz Komisi, kterou zde zastupuje pan komisař, že opravdu Evropský parlament chce být plnohodnotným hráčem při přípravě mezinárodních dohod se třetími zeměmi. A je to, podle mého názoru, správné s ohledem na to, jak se legitimita Evropského parlamentu posiluje od roku 1979, kdy jsou poslanci voleni přímo a kdy my, evropští poslanci, zastupujeme 500 milionů evropských obyvatel.

Byla tady dnes několikrát citována Smlouva o fungování EU jako základní dokument primárního práva a ta v článku 218 jasně konstatuje, že Evropský parlament je okamžitě a plně informován ve všech etapách tohoto postupu, tzn. při přípravě přijímání dohod Unie se třetími zeměmi. Myslím si, pane komisaři, že z toho jasně vyplývá, že to informování nemůže být pouze na základě iniciativy Parlamentu, jak jste to trošku naznačil ve Vašem příspěvku, protože Parlament nemůže vždycky vědět, v jaké fázi se vyjednávání Komise se třetí zemí nachází. My těžko můžeme sledovat, jak experti a Komise postupují v jednotlivých etapách vyjednávání. Myslím si a ve shodě s postupem a pohledem Evropského soudního dvora konstatuji, že vy byste měli vytvořit nějaký stálý mechanismus, ostatně jste tady také už hovořil o stálém mechanismu informování, který by zaručil, aby Evropský parlament, konkrétně jeho příslušný výbor a členové tohoto výboru, byl ve chvíli, kdy se dostáváme do další etapy vyjednávání určité mezinárodní dohody, automaticky informován a mohl se k tomu vyjádřit.

Samozřejmě je ten vztah postaven na právu být informován, na druhou stranu bychom tady měli zdůraznit to, že Evropský parlament následně dává souhlas s danou mezinárodní dohodou, a pokud ten souhlas nemá být formální, ale má být plnohodnotný, hovoříme-li o Evropském parlamentu jako o klíčové instituci Evropské unie s její legitimitou přímé volby, pak si myslím, že v průběhu vyjednávání byste nás již neměli pouze informovat, ale mělo by vás také zajímat, jaký je pohled evropských poslanců – alespoň v daném výboru – na danou problematiku, jestli souhlasíme s tím, jakým směrem se vyjednávání ubírá, jestli vůbec souhlasíme s určitým typem mezinárodní dohody. Myslím si, že toto do budoucna může zabránit tomu, aby jednou nastala na půdě Evropského parlamentu blamáž, kdy zkrátka souhlas s určitou vyjednanou dohodou nebude dán, a to proto, že většina poslanců s ní nebude souhlasit. Takže já velmi apeluji na to, abyste opravdu vytvořili mechanismus, kterým pouze formálně nenaplníte článek 218, ale který opravdu z Evropského parlamentu udělá vůči Komisi a Radě partnera při vyjednávání takovýchto dohod.

Bylo zde zmiňováno několikrát téma Turecka, já zde nebudu spekulovat a debatovat o tom, jakou míru závaznosti má tato politická proklamace, ale budu velmi aktuální. Pane komisaři, ve středu na plénu bylo debatováno o tom, že je zde snaha Evropské komise uzavřít dohody s devíti zeměmi Afriky a Blízkého východu. Já tu iniciativu vítám, ale od té doby mám v mailu od svých voličů z České republiky mnoho dotazů ohledně toho, jak takové dohody budou vypadat. Bude tam také bezvízový styk, který nás trápí v České republice vůči Turecku, nebo nebude? Takže sám jako poslanec cítím, že občany zajímá, co v těch dohodách bude. Moc tedy prosím v zájmu legitimity Evropského parlamentu, dávejte nám informace včas, abychom pak mohli s klidným svědomím pro případné dohody hlasovat.

(Řečník souhlasil s tím, že odpoví na otázku položenou zvednutím modré karty (čl. 162 odst. 8 jednacího řádu).)


  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR), въпрос, зададен чрез вдигане на синя карта. – Казахте, че подкрепяте споразуменията с Турция и с други държави. Не мислите ли, че тези споразумения трябва да бъдат обсъдени тук първо, в тази зала, преди да бъдат гласувани, преди да станат споразумения? Не е ли това редът в залата на Европейския парламент, ако това е избран орган, който представлява европейските граждани?


  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE), odpověď na otázku položenou zvednutím modré karty. – Pane kolego, souhlasím s Vámi, také jsem právě říkal, že bych byl rád, až tyto dohody, které zatím obecně byly zmíněny Komisí během středeční debaty, budou mít nějakou konkrétnější podobě, abychom o nich zde velmi věcně debatovali, protože sám cítím, že pro mé voliče v České republice to bude silné a kontroverzní téma. Takže souhlasím s Vámi.


  Francisco Assis (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, os acordos internacionais tornaram-se nos últimos anos um tema central de debate no seio das sociedades europeias.

De facto, muitos cidadãos europeus passaram a acompanhar e a interessar-se pelas negociações desses acordos, procurando informar-se e conhecer os argumentos dirimidos, as vantagens e desvantagens eventualmente implicadas.

Isto é especialmente válido no que toca a tratados de livre comércio negociados com países terceiros. Estes tratados têm polarizado o debate entre os cidadãos e têm alimentado disputas apaixonadas, muitas delas ideologicamente muito motivadas, o que é natural e deve até merecer uma apreciação positiva.

O que torna especialmente sensível a questão do acesso à informação acerca do processo negocial nas suas várias etapas. Não por acaso, um dos aspetos mais polémicos, como se pôde ainda hoje aqui constatar neste debate, no tema dos acordos internacionais, é o da transparência, muito evocado, por exemplo, no caso da discussão acerca do Tratado Transatlântico, que estamos neste momento a negociar com os Estados Unidos.

Neste contexto, o papel de acompanhamento e escrutínio de tais acordos por parte do Parlamento Europeu reveste-se de uma enorme importância. Ora, o Tratado de Lisboa não só robusteceu estes poderes de acompanhamento e fiscalização, como estabeleceu que, para que possa desempenhar bem essa função, o Parlamento deve ser devidamente informado sobre o andamento das negociações deste tipo de acordos.

Mais do que isso até, o Tratado de Lisboa determina que o direito do Parlamento Europeu à informação sobre as negociações não se limita a pedidos de informação submetidos pelo próprio Parlamento, mas deve resultar também da própria iniciativa de outras instituições europeias.

É por isso que a questão relativa aos mecanismos institucionais de transmissão dessa informação é da maior importância. E, embora tenha sido formalizada pela LIBE, ela também diz respeito à comissão AFET, que enfoca os acordos internacionais na dimensão mais geral da política externa europeia, e à Comissão de Direitos Humanos, que focaliza esses acordos na ótica da salvaguarda e da promoção dos direitos humanos.

Enquanto presidente da Delegação para as relações com o Mercosul, tenho acompanhado e tenho presente a necessidade de algum grau de confidencialidade na negociação de acordos comerciais. Não obstante, a ação política e até mesmo alguma ação diplomática que o Parlamento Europeu pode levar a cabo não se compadecem com informações esporádicas e excessivamente afastadas no tempo.

Seria, por isso, muito proveitoso para o trabalho, por exemplo, das delegações, desta delegação ou doutras, para as relações com países terceiros, neste caso com os países do Mercosul, que os negociadores responsáveis fizessem chegar aos seus membros de forma sistemática e em tempo oportuno informação atualizada sobre o progresso das negociações do acordo entre a EU e o Mercosul, para dar este exemplo concreto.

Não é isso o que atualmente se verifica. Contrariamente ao estipulado no Tratado de Lisboa e ao regulamentado no acordo-quadro sobre as relações entre o Parlamento Europeu e a Comissão Europeia, o acesso à informação continua dependente de uma iniciativa da delegação.

Julgo que o fundamental, neste caso, é assegurar a existência, dentro dos limites do bom senso, naturalmente, de um fluxo informativo regular entre a Comissão e o Parlamento relativo a este tipo de acordos, quer isso se faça através da criação de um mecanismo permanente, quer se faça na base da lealdade institucional e do respeito pelo disposto nos tratados e nos acordos interinstitucionais vigentes.

(O orador aceita responder a uma pergunta "cartão azul" (n.º 8 do artigo 162.º)).


  Seán Kelly (PPE), blue-card question. – Actually I thought that Mr Assis’s speech was very good and balanced and that is why I am asking him a blue-card question. He was reasonable in regard to the disclosure of information in relation to TTIP, but he said you have to respect a certain amount of confidentiality. So what actually does he really want in terms of disclosure for us, as Members of Parliament, for the NGOs he mentioned, and for the public in general?


  Francisco Assis (S&D), Resposta segundo o procedimento "cartão azul". – Muito obrigado, é evidente que é preciso respeitar algum dever de confidencialidade, não é possível negociar nenhum tratado internacional, nomeadamente na componente comercial, na praça pública. Não há memória de que isso algum dia tenha acontecido. Isso inviabilizaria a aprovação de qualquer tratado.

Mas a verdade é que nós vivemos num outro tempo, de maior exigência de transparência, e eu julgo, estou-me a referir estritamente em relação ao Parlamento Europeu, que é importante que haja mecanismos que permitam uma transmissão de informação mais constante e mais atempada da forma como está a evoluir a negociação dos tratados.

Eu, como disse, tenho acompanhado a negociação de um tratado especificamente, que é o Tratado entre a União Europeia e o Mercosul, e verifico que é preciso melhorar esses mecanismos de transmissão da informação.


  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, úvodem bych si nejprve dovolil ocenit Vaši poznámku, že nás zde není 25, ale pouze 19. Toto téma je, myslím si, poměrně podstatné, bohužel však ve čtvrtek odpoledne nepřitáhlo pozornost ani některých politických frakcí v tomto Parlamentu, což pokládám za poněkud nešťastné. Ostatně dokonce ani pan Schaffhauser, jak velmi dobře snad vidím, po svém plamenném projevu nevyčkal na odpověď pana komisaře, což nepokládám ani za uctivé, ani dostatečně respektující postavení Komise.

Nicméně k samotnému tématu. Já samozřejmě souhlasím plně s kolegy, že Lisabonská smlouva konstituuje postavení Parlamentu při vyjednávání mezinárodních dohod zcela jasně. Nemyslím, že tam je jakákoliv podmínka pro plnění povinnosti Evropské komise z vlastní iniciativy, sdělila to tady řada kolegů, já to nebudu opakovat.

Na druhou stranu musím přiznat, že v průběhu vyjednávání o určitých mezinárodních dohodách nelze plně poskytovat asi všechny údaje, o tom zde hovořil i pan kolega Assis a já s jeho vystoupením souhlasím. Já jsem měl možnost hovořit s jedním americkým diplomatem a ten se velmi usmíval nad tím, když sděloval svoje stanovisko k mandátu Komise – není nic lepšího, říkal, než když víte přesně, kam až druhá strana může dojít. Tudíž můj postoj k informování veřejnosti o průběhu jednání je poněkud rezervovaný, tady bych Komisi nechtěl příliš křivdit. Ale co určitě není možné akceptovat, to jsou chybějící informace o výsledku toho vyjednávání. Tam by měla být naprosto jednoznačná plná transparentnost. A myslím si, že v tomto směru by i Komise měla trochu přidat, měla by akceptovat právě i znění rozsudků Soudního dvora, které říkají: „ musíte postupovat z vlastní iniciativy, nemůžete čekat pouze na žádosti Parlamentu“.

A v tomto směru si dovolím uzavřít své vystoupení otázkou: Jak Komise chce reagovat i na tyto výtky ze strany Soudního dvora? Jaké nástroje chystá proto, aby plnila aktivně svoji roli v okamžiku, kdy jsou tyto dohody uzavřeny? Zdůrazňuji, že netrvám na absolutní bezvýhradné informovanosti Parlamentu v průběhu vyjednávání.


  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, actually I have rather enjoyed this debate, even though there are not many here, but, in some respects, it is the essence of what we are about. It is about how we, the elected representatives and the Commission – called bureaucrats – communicate so that Europe can be better for all its citizens.

When this Parliament was first established, I believe it was called a Mickey Mouse parliament, and that is why we have the Mickey Mouse star outside. I am not sure whether that is true or not, but definitely this Parliament initially had no powers, but they have evolved over a period of time. The Lisbon Treaty was very important in that regard – the Lisbon Treaty that took probably 10 years to negotiate and, of course, in my own country, took two referendums to pass. If it was not passed in our country, it could not come into being because it required unanimity.

As a result, there is an onus on us, as legislators because of the powers of codecision, to ensure that the Commission, in particular, is held to account. Over the years, that unfortunately does not seem to have been the position and as a result, sometimes incorrectly, impressions were given, right across Europe through the media, that everything bad was emanating from Brussels. Now you have a potential Brexit which, in many respects, is based on that erroneous assumption, but it was allowed to go unchallenged for years. There was nobody there to put the other side, and Parliament, because it lacked power and lacked information, was not in a position to actually put the other side. Thankfully, that is now beginning to change, hopefully not too late where the United Kingdom is concerned.

I particularly welcome the new Commission, under President Juncker, who have made it very clear that they want to be more responsive, they want to cooperate more and they want to work with Parliament. Saying it is one thing, doing it is another and, as people have pointed out, especially I think in relation to Mercosur – Mr Assis referred to it and he was right in that regard – it actually took a debate and a vote here in Parliament to put a halt to some of the unsavoury aspects of that discussion. I think that is a great example of the need, in the interests of the European Union and everybody, for the Commission to constantly inform and to constantly consult Parliament regarding any international agreements. Hopefully that can work out well.

TTIP has been mentioned, and actually today was probably the first time I heard a balanced account of the need for publicity, but also disclosure and transparency. Both sides of the House, especially on the left, did acknowledge that you cannot have negotiations in public. After all, you are negotiating with a third country. You can only disclose what they wish to disclose and of course also – and this is very important – what you might start out with as a negotiating position might finish up entirely different when you actually finish the discussions. What would happen in that regard, if every negotiating position was made public, is that the naysayers would have a field day because they would present that as a de facto position, so you could not really have a discussion at all. You would have no discussions and you would have no negotiations, because nobody would want to negotiate with you if you were going to be publishing everything.

So I think we are gradually getting the balance right, and hopefully the Commission will do everything they can for more disclosure to inform Parliament constantly so that we can work together so that our citizens are informed that we are here for their good, both the Commission and Parliament.

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


  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE), pitanje koje je podizanjem plave kartice postavio. – Hvala lijepo, gospodine Kelly, što ste prihvatili moju plavu kartu. Htio bih Vas pitati upravo ovo na kraju što ste govorili o TTIP-u. Slažete li se sa mnom da bi ustvari više javnosti, više informacija o TTIP-u u javnosti, pa makar to bila stajališta, pozicije, bilo bolje za konačni uspjeh pregovora nego ovaj način skrivene, čak i od nas zastupnika, u kompliciranom procesu dolaska do informacija?


  Seán Kelly (PPE), blue-card answer. –That is a very good question and I agree completely. This is the point I was coming to. With Twitter, Facebook, all the TV channels and radio stations now, there is need for proper information and especially when wrong information is given out, we should insist that the correct information is given. In particular we should anticipate matters by actually feeding people with correct information before others actually give them the wrong information, which does huge damage, both to TTIP and many other aspects of the work of the European Union.


Catch-the-eye procedure


  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane komisaři, já děkuji za Vaši otevřenost ke zlepšení spolupráce mezi Evropskou komisí a Evropským parlamentem. Opakovaně jsme dnes slyšeli požadavek na to, aby Evropský parlament byl plně a okamžitě informován o sjednávaných dohodách tak, jak to vlastně předpokládá Smlouva o fungování EU, a tyto informace má Evropská komise podávat iniciativně, ne až na vyžádání. Já bych se zdůvodněním tohoto požadavku souhlasila tak, jak je zde dnes přednesl kolega Jiří Pospíšil, který plně vystihl tu situaci.

Jde především o to, že Evropský parlament má velkou zodpovědnost, o některých smlouvách hlasujeme a v některých máme pravomoc konzultační. A občané, kteří nás volí přímo, nás vnímají jako ty, kteří tuto odpovědnost mají a musí naplnit. A jestliže je nechceme zklamat, jestliže chceme, aby občané respektovali rozhodnutí Evropské unie jako celku, pak musí toto rozhodování být transparentní. Pane komisaři, já bych Vám chtěla říct, že to není jen náš požadavek, ale Vy zároveň můžete vnímat, že si tím Evropský parlament bere také větší odpovědnost, a to by mělo být pro Vás povzbuzení.


  Jozo Radoš (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, međunarodni sporazumi su jako važan instrument ukupne politike Europske unije, zato što jačaju gospodarsku suradnju, ali i jačaju ulogu Europske unije u svijetu, u pogledu snaženja demokracije u svijetu i utjecaja na krize, pogotovo one koje se osobito tiču Europske unije. Utjecaj Europske unije na krize je puno manji nego što je njen gospodarski i financijski doprinos u raznim zemljama, uključujući i razne međunarodne organizacije.

S druge strane, važna je uloga Europskog parlamenta, jer on donosi snaženje demokratskog postupka i snaženje uključenosti građana i razumijevanje građana u onom što Europski parlament i europske institucije rade, a time se sigurno povećava i kvaliteta međunarodnih ugovora. Zato, u potpunosti podražajem inicijativu Odbora LIBE i posebno stvaranje stalnog mehanizma za uključenje Europskog parlamenta, ne samo u donošenje, u informiranje, nego u uključenju u cijeli proces, aktivnije sudjelovanje u sklapanju međunarodnog ugovora. Gospodine predsjedniče, vaša ragbi ekipa se raspala. Imate ovdje 7 zastupnika, jedva možete sastaviti rukometnu ekipu bez zamjena.


(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


  Dimitris Avramopoulos, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to express my thanks to the seven remaining MEPs here, and, of course, to you. I feel very lonely tonight. But this issue is very important and I would like to remind all our colleagues here that at the hearing, a year and a half ago, I committed myself to work in order to enhance and deepen inter-institutional cooperation. I never forget that I am a parliamentarian myself, and the fact that I am from the other side does not mean that I do not share all these views expressed here today.

This debate allows the Commission to understand better where Members of this House see the need for improving the information about negotiations for international agreements. First Vice-President Timmermans, as the Commissioner in charge of that, will represent the Commission in order to engage, together with the European Parliament and the Council, in a reflection on how to better implement Parliament’s rights, under the Treaty of course: the right to be fully and immediately informed at all stages of international negotiations.

But let me also remind you that the obligation to inform Parliament on international negotiations falls on both the Commission and the Council. Moreover, we cannot disregard or circumvent the need to protect confidential or classified information related to international obligations or interinstitutional agreements. I would like once again to thank you for your contribution to this debate, and for your attention, and to wish you a nice weekend.


Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.

Teisinė informacija - Privatumo politika