Debašu stenogramma

Trešdiena, 2017. gada 15. februāris - Strasbūra

1. Sēdes atklāšana

PRESIDENZA DELL’ON. ANTONIO TAJANI
Presidente

(La seduta è aperta alle 9.05)

  Presidente. – Vorrei proporre alla Plenaria di iniziare fra cinque minuti perché, a causa delle dimostrazioni che ci sono attorno al Parlamento, molti deputati stanno ancora arrivando in quanto le auto non potevano uscire dal garage. Quindi vi propongo di riprendere la seduta fra cinque minuti per permettere al maggior numero possibile di deputati di arrivare in Parlamento. Mi scuso con la Commissaria Malmström e vi ringrazio per la comprensione nei confronti dei vostri colleghi. Fra cinque minuti riprendiamo la seduta.

(La seduta, sospesa alle 9.05 , è ripresa alle 9.15)

2. Debates par cilvēktiesību, demokrātijas un tiesiskuma principu pārkāpumiem (paziņošana par iesniegtajiem rezolūcijas priekšlikumiem) (sk. protokolu)

3. Īstenošanas pasākumi (Reglamenta 106. pants) (sk. protokolu)

4. ES un Kanādas visaptverošs ekonomikas un tirdzniecības nolīgums - ES un Kanādas visaptveroša ekonomikas un tirdzniecības nolīguma (CETA) noslēgšana - ES un Kanādas stratēģiskās partnerības nolīgums (debates)

  Presidente. – L’ordine del giorno reca, in discussione congiunta,

– la raccomandazione di Artis Pabriks, a nome della commissione per il commercio internazionale, concernente il progetto di decisione del Consiglio relativa alla conclusione dell'accordo economico e commerciale globale (CETA) tra il Canada, da una parte, e l'Unione europea e i suoi Stati membri, dall'altra (10975/2016 - C8-0438/2016 - 2016/0205(NLE) (A8-0009/2017),

– la dichiarazione della Commissione sulla conclusione del CETA UE-Canada (2017/2525(RSP), e

– la raccomandazione di Charles Tannock, a nome della commissione per gli affari esteri, concernente il progetto di decisione del Consiglio relativa alla conclusione, a nome dell'Unione, dell'accordo di partenariato strategico tra l'Unione europea e i suoi Stati membri, da una parte, e il Canada, dall'altra (14765/2016 - C8-0508/2016 - 2016/0373(NLE) (A8-0028/2017).

  Artis Pabriks, rapporteur. – Mr President, sometime before 2009 in one of the major provinces of Canada, Quebec, the idea of CETA was born. Today is the day when we can decide how to go forward with this deal. I would say it is a judgment day, because since 2016 we have discussed in the European Parliament – more than18 times in different large groups – what this trade deal really means for us. We have been taking into account most, if not all, of the concerns that have been raised by analysing the previous trade deals with other countries, and I think that we can say with great confidence that this trade deal, is in many ways, a golden standard for future trade deals in the world.

I would also like to say that CETA is a litmus test for our European Union policies. We are standing at the crossroads, and we can take one of two directions. The first direction is protectionism, provincialism, decline and the building of walls. Do we really want it? I do not think so – at least, I do not want it. The second direction is openness to the world, it is leadership, it is effective decision making, it is growth, and finally, also, the bringing of wealth to our Union and each and every nation and Member State here on the European continent. Of course, the CETA trade deal is not a cure, a medicine, for each and every disease. We must understand that. It is comprehensive, but it will not solve all the problems that our workers, small and medium enterprises and people are facing. It is not meant to do this, and this is why I would like to say to those who are not listening to the facts but following the alternative news and not trying to go into depths of the analysis of this trade deal: please do not bark up the wrong tree. Try to find other solutions for other existing problems, but go forward with this deal.

As regards CETA, it has two very important aspects for us included in this deal. One is the geopolitical aspect, another is the purely trade and economic aspect. As regards geopolitics are concerned, the Canadian nation has always stood for the same values that we stand for here in Europe. There is no other nation outside the European Union so like us as the Canadians. Sometimes, I think they are even closer to us than some of our Members from time to time (that was a bit of a joke). They have been sending their soldiers since the First World War to defend our freedoms and our liberties. They died in the Second World War for our freedoms and liberties, and even now, when the European Union is facing security challenges at its external borders, Canadian soldiers are again on our sandy beaches in northern Europe. Thank you to Canada for this.

Secondly, if we are speaking about the economy, there is a number of things that this trade deal will deliver. It will deliver trade in goods and decreased tariffs. It will deliver additional possibilities for services. It will give us the possibility to join procurement in Canada, which has not happened before. Geographic indications, a lot of geographic indications for many of our producers, and of course the investment part. So from that perspective, I would say that every country, just like my small country, Latvia, will benefit from this. Our products which are now sold in Canada – Latvian products, for instance, and also Swedish or German or French products – will be between 8% and 12% cheaper after the trade deal is passed. It is a good thing. The world is watching us. The world is watching the European Union and which direction we will take. Will we take the direction of protectionism and closedness, or will we fight for liberal democratic values, for growth and for the new golden standards of international trade? It is a unique chance for the European Union now to take again a leading position in the global economy and global politics, and in many ways the vote for CETA will decide this. Never before has the world needed such a strong Europe at this moment, and it needs guidelines for good trade. CETA is like a lighthouse for these guidelines, for many who are searching for wealth and trade. Please do not switch off this light. Vote for CETA.

  Charles Tannock, rapporteur. – Mr President, Canada enjoys one of the closest possible relationships with the European Union. It is a country that shares a common culture –‘c’est un pays bilingue’ – with two EU languages as national languages, and that has a healthy respect for democracy and the rule of law. That we are set to ratify the Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) and Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) later today demonstrates the value that we in the European Union place on that strong, traditional and lengthy relationship.

Canada, with its similar levels of GDP per capita, as an advanced economy and a NATO Member State further cements ties and mutual interests. For example, there are two extracts from the SPA that, to my mind, sum up exactly what this is all about and what it stands for. The first reads, ‘The Parties shall implement this Agreement based on shared values, the principles of dialogue, mutual respect, equal partnership, multilateralism, consensus and respect for international law.’ The second extract reads, ‘Recognising that sustainable globalisation and greater prosperity can only be achieved through an open world economy based on market principles, effective regulations and strong global institutions [...]’. I think these two passages sum it all up, illustrating exactly what the SPA and CETA are all about, namely ambitious, free-trade, liberal multilateralism. These are the values that they seek to embody and defend, at a time when they need defending more than at any other time in the European Union’s recent history.

Whilst my main area of concern, as rapporteur, is the SPA, it is important that we consider this alongside CETA and the wider international political climate in which we now find ourselves. Whether we look to the election of President Donald Trump in the United States or, in my personal view, the regrettable decision of my country, the United Kingdom, to leave the European Union, or the rise of populist, protectionist parties across Europe, it is clear that the merits of free trade, multilateralism and the liberal international world order are, unfortunately, being questioned by many, and we must stand up and fight for them. Such questions can be answered only by concrete results. This means increasing trade, creating economic growth, providing jobs and creating a safe and secure world.

The SPA and CETA will, hopefully, do exactly these things, and I can illustrate what can be achieved by defending these values that they are based on. To focus on some of the main headlines of the SPA in the areas where coordination of efforts is envisaged, I will take a few areas of particular interest. Preventing nuclear proliferation; ensuring the effective working of the International Criminal Court, now increasingly challenged; strengthening counterterrorism efforts and combating the financing of international terrorism; enforcing consumer protection; fighting the trade in illicit drugs; tackling cybercrime; and discussing the High North Arctic Strategy, increasingly threatened by an expansionist Russia – these are just a few examples of what is envisaged in the SPA.

Much of what we see in the SPA is, in fact, the development of long—standing links and coordination. I am proud to say that 2017 marks the 40th anniversary of the initial political agreement between Canada and the European Union, all the way back to 1977, a testament to the long and enduring links between the two sides. It was only a year later that, as a student, I found myself living for several months, in 1978, in Canada and appreciating at first hand the strong bonds and common culture that bind us together.

Existing cooperation between Canada and the EU and its Member States spans a number of key policy areas: for example, the Europol Agreement, active since 2005, which provides a valuable vehicle for the sharing of data and information in the fight against international crime and terrorism; Canada’s consistent military contributions to the common security and defence policy of the European Union; and our frequent meetings with Canadian parliamentarians when they participate in joint electoral observation missions with the OSCE and NATO parliamentary assemblies. Furthermore, the visa liberalisation agreement, in place since 2015, will now be completed and extended to the entire European Union, as agreed.

Trump’s attitude to NATO and to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) will also bind Canada closer to the European Union on both defence and commercial policies. The EU already enjoys close political and trade relations with Mexico, making it a reliable ally against any US attempts to undermine NAFTA. Although the United Kingdom is, unfortunately, leaving the European Union, Malta and Cyprus will still provide an important Commonwealth link.

To conclude, the SPA comes at a time of increasing scepticism about free trade and multilateralism among certain elements of the political class and voters. I believe that the strong relationship and record of cooperation between the European Union and Canada can therefore be a much-needed poster child for those values at this critical time, and that the benefits and prosperity brought by increased trade and cooperation fostered by these agreements are in both Europe’s and Canada’s interest.

(Applause)

  Presidente. – Come sapete, le regole sono sempre uguali per tutti. Se sono flessibile in occasione di certi dibattiti nei confronti di alcuni parlamentari, lo sono anche nei confronti degli altri. È sempre stato così e così sarà anche oggi. Vi prego certamente di non abusare della flessibilità.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members, first of all I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to the Canadian people for the terror attack they suffered two weeks ago.

Je suis québecoise, nous sommes tous québecois.

With Canada, we share the democratic values of openness and tolerance. We cooperate in tackling common challenges such as migration, sustainable development, climate change and terrorism. The two agreements that we are discussing here today – the free trade agreement (CETA) and the Strategic Partnership Agreement – together offer an opportunity to upgrade our EU—Canada relationship. Those agreements strengthen both our economic relations and our geopolitical alliance, reflecting our partnership, which is both unique and distinctive, making that partnership deeper and more powerful, reaffirming our fundamental values and political principles and using them to shape globalisation, with an institutional framework that allows for deeper exchange, to help each side serve its citizens in the 21st Century.

CETA will benefit EU citizens and business. Exports to Canada today support around 900 000 European jobs. But the 70 000, or perhaps a little more, EU companies who export to Canada face many obstacles. These obstacles are particularly burdensome for small and medium-size companies, which make up about 80% of the total. CETA helps those companies in many ways. It removes almost all tariffs from day one. Exporters stand to save over EUR 500 million a year, and that is a lot of money, especially for the small companies. It also cuts red tape, the lengthy customs and duplicative certification procedures which small businesses can ill afford. It opens up markets in services and public procurement on all levels, and it protects over 140 of the most traded geographical indications, helping European farmers sell more of their high—quality products in Canada. Trade policy is about opening markets, but it is also about our values, so CETA is a progressive agreement with a progressive partner, upholding our standards and protecting our sensitivities. Nothing in this agreement undermines a government’s right to regulate in the public interest; nothing in this agreement affects the safety of food we eat or the products we buy; nothing prevents governments from providing public services or bringing these services back to the public domain if they have been privatised; nothing requires privatisation of water or healthcare, and nothing changes the prerogative of EU lawmakers to set EU rules under EU procedures. In particular, decision—making in the CETA joint committee cannot circumvent or derogate from EU Treaty requirements, particularly the role of the EU institutions in making policy. CETA will not change food safety standards or any other EU requirements; only the EU institutions can do that, and Member States may also adopt relevant legislation for that. The Commission will fully abide by EU internal processes, as defined by the Treaties, before taking any position in the CETA committee, and there can be no doubt that the role of this Parliament will be both fully respected and your contribution is also welcomed.

I know this Parliament has concerns and had concerns about the private ad hoc arbitration known as the Investor-State Dispute Resolution (ISDS), so we have reformed it. Your role here has been critical in shaping the new investment court system. This new system guarantees a government’s right to regulate; it uses public courts, qualified judges, transparent proceedings, an appeal mechanism and a strict code of ethics, and this Parliament will be involved in selecting its tribunal members, similar to its involvement for ECJ judges. As you know, with Canada we are right now working on the international scene to promote the idea of a multilateral investment court.

CETA is a modern, new kind of agreement, promoting our values of free, fair and sustainable trade. Canada and the EU pledge to effectively implement major international agreements on labour and the environment. These provisions are ambitious, but they are also binding and legally enforceable, and they are having an effect: Canada is on the path to ratify the last outstanding core labour convention on collective bargaining. The agreement contains a mechanism to review these provisions, notably on enforcement, and I commit, as I have written to you in letters, to set in motion this review mechanism soon after CETA is provisionally applied. To feed into this review, I intend to open a broad and inclusive debate on sustainable development provisions in our free trade agreements, involving all stakeholders, including of course this Parliament.

The Strategic Partnership Agreement accompanies and complements CETA, reinforcing our partnership, deepening contacts and coordination in areas like foreign security and defence policy, migration, counterterrorism, human rights, sustainable development and climate change – areas where we can work, and where we are already working together, to make life better for our citizens and promote a progressive international agenda rooted in our principles.

Honourable Members, we are at a time where many stand against what the EU stands for – openness, international cooperation, freedom to trade, etc. – and those who oppose those principles often also question the foundation and the future of the EU itself. Against those trends, we have the chance to work with like-minded partners to show that protectionism does not work: that putting up barriers and building walls is not the answer. Good, efficient fair trade agreements with like-minded partners are the answer, and we have this opportunity today by consenting to the two agreements.

I would like to end by thanking the rapporteur, Mr Pabriks, and of course Mr Tannock on the Strategic Partnership Agreement, the shadows, and many more who have worked for a long time on this agreement. I am looking forward to the debate, and hopefully a successful vote. Thank you very much.

  Charles Tannock, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. – Mr President, as I have already mentioned, the Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) will have an important role within security. We saw attempts for the Passenger Name Record Agreement to go before this Parliament, and it was referred to the ECJ. I hope that eventually comes to fruition. There is also the creation of a Joint Ministerial Council and Joint Consultative Council for the first time, which will enable senior policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic to exchange ideas. On how to mitigate the effects of climate change, Canada and the European Union will have to look at this very carefully, particularly with the risk of the melting of the ice sheets in the High North and the increased migratory pressures from Sub—Saharan Africa impacting on the EU with climate change, a very important common shared challenge. President Trump’s repeated threats to pull America out of the Paris climate change agreement means an additional threat to global stability which the EU, together with Canada, will have to face together.

Lastly, the SPA and CETA will become the model for the European Union to conduct future advanced close trade and political relations with third—country partners, including, in all probability, the so-called bespoke deal with the European Union currently envisaged with the UK and the British Government after Brexit. So let us hope that this is a successful model, so that the UK itself can negotiate something similar after Brexit.

  Georgi Pirinski, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs. – Mr President, the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs in its opinion of 8 December last, stressed that decent job creation, balanced wage increases and expanded entrepreneurship possibilities must be the defining criteria for giving consent for the conclusion of CETA. The Committee found, however, that the agreement seriously fails and falls short on all three scores.

Real world models and assessments indicate no more than a 0.018% increase in overall EU employment over six to ten years, with significant sectoral dislocations and increases in long-term unemployment. Income gaps are projected to widen between skilled and unskilled workers. There is no single chapter with specific measures in favour of SMEs, and finally, the privileged status of investors under the Investment Court System stands in stark contrast to the mere consultations envisaged for protecting labour interests and rights.

Hence the Committee’s recommendation to Parliament is to decline to give its consent for the conclusion of CETA.

(Applause)

  Bart Staes, Rapporteur voor advies van de Commissie milieubeheer, volksgezondheid en voedselveiligheid. – De Commissie milieu, volksgezondheid en voedselveiligheid adviseert met een grote meerderheid om CETA goed te keuren. Als rapporteur probeerde ik op een eerlijke, maar kritische manier CETA te evalueren. Ik nam daarbij als uitgangspunt onze resolutie van april 2015 over TTIP. En mijn inziens voldoet CETA op vier voorwaarden niet.

Eén, er is geen expliciete vermelding voor het voorzorgsbeginsel. Twee, de regelgevende samenwerking, die weliswaar vrijwillig is, is niet beperkt tot welbepaalde sectoren waar de EU en Canada een gelijk beschermingsniveau hebben. Drie, CETA bevat bepalingen over publieke en sociale diensten die de beslissingsruimte van de lidstaten aantasten. Vier, CETA bevat bepalingen die onze ggo-wetgeving op termijn ondermijnt.

Daarenboven is er het ICS-arbitragemechanisme, dat zorgt voor een parallelle jurisdictie voor buitenlandse investeerders, waarbij de soevereiniteit van lidstaten wordt aangetast. Verder uitte ik als rapporteur bezorgdheid over de bepalingen inzake chemischemiddelenwetgeving, de negatieve lijst inzake publieke en sociale diensten, de ondermijning van de standaarden inzake pesticidenresidus, de regelgeving inzake hormoonverstoorders, de bedreiging van de riek-tot-vorkaanpak in de voedselveiligheid en de kwalijke bepalingen met invloed op ons klimaat- en energiebeleid.

Een overgrote meerderheid van collega's in de ENVI-Commissie had daar geen oren naar, ondanks de bezwaren van miljoenen burgers. Ik moet u dus als rapporteur aanbevelen CETA goed te keuren, zelf zal ik wellicht tegenstemmen.

  Presidente. – Oggi è un dibattito particolarmente delicato. Tutti avranno la possibilità di esprimere le proprie idee e le proprie posizioni. Quindi vi prego di rispettare da una parte e dall’altra gli oratori che sostengono tesi differenti dalle vostre. Non tocca al Presidente decidere quale deve essere la posizione del Parlamento, sarà l’Aula sovrana, oggi durante il voto, a decidere quale sarà la posizione del Parlamento.

Passiamo ora agli interventi a nome dei gruppi. Il primo è quello dell’on. Weber per il Partito popolare europeo.

  Manfred Weber, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Wir spüren schon in den ersten Minuten, um was es heute geht. Es geht um die Diskussion zwischen Gefühlen, zwischen Angstmachen und zwischen Fakten. Wir werden nachher der Kollegin Le Pen zuhören –

(Zwischenrufe)

jeder darf hier seine Meinung sagen, und jeder darf zuhören, okay?

Wenn nachher die Kollegin Le Pen das Wort ergreifen wird, dann wird sie Angst machen vor Handel. Sie wird sagen, dass sie Kanada ablehnt. Sie wird sagen, dass sie Australien ablehnt. Sie wird sagen, dass sie Neuseeland ablehnt. Sie will eine komplette Abschottung Frankreichs herbeiführen, und sie macht den Menschen Angst – den Bauern, den Arbeitnehmern, so, wie wir das erlebt haben. Ich sage dazu: Diese Modelle gab es ja bereits. In Europa gab es bereits Länder, die sich komplett abgeschottet haben, beispielsweise Albanien unter einem Diktator, der komplett alle Grenzen aufgebaut hat. Le Pen will aus Frankreich ein großes Albanien machen, das nicht in die Zukunft geführt wird, sondern das sich abschotten will.

Wir als EVP-Fraktion glauben an die Fakten, wir glauben an Fakten. Und wenn wir zum Beispiel auf Südkorea blicken, das letzte Abkommen, das wir vor fünf Jahren abgeschlossen haben – liebe Kollegin Le Pen und liebe Kollegen –, hat zu einer Exportsteigerung von 55 % geführt, 17 Mrd. EUR wurden mehr exportiert, das hat 14 000 neue Jobs geschaffen. Insgesamt 30 Millionen Jobs in Europa hängen vom Export ab. Das sind Fakten. Da kann man natürlich Emotionen dagegensetzen. Wir als EVP glauben weiter an die Fakten.

Ich bedanke mich bei der Kommissarin Malmström für ihre engagierte Arbeit. Das ist ein tolles Abkommen, das Sie uns heute vorgelegt haben. Dank der Bürgerbeteiligung, der Verbraucherschutzverbände und der Gewerkschaften ist es gelungen, die Sorgen aufzunehmen und viele Sorgen auch zu entkräften. Und ich muss auch deutlich machen: Mit wem sollen wir denn überhaupt noch Gespräche führen können, wenn wir nicht mit Kanada, einem hochentwickelten demokratischen, partnerschaftlichen Land, Gespräche führen und diese Gespräche auch entsprechend abschließen können?

(Beifall)

Liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich muss leider auch etwas parteipolitisch werden in der Debatte, weil wir natürlich wissen müssen, wer dieses Parlament führt und wer in die Zukunft dieses Kontinents führt. Und Gianni, da muss ich leider Gottes feststellen, dass die sozialdemokratische Fraktion zutiefst gespalten ist. Die sozialdemokratische Fraktion kann keine Orientierung geben, wie es in Europa weitergeht. Die Hälfte ist für CETA, die andere Hälfte ist gegen CETA. Und die Grünen müssen sich ganz kritisch die Frage stellen lassen, ob sie denn in guter Gesellschaft sind, wenn sie mit Le Pen und den Kommunisten gleichzeitig gegen CETA Stimmung machen. Diese Frage muss man stellen dürfen. Ich glaube, dass die Grünen und die Verbraucherschutzverbände viele wichtige Debatten geführt haben, aber jetzt sollten sie auch anerkennen, dass wir auf einem guten Weg sind und dass das Abkommen ein gutes Abkommen ist.

Zu guter Letzt zwei kurze Punkte. Das eine ist der Entscheidungsprozess. Ich glaube, wir müssen feststellen, wenn wir uns CETA vergegenwärtigen, dass wir zukünftig klare Zuständigkeiten in Europa brauchen. Die Diskussion um die Wallonie – wir als EVP respektieren jedes Parlament in Europa, uns sind Föderalismus und Regionalität wichtig. Aber wir brauchen Zuständigkeiten, die klar sind in der Zukunft, damit die Menschen wissen, wenn Europa Freihandel diskutiert, dann muss das Europäische Parlament der Ort sein, wo über CETA zukünftig final und einzig und allein abgestimmt wird.

Zu guter Letzt: Das ganz große Bild ist, dass wir Donald Trump haben. Und Donald Trump hat TPP gekündigt. Er will Mauern bauen. Und wir als Europäer wollen an diesem Tag, mit dieser Abstimmung heute deutlich machen, dass wir nicht Mauern aufbauen wollen, sondern wir wollen Brücken bauen, wir wollen Partnerschaft. Und deswegen wird meine Fraktion für CETA stimmen.

(Beifall und Buhrufe)

  Presidente. – Durante gli interventi dei rappresentanti dei gruppi non concederò “blue card”, perché ripeto che è un dibattito delicato e invito tutti quanti a rispettare le idee degli altri. Ogni gruppo avrà facoltà di esprimere le proprie idee e le proprie posizioni. Questa è la democrazia e quindi vi prego di rispettare i vostri colleghi, anche se esprimono idee differenti dalle vostre.

  Gianni Pittella, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissario, ho ascoltato toni trionfalistici che non condivido. E ho ascoltato, da ultimo, provocazioni del collega Weber, che non sono rispettose del dibattito libero, franco e serrato che c'è stato nel gruppo dei Socialisti e dei Democratici. Il mio gruppo chiede rispetto. Noi non siamo una caserma e non lo saremo mai.

Voglio dire subito che per noi Socialisti e Democratici il CETA non è un modello, ma è solo l'inizio di un cambio nella politica commerciale europea. C'è chi pensa che ciò che sta accadendo nel mondo non debba condizionare e influenzare le nostre riflessioni, che si possa andare avanti mettendo la testa sotto la sabbia. Noi non siamo tra costoro. Trump non è Obama, e noi dobbiamo riflettere su ciò che sta avvenendo. Trump ha approfittato di una visione ingenua della globalizzazione. Gli accordi commerciali sono pensati solo per interessi di grandi imprese. Contro questa visione della globalizzazione i nostri elettori si stanno rivoltando.

Noi sosteniamo il CETA in quanto parte di una presa di coscienza che serve una nuova politica commerciale. Ci va dato atto che in questi mesi ci siamo impegnati per migliorare il CETA e anche grazie al nostro lavoro oggi abbiamo un accordo migliore del passato. Abbiamo superato l’ISDS che, se non modificato, sarebbe stato il cavallo di Troia con cui le multinazionali avrebbero insidiato i nostri sistemi giuridici. Al suo posto ora c'è un meccanismo con un appello, con giudici al di sopra di qualsiasi conflitto d'interessi, ed è anche grazie al nostro lavoro di Socialisti se i servizi pubblici non saranno toccati, così come i diritti dei lavoratori.

Questi miglioramenti li abbiamo potuti ottenere anche grazie al lavoro della Commissaria e soprattutto grazie a un partner, il Canada, a cui ci legano valori e speranze comuni, un paese con cui condividiamo l'ambizione di costruire un nuovo sistema multilaterale più democratico, una globalizzazione positiva diversa da quella perseguita sino ad ora. Ringrazio il Premier Trudeau, che sappiamo essere con noi in questa battaglia contro i virus del populismo e dell'isolazionismo.

Questo accordo è per noi l'inizio, ma occorre una più ampia e limpida agenda progressista del commercio internazionale, sulla base della quale noi valuteremo gli accordi futuri, a partire da quello tra Unione europea e Giappone. Noi non daremo più il nostro voto se non ci sarà una nuova agenda progressista sulla politica commerciale e non tollereremo mai più che ci siano strumenti di risoluzione delle controversie simili all’ISDS. Vogliamo maggiore trasparenza nei negoziati e vogliamo che l'adesione agli standard più avanzati in materia di diritti dei lavoratori diventi la norma. Insomma, il nostro sostegno non è un voto per conservare, ma un voto per cambiare. È un modo per ascoltare le preoccupazioni dei nostri cittadini. Vogliamo cambiare questa globalizzazione, non vogliamo subirla.

  Syed Kamall, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, what is the Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA) really about? It is about new jobs created by Polish fruit exporters or Italian tie makers facing lower barriers to selling their products in Canada, it is about cheaper prices and more choice for consumers, and it is about allowing our small businesses to bid for public procurement contracts in Canada. My ECR Group supports CETA and other trade agreements because international trade is between willing sellers in one country and willing buyers in another country.

Opponents of international trade will often highlight the losses, but they fail to point to the often larger gains which are dispersed across a nation or across international borders. I am not saying that we should ignore these legitimate concerns. We should encourage lifelong learning programmes for workers in declining companies and sectors to retrain for new roles in the face of globalisation and new technology. We should address the concerns of both Canadians and citizens of EU countries who accuse each other of having lower environmental and labour standards. Both cannot be right. And we should also remind the anti-capitalists over there, and the anti-globalisation movement over here, that they are in fact the true friends of the multinationals, for it is often the multinationals with their armies of lawyers and lobbyists who call for, or shape, the regulatory barriers which keep smaller businesses confined to their local markets.

(Applause)

So the ECR Group will vote for CETA, as an opportunity to show the world that the EU is open for business, an opportunity for small businesses to create more jobs and opportunities for everyone, not just a privileged few or the large multinationals, to benefit from open trade. We support CETA.

  Marietje Schaake, namens de ALDE-Fractie. – Met ons debat vandaag besluiten we zeven jaar hard werken en onderhandelen voor een resultaat waar we trots op mogen zijn. We hebben banen en groei nodig en CETA levert kansen voor Europese bedrijven door markttoegang. We wilden garanties dat hoge standaarden milieu, mens en consument beschermen en we kregen die. We drongen aan op drastische hervorming van investeringsbeschermingen en we zien dat een nieuw model veel beter werkt en dat Canada dit integraal omarmde. We realiseerden een einde aan bureaucratische rompslomp voor kleine, maar ook grote bedrijven. We hebben ingezoomd op elk detail om de vele vragen, verzoeken, zorgen en wensen van maatschappelijke organisaties, van bedrijven, experts en burgers recht te doen.

Maar laten we ook uitzoomen en de context waarin we vandaag stemmen helder voor ogen houden. Met president Trump in het Witte Huis wordt een duidelijke Amerikaanse koerswijziging ingezet en leiderschap voor open economieën, open samenlevingen en een sterk multilateraal systeem moet nu vanuit ons in Europa komen. Té veel grote machten zouden liever zien dat globalisering en handel kan zonder eerlijke standaarden of eerlijke concurrentie of respect voor mens en milieu. Maar juist nu moeten wij dit moment aangrijpen om door te werken aan een ambitieuze handelsagenda, diepgeworteld in de waarden die we allemaal koesteren.

We kunnen ons geen betere partner voorstellen dan de Canadezen, het meest Europese land buiten de Unie, zeker onder leiding van premier Trudeau. Terwijl wij Canada bezochten met de internationale handelscommissie, werd Brussel getroffen door de walgelijke terroristische aanslagen en ik zal de massale steun van de Canadezen nooit vergeten. Hele ijshockeystadions vol. Dit bevestigt slechts dat onze bondgenootschap niet alleen diep in de geschiedenis verankerd is, maar vandaag nog zeer persoonlijk ervaren wordt en zeker toekomstbestendig is.

Ik wil tot slot benadrukken hoezeer CETA een liberaal succes is, maar ik wil iedereen die zijn of haar nek uitstak en aan dit verdrag werkte, vaak tegen de stroom in, daarvoor bedanken: commissaris Malmström van de Commissie, maar ook alle Canadezen voor het geduld dat ze hebben moeten opbrengen in deze zeven jaren hard werken. Maar het resultaat mag er zijn.

  Anne-Marie Mineur, namens de GUE/NGL-Fractie. – Dit zijn een paar handtekeningen van de 3,5 miljoen mensen die zich verzetten tegen CETA en dat is maar een deel van de miljoenen mensen die hebben gedemonstreerd tegen CETA. En dan heb ik het nog niet over de 150 000 mensen die bezwaar hebben gemaakt tegen elke vorm van arbitrage en de ruim 2000 gemeenten en regio's die zich CETA- en TTIP-vrij hebben verklaard.

Niemand heeft ook maar één onvriendelijk woord gericht tegen Canada. Maar met vrienden maak je niet een dergelijk slecht verdrag, gebaseerd op wantrouwen en ten koste van heel veel mensen. Ik maak me oprecht grote zorgen over dit verdrag. Het is een verdrag dat ervan uitgaat dat elke regel die de handel beperkt een verkeerde regel is, die geschrapt moet worden en daardoor staan de regels voor voedselveiligheid onder druk. Onze volksgezondheid wordt bedreigd, milieubescherming staat op de helling en ook onze autonomie op het gebied van regelgeving staan onder druk. We leveren ons uit aan multinationals. Daarmee verzwakken we niet alleen onze rechtsstaat, we zetten ook onze democratie op het spel.

Dat is niet alleen mijn mening. Het is ook wat we hebben gehoord van rechters, juristen en advocaten, van vakbonden, consumentenorganisaties en belangenvereniging voor het midden- en kleinbedrijf, van boeren, natuurbeschermers en milieuorganisaties, van ngo's, die onderzoek hebben gedaan naar geldstromen, naar transparantie en ontwikkelingssamenwerking. CETA is een bedreiging voor ons allemaal en ik begrijp de liberalen niet dat ze de democratie en de rechtsstaat laten ondergraven. Ik snap de EPP niet dat ze de boeren en het midden- en kleinbedrijf laat verkommeren. En ik snap al helemaal de sociaal-democraten niet, die niet opstaan tegen dit soort verdragen, die geen enkele garantie bieden op succes, die veel risico’s opleveren en waar bovendien nog tientallen open vragen bij zijn. CETA is een slecht verdrag. Het is alleen maar goed voor multinationals en daar zijn wij niet door verkozen. Wij zijn verkozen door de miljoenen mensen die ons vragen hun belangen te verdedigen. People before profit. Stop CETA.

  Yannick Jadot, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, il y aurait donc les gentils Canadiens avec qui nous allons avoir l’accord le plus beau que l’Europe n’ait jamais signé. Mieux, grand hasard de l’histoire, nous signons cet accord alors qu’un dirigeant xénophobe, raciste et sexiste dirige les États—Unis. Je voudrais vous rappeler, Monsieur Weber, que M. Trump est un conservateur élu par les Républicains, il fait donc partie de votre famille politique à l’échelle internationale.

De l’autre côté, il y aurait les salariés et leurs syndicats, les consommateurs et leurs organisations, la société civile et ses millions de personnes qui ont signé des pétitions. Il y aurait les PME et il y aurait ces parlementaires inaptes au bonheur que vous leur proposez, rabougris sur eux-mêmes, repliés sur le vieux monde et l’espace ancien. Mais avez-vous oublié qui a négocié cet accord? C’est M. Harper, climato-sceptique, qui aujourd’hui conseille les multinationales; c’est M. Barroso, ancien président de la Commission européenne, qui aujourd’hui conseille Goldman Sachs; c’est M. De Gucht, ancien commissaire au commerce, qui aujourd’hui conseille les multinationales.

L’aboutissement de ce processus de dérégulation et de privatisation de la norme, c’est justement le gouvernement de M. Trump, où ce ne sont pas les commissaires et les anciens Premiers ministres qui passent vers les multinationales, mais les multinationales qui sont au gouvernement Trump.

Nous sommes dans un moment trop précieux et trop rare de notre histoire, pour ne pas regarder ce qui justifie et explique les Brexit, ce qui explique les Trump... C’est la mondialisation que vous construisez qui explique en partie cela. Vous alimentez le feu dont se nourrissent les extrêmes droites pour dire à quel point la globalisation, l’autre, la différence, c’est toujours mal. Il faut absolument construire, Madame la Commissaire, une globalisation de la régulation si nous ne voulons pas que l’Europe continue à se disloquer. Si nous ne voulons pas des Brexit, si nous ne voulons pas plus de Trump, plus d’extrême droite, il nous faut faire de l’Europe le pilier de la régulation publique de la mondialisation. Cela veut dire des droits humains, des droits sociaux et l’environnement au-dessus des droits commerciaux et de l’investissement.

Le TAFTA et le CETA, c’est exactement l’inverse. Vous nous dites que vous protégez les emplois: vous-même, dans l’audition de la commission du commerce international et celle de l’emploi et des affaires sociales, vous avez dit «on ne sait pas si cela va créer de l’emploi». La seule étude qui existe table sur moins de 100 000 emplois en Europe. Vous prétendez défendre le climat avec M. Trudeau. Or, M. Trudeau, il y a deux jours, était avec Donald Trump pour remettre en service le projet de pipeline Keystone XL, que Barack Obama avait supprimé parce qu’il considérait qu’il était «climaticide». C’est votre Commission, Madame, qui refuse de légiférer et de réglementer les perturbateurs endocriniens pour protéger la santé.

Alors, oui, nous voulons un partenariat avec les Canadiens, avec les Américains, avec tous les autres, mais sur le climat, sur les droits sociaux, sur la lutte contre les paradis fiscaux, sur la supervision bancaire, et de tout cela, il n’y a rien dans ces accords! Défendons la démocratie, défendons la souveraineté démocratique, défendons la souveraineté juridique européenne, défendons un grand projet de l’Europe pour contrer une mondialisation de dérégulation, une mondialisation qui concentre les pouvoirs dans les mains de quelques multinationales et de quelques multimilliardaires. Faisons autre chose de l’Europe, sinon elle se disloquera, c’est ce à quoi vous contribuez aujourd’hui.

  Tiziana Beghin, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissaria, il CETA non è un trattato di libero scambio, è una riforma istituzionale occulta, concepita in stanze segrete da tecnocrati non eletti e camuffata da trattato internazionale.

Da tre anni il Movimento 5 Stelle prova a mettervi in guardia, ma non è servito a nulla. Non è servito dirvi che il CETA porterà una crescita irrisoria dello 0,01 % all'anno, che farà perdere il lavoro a 200 000 europei, che porterà a una contrazione dei salari reali tra i 300 e i 1 300 EUR. Non è valso a nulla ricordarvi che le importazioni di grano, carne o mais cresceranno vertiginosamente di tre, quattro, sette volte, o che un'azienda agricola canadese è venti volte più grande di una europea, con buona pace dei nostri piccoli agricoltori.

Signora Commissaria, dopo il voto di oggi il CETA entrerà nella vita dei nostri cittadini. Gli europei se lo troveranno a tavola. Una colossale fregatura, visto che in Canada l’81 % del mais e l'80 % del grano sono OGM, la carne contiene ractopamina e altre sostanze attualmente vietate in Europa, ma che in futuro sarà facilissimo rendere legali grazie al CETA.

Se ufficialmente il CETA promette di non fare entrare gli OGM, in realtà passeranno tutti dalla porta sul retro, perché il trattato incorpora lo stesso grimaldello già usato con successo dalle corporation americane per attaccare il blocco europeo alla carne con gli ormoni, cioè le pericolosissime norme sanitarie dell'Organizzazione mondiale del commercio.

In più acqua, sanità e servizi che oggi sono pubblici saranno sottoposti a un’ondata di privatizzazioni e liberalizzazioni irreversibili e nessuno potrà opporsi perché il CETA istituirà un tribunale sovranazionale con il potere di condannare gli Stati che oseranno mettere i bastoni fra le ruote delle corporation e dei loro profitti. Una vergognosa giustizia privata a cui avranno accesso anche tre quarti delle imprese americane che operano in Europa, triangolando le azioni legali tramite le loro filiali in Canada.

Ma soprattutto il CETA è un assegno in bianco. Colleghi, forse credete di sapere cosa state per firmare ma non è così. Il CETA crea un organismo tecnocratico e non eletto che potrà interpretare a piacimento i protocolli del trattato, e non si tratta di poche pagine ma del 75 % delle 1 500 pagine che lo compongono, alcune delle quali sono state lasciate volutamente in bianco. Tutto questo senza nessun, ripeto nessun, controllo democratico.

Per questo, colleghi, ve lo dico un'altra volta: il CETA non è un trattato, non è un accordo, ma è un colpo di Stato silenzioso, è una riforma istituzionale travestita da trattato e noi dobbiamo fermarlo.

  Marine Le Pen, au nom du groupe ENF. – Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, après sept ans de négociation, ce traité entre l’Union européenne et le Canada, frère jumeau du traité transatlantique, va être refusé ou accepté par ce Parlement.

Le traité CETA a été soigneusement caché à tous les citoyens. Il n’a presque jamais été discuté devant les grandes instances de débat que sont les médias car aucun de vous ne veut ni ne peut le défendre publiquement. Ah! Voter, caché dans l’ombre, vous aimez bien cela, mais débattre en pleine lumière, vous détestez! Pire, les députés du parti socialiste, qui sont souvent d’une grande indulgence sur le CETA devant ce Parlement, font semblant de s’y opposer dans quelques médias confidentiels. Les UMP français ont tous voté pour le CETA en commission mais s’y disent opposés lorsqu’on les questionne.

Quand les peuples comprendront tous ces mensonges, ils ne vous feront plus jamais confiance. Voilà pourquoi ce traité est un traité scélérat vis-à-vis des peuples européens. Il supprime la quasi-totalité des droits de douane sur les produits échangés entre l’Union européenne et le Canada et détruira, une fois de plus, des centaines de milliers d’emplois en Europe, des dizaines de milliers en France. L’agriculture et l’élevage, déjà laminés par tous les traités de libre-échange que vous avez déjà signés, continueront leur descente aux enfers. Nos éleveurs, mis en concurrence avec des éleveurs canadiens 35 % moins chers, risquent de fermer le rideau en masse.

Je vous le demande solennellement: n’avez-vous pas honte de détruire ainsi ceux qui vous nourrissent?

Pour aplanir le terrain de jeu des multinationales, vous bradez notre droit à réglementer et alignez les normes avec celles du Canada, interdisant ainsi à nos citoyens la protection qu’ils attendent de leurs représentants politiques. Malheureusement pour eux, les profits des multinationales vous intéressent plus que la protection des citoyens et de l’environnement.

Les différents comités que vous mettez en place comme ces mécanismes de coopération réglementaires obscurs sont de nature supranationale, ne sont contrôlés par personne, tant et si bien que de grands juristes français se posent la question de leur constitutionnalité.

Pour parachever le tout, vous créez une justice privée d’exception pour permettre aux multinationales d’attaquer les États afin que plus aucune réglementation ne déplaise à ces nouveaux seigneurs des temps modernes.

Ceux qui rendront justice dans ce tribunal ne sont pas des juges, fonctionnaires publics neutres, ce seront le plus souvent des avocats d’affaires en droit international, en conflit d’intérêts car ayant touché des honoraires de ces mêmes multinationales ou de leurs consœurs.

Enfin, les services publics si importants pour les classes moyennes et populaires devront fonctionner dans une logique purement marchande, à l’exception de quelques services régaliens.

Voilà le tableau désastreux du traité CETA. Si ce traité est voté dans quelques heures, cela démontrera, une fois de plus, à tous les Européens votre incapacité à les défendre et l’importance cruciale pour chaque peuple de retrouver sa souveraineté, sa capacité à décider librement de son avenir.

La seule chose rassurante est que le peuple français aura une possibilité pour revenir sur ce traité et tous les autres traités scélérats, avec l’élection présidentielle de mai 2017, tant il est vrai que c’est aux nations de négocier leur politique commerciale et non à une structure non élue qui ne représente que ses propres intérêts et non ceux des peuples.

  Κωνσταντίνος Παπαδάκης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η CETA υπηρετεί τα συμφέροντα των μονοπωλίων και αποτελεί σχέδιο ενιαίας αγοράς για την παραπέρα αύξηση των καπιταλιστικών κερδών, με σημαντικές γεωπολιτικές προεκτάσεις. Oι μεγάλοι επιχειρηματικοί όμιλοι της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης και του Καναδά επιδιώκουν να αποκτήσουν προβάδισμα κερδοφορίας σε βάρος των ανταγωνιστών τους. Σημαντικό ρόλο σε αυτούς τους ανταγωνισμούς παίζουν ιδιαίτερα οι όμιλοι των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών, με την ισχυρή θέση που έχουν στον Καναδά. Η CETA ανοίγει τον δρόμο για την αμφισβήτηση και την κατάργηση όποιων εργατικών δικαιωμάτων έχουν απομείνει ακόμα όρθια, με μαζικές απολύσεις και στις δύο πλευρές του Ατλαντικού. Στο όνομα της προστασίας των επενδυτών και της επιχειρηματικότητας, κατοχυρώνεται η μέγιστη δυνατή ελευθερία κίνησης κεφαλαίων, εμπορευμάτων και υπηρεσιών, συνθλίβοντας, μεταξύ άλλων, τους μικρομεσαίους αγροτοκτηνοτρόφους, καταργώντας στοιχειώδεις περιβαλλοντικούς κανονισμούς και όποια ελάχιστα επίπεδα ασφάλειας στα τρόφιμα και στην προστασία του περιβάλλοντος προβλέπονταν ακόμη μέχρι σήμερα. Αίρονται και τα τελευταία εμπόδια για τα μονοπώλια, για την απελευθέρωση κρατικών και άλλων υπηρεσιών, σηματοδοτώντας την ανεμπόδιστη παράδοσή τους στο κεφάλαιο. Η κατά παραγγελία σύσταση επενδυτικών δικαστηρίων στοχεύει να εξασφαλίσει εγγυημένα κέρδη για τα μονοπώλια, όχι μόνο απευθείας από τις επενδύσεις τους, αλλά και μέσω αποζημιώσεων. Σοβαρές είναι οι ευθύνες της κυβέρνησης ΣΥΡΙΖΑ στην Ελλάδα και μεγάλη η κοροϊδία της, που ενώ έχει συνυπογράψει τη CETA στο Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο, στελέχη του ΣΥΡΙΖΑ παρουσιάζονται ως διαμαρτυρόμενοι. Το Κομμουνιστικό Κόμμα της Ελλάδας καταψηφίζει την αντιλαϊκή αυτή συμφωνία που δεν επιδέχεται ούτε συστάσεις, ούτε διορθώσεις. Ο αγώνας ενάντια στις συμφωνίες και στα συμφέροντα του κεφαλαίου είναι μέρος της πάλης για την εξάλειψη των αιτιών της καπιταλιστικής εκμετάλλευσης, για την ικανοποίηση των λαϊκών αναγκών.

IN THE CHAIR: MAIREAD McGUINNESS
Vice-President

  Daniel Caspary (PPE). – Sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin! Heute ist ein guter Tag für Europa, für Kanada und für die Welt.

Wir gestalten nämlich heute die Welt mit. Warum tun wir das? Wir tun das, weil Globalisierung stattfindet. Wir wollen aber nicht, dass in einem immer enger verflochtenen Umfeld der Reichste, der Größte, der Unfairste entscheidet, wo es langgeht, sondern wir wollen, dass in einer zusammenwachsenden Welt die Macht des Rechts gilt.

Deshalb ist es ein guter Tag für unsere Bürger, für Europa und die Welt, wenn freiheitliche Demokratien in Kanada und Europa Globalisierung gestalten und Völkerrecht setzen.

Wir nehmen aber auch wahr: Viele Menschen haben Sorgen. Sie haben Sorgen um ihre Zukunft. Sie haben Sorge vor den immer schnelleren Veränderungen. Sie haben Sorgen wegen der vielen halbwahren und unwahren Behauptungen, die über dieses Handelsabkommen in die Welt gesetzt werden.

Deshalb möchte ich noch einmal ganz klar sagen, worum es geht und worum es nicht geht: Es geht um Wachstum und Beschäftigung und es geht nicht um niedrigere Umwelt-, Sozial- oder Verbraucherschutzstandards. Es geht um besseren Marktzugang für unsere kleinen und großen Unternehmen und es geht nicht um eine Zwangsprivatisierung der kommunalen Daseinsvorsorge. Es geht um den Schutz unserer Bürgerinnen und Bürger vor Benachteiligung im Ausland und es geht nicht um die Beschränkung politischen Entscheidungsspielraums oder die Entmachtung nationaler Gerichte.

Deshalb ist unser Ergebnis als EVP: Wir sagen Ja zu CETA, weil Abschottung auf allen Seiten nur Verlierer produziert. Wir sagen Ja zu CETA, weil wir die Chancen verwirklichen wollen, die vor uns liegen. Wir sagen Ja zu CETA, weil wir der Globalisierung endlich Regeln geben wollen.

In diesen unsicheren Zeiten suchen die Menschen nach Halt und Führung. Es ist Zeit, sie ihnen zu geben, und das CETA-Abkommen ist hier ein guter Baustein.

(Beifall)

  Sorin Moisă (S&D). – Madam President, we have reached the final stage of a lengthy and difficult process of exercising democratic scrutiny over the negotiation and approval of CETA. The S&D Group has followed closely, as have many colleagues in this House, the negotiations since before what I would call its first conclusion in September 2014. We have voiced concerns, demanded changes and achieved most of those already on the occasion of what was effectively the second conclusion of the negotiations in February 2016. The most important of these was the removal of the old, toxic, ISDS from the Treaty and its replacement with a public system, the new ICS.

In the past year, we have also contributed to, and closely scrutinised and debated, what became the new CETA package submitted to the European Parliament for consent today. We welcome, as a Group, the fact that many of the citizens’ concerns have been addressed through clarifications and commitments from the Commission and the Canadian authorities, through the joint interpretative instrument and the other instruments in the package. CETA is not perfect, far from it, but it is an important step in the right direction: a more progressive trade policy where the benefits are widely spread among all citizens.

The S&D Group has tabled its own consensual resolution which clarifies what we mean by progressive trade agreements by spelling out clearly what we like about CETA, and what we do not like about CETA and expect to be further corrected in CETA where agreed, or in future trade agreements more widely: better provisions on sustainable development and a sanctions-based approach; further improvements to the ICS system and full European Parliament involvement in the designation of judges; better forms to cover the protection of public services; and improved transparency for all trade agreements in future.

The S&D Group has decided to vote in favour of CETA. This is because most of us believe CETA is good for our economy, particularly for SMEs, and it does not threaten our choices, values or laws. But it is also an act of trust and an offer of partnership towards the EU institutions, notably the Commission and the Council, with which we want to work together for a better trade policy, and towards Canada, which is a country that shares our values, our objectives and our hopes for a better future.

  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR). – Madam President, today marks a milestone, when the European Parliament votes on, and I earnestly hope approves, the most ambitious, modern and largest trade agreement with a developed nation that the EU has ever concluded. As ECR Group shadow rapporteur on the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), I have worked for years on this, as have others like my colleague, Charles Tannock, on the parallel Strategic Partnership Agreement.

The CETA trade deal will eliminate 99% of non-agricultural tariffs, saving EU exporters almost EUR 500 million a year immediately, and will deliver near-complete market access both ways. This includes the best-ever services deal and it will also give European companies access to Canadian procurement markets for the first time. In addition, it contains mutual recognition of professional qualifications for midwives, architects, lawyers and doctors, but there is no free movement and no access fees payable either way. It would make a very good template for Britain.

Once fully implemented, the agreement is expected to increase bilateral trade in goods and services between the EU Member States and Canada by 23% or GBP 19 billion. It has, however, taken too long (seven years) to get to this point. Two years were wasted on EU human rights demands, and another two years on the question of investor disputes, with the unacceptable Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system being replaced by the better Investment Court system. The EU must reflect on the time it takes to get agreements with any major trading partner negotiated if they are going to be taken seriously in future. If CETA fails, any credibility the EU has in negotiation will be lost, including with Britain, so this is a vital vote from all our perspectives.

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

  Karin Kadenbach (S&D), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Wir haben von Ihnen und auch von Ihren Kollegen von der EPP gehört, dass alle Ihre Überlegungen auf Fakten beruhen.

Ich hätte jetzt einfach nur das Interesse, zu erfahren, welche Fakten untermauern, dass dieses Abkommen mit Kanada, das ja den Handel in beide Richtungen extrem beschleunigen und verstärken wird, im Zusammenhang mit dem Kampf gegen den Klimawandel von Vorteil ist? Wo können wir aus diesem Abkommen ableiten, dass wir zu den CO2-Emissionsreduktionen in Europa und in Kanada beitragen werden?

  David Campbell Bannerman (ECR), blue-card answer. – I think the fact, as with all free trade agreements, is that it is better for people on the high street. It actually reduces the cost of food, for example seafood and meat coming from Canada. That is good for the poorest people in Europe. So that is what these free trade agreements are about. It is good for jobs, our ability to sell services to Canada, and to break into provincial government in Canada. It is good for that, and all of this comes without actually selling out in terms of workers’ rights, or social or environmental protection. So it is a good deal. For heaven’s sake, support it, otherwise we will not get any other deal done by the EU.

(Applause)

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE). – Arvoisa puhemies, parlamentti on keskustellut tästä CETA-sopimuksesta jo kuukausia ja voi todeta, että valitettavasti CETA on saanut vähän huonon maineen, kun se on liitetty aina TTIP-sopimukseen ja nähty pelkkänä Troijan hevosena, kun tosiasiassa tämä sopimus on täysin erillinen kokonaisuus.

Kanada ei ole sama asia kuin Yhdysvallat, Kanada on Kanada, tämä on ehkä hyvä muistaa, kun tätä sopimusta käydään läpi. Tämä CETA-sopimus tarjoaa eurooppalaisille pk-yrityksille mahdollisuuden löytää Kanadasta uusia markkinoita ja helpottaa palvelujen kauppaa monilla aloilla.

Tällä hetkellä Euroopan unioni tarvitsee edistyksellistä kauppasopimusta, Euroopan unioni tarvitsee globaaleja markkinoita. Me tarvitsemme Kanadan kaltaisia saman mielisiä, samat arvot omaavia kumppaneita. CETAssa nämä asiat yhdistyvät, ja toivon syvästi, että kollegoilta löytyy vielä perinteistä EU-henkistä kauppapolitiikkaa, sitä ajattelua, että me emme ole kallistumassa väärällä tavalla vihervasemmiston mukaan ”trumpilaiseen” ajatteluun, vaan me haluamme kehittää ja luoda kaupalle sääntöjä maailmanlaajuisesti ja olla edelläkävijänä maailmankaupan järjestystä luotaessa.

(Puhuja lupasi vastata työjärjestyksen 162 artiklan 8 kohdan mukaiseen sinisen kortin kysymykseen).

  Marek Jurek (ECR), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – CETA jest według pana dobre dla małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw, CETA jest dobre dla eksporterów europejskich. Nie wiem, czy pana zdaniem CETA jest złe dla międzynarodowych koncernów? A może warto otwarcie powiedzieć, że to tak naprawdę o ich interesy chodzi, a nie przedsiębiorców w Europie, nie naszych rolników, nie Europejczyków?

  President. – I did not get the entire English translation and I gather colleagues had a problem. Was there a problem with the English booth and could we have a translation of the question please?

Could I get some guidance from the booths as to whether they heard the question or do I need to repeat it?

Could you perhaps repeat it briefly, Mr Jurek?

  Marek Jurek (ECR), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Mówił Pan o małych i średnich przedsiębiorstwach, które Pana zdaniem mają skorzystać na umowie CETA, o zaletach dla eksportu europejskiego. Dlaczego nie mówił Pan o międzynarodowych koncernach, głównym beneficjencie tego układu? Czy Pana zdaniem międzynarodowe koncerny ulokowane w Kanadzie na tym stracą?

  Hannu Takkula (ALDE), vastaus sinisen kortin kysymykseen. – Kiitos tästä kysymyksestä, ja toteaisin, että kun aikaa on yksi minuutti, niin kaikkia asioita ei voi tuoda siinä esille.

Mutta toteaisin näin, että suuryritykset, monikansalliset yritykset pärjäävät jo tällä hetkellä. Heillä on omat globaalit verkostonsa, mutta pienet ja keskisuuret yritykset – niiden tarvitsee myös päästä paremmin markkinoille viemään omia tuotteitaan, ja tämä on tällä hetkellä iso ongelma. Heillä ei ole sellaisia varoja tai juristiarmeijaa, että he pääsisivät noille markkinoilla.

Toisaalta niin kuin totesin, työllisyyden kannalta tätä tarvitaan. On hyvä muistaa se, että vapaakauppa luo työpaikkoja. Automatisaatio, robotit ja tekoäly vievät niitä. Me tarvitsemme tervettä vapaakauppaa ja nimenomaan pk-yrityksiin se painopiste.

  Helmut Scholz (GUE/NGL). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Viel gäbe es zu sagen und ich hätte gerne meine Rede einfach beiseite gelegt, um auf die Argumente, die hier ausgetauscht wurden, einzugehen.

Aber lassen Sie mich bekräftigen: Das Abkommen enthält noch immer – obwohl Sie, Frau Kommissarin, versucht haben, die großen Defizite der Ära De Gucht wegzuverhandeln beziehungsweise die gröbsten Unsicherheitslücken zu schließen –, gravierende Mängel. Die Logik von Sonderrechten für ausländische Investoren bleibt trotz Reformen Ihrerseits am ISDS-System bestehen. Die Aufnahme von Negativlisten, erstmalig für die EU-Freihandelsabkommen, öffnet weiteren Liberalisierungen den Weg, in allen Wirtschaftsbereichen, auch für die kleinen und mittelständischen Unternehmen.

Die ausgefeilten Klauseln zur Regulierungszusammenarbeit lassen das vereitelte Right to regulate auf sehr dünnem Eis dastehen, gerade weil CETA als sogenanntes lebendes Abkommen vereinbart ist. Wir leben also noch immer auf einer Baustelle, trotz sieben Jahren Verhandlungen und 1 600 Seiten Text. Da CETA aber mehr ist als ein Handelsabkommen, sondern auch wesentlich mit beeinflussen wird, wie wir künftig auch in Bezug auf Klimawandel und notwendige Veränderungen unserer Wirtschaftsweise, Industrie 4.0 eingeschlossen, produzieren, kann ich nur sagen: Es ist nicht zustimmungsfähig.

  Ska Keller (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I would like to thank the millions of people all over Europe and in Canada who have been mobilising around this agreement. I want to say to them: you have achieved, at least, reforms, even though we think they are far from enough, and you have ensured a Europe-wide debate on trade. This is a big achievement, and without you we would never have got that far.

The Commission and many colleagues say that the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is a new-style agreement, but beware: it is not. It is an agreement of the very old sort. It is an agreement for putting investor rights over people’s interests, for liberalisation without end, and for harming the climate, the environment and also social standards. On transparency it is even worse than the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

And to all who think that Canada is a beacon of liberalism, well, as was mentioned, CETA was not negotiated by Prime Minister Trudeau. It was negotiated by his predecessor and by your predecessor, Commissioner, Mr De Gucht, along with Mr Barroso – and if I were a Social Democrat I would get pretty nervous around that. But anyway, if the idea is that we like CETA because Canada is nice, then we should all be aware that the Commission is negotiating on many fronts, with many countries. So who are colleagues then willing to reject because they are less nice?

I think we need cooperation with countries, especially with nice countries like Canada, and we need to trade and not just for the maple syrup. But we need to do it differently. Trade needs to be good for workers and employees, for consumers, for small-scale enterprises, for society as a whole, and not just for the super-big companies. And agreements need to set good standards, and – especially in these times – we need to work together for climate change, as this is our last chance to uphold international law because it is being challenged. All this we need and all this is not in CETA, and therefore the Greens/EFA Group is rejecting CETA.

But no matter how the vote goes today, this is only the beginning of a struggle for fair trade and good cooperation, and we are ready for it.

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

  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE), otázka položená zvednutím modré karty. – Paní Kellerová, Vy velmi často kritizujete všechny obchodní dohody a my jsme si na Vaši rétoriku zvykli. Ale uvádíte celkem, řekl bych, falešné argumenty, třeba ve své řeči jste řekla, že CETA je zájmem investorů a ne zájmem lidí. Mohl bych se Vás zeptat: Investoři nejsou lidé? Nejsou to obyčejní lidé, kteří chtějí taky žít, nejsou to jejich daně, ze kterých Vy jste tady v této instituci placena?

  Ska Keller (Verts/ALE), blue-card answer. – Thank you for that question, because indeed, I do believe investors are very normal people: they need to have rights like everybody, like all of us, like everyone in Europe and in Canada and elsewhere. That is why investors should have exactly the same rights as people and also be able to claim those rights before the courts – courts that we can all go to, but not special courts where only investors can go, because investors have rights but they should have not have more rights than us normal people, the people in Europe and in Canada and elsewhere.

  President. – Before I give the floor to our next speaker, could I just say that there were two requests for blue cards. I will take one and I may indeed have to drop the blue cards if our time is running out. So just bear that in mind.

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFDD). – Madam President, I will begin by quoting from an earlier speech I made on TTIP: trade should be about economic benefits, not political goals, and yet the Commission consistently exploits trade agreements in order to advance its own political agenda. And I refer you to Commissioner Malmström, who is here for once. At the confirmation hearings, there the Commissioner stated in prepared remarks that trade is a powerful foreign policy tool and that it must support Europe’s wider international goals. The intention is clear: Member States are being forced to barter and – if you can forgive the pun – trade away their sovereignty in order to support the EU’s foreign policy. This is sheer vanity. The EU should not manipulate the trade of the Member States in order to promote the foreign policy pretensions of a wannabe European superstate.

(Applause from some quarters)

Now, to the detail, and this is particularly important: in CETA, there is no clause, none, that confers freedom of movement on the citizens of Canada, nor freedom of movement into Canada for citizens of the EU Member States. It is a fact that the European Union has well over 100 trade agreements if you include GSP and GSP+, and all of these it is only the EFTA countries, of which there are four, whose specific form of trade agreement with the EU has a clause that confers freedom of movement. Nevertheless, it is endlessly asserted that any access at all to the EU single market requires freedom of movement. The facts are clear: this is wrong. This is completely untrue. It is erroneous; it is total tosh. And it is a tragedy for the integrity and credibility of our politics that many of those who stand in the way of Brexit persist in putting forward this false fact. That is fake news; that – Labour MEPs in particular, and they know who they are – that is the big lie.

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

  Janice Atkinson (ENF), blue-card question. – Do you not agree with me that the whole basis of negotiating a trade agreement would be that you actually put somebody in charge who knows what they are doing. Why have we got a former socialist sociology lecturer from Sweden negotiating on behalf of the UK, which will bind us after Brexit? She’s not qualified to do the job.

  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth (EFDD), blue-card answer. – If I may say so, I would point out that, at the hearings, three political groups voted against the confirmation of the present EU Trade Commissioner, and if only the ECR had joined us she probably wouldn’t have happened. As it is, we have somebody who is completely unqualified, and that is the person who the 27 other Member States are unfortunately stuck with.

  President. – Colleagues, let me just say that the Commissioner was approved by Parliament and that is why she is in this position.

There is no need to wave, I can see you, sir. Could you just listen? Please sit down.

I have made the announcement and I think we can defend the Commissioner’s right to be here. We will now continue with our list of speakers.

  Matteo Salvini (ENF). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, non parlo agli inutili esponenti della Commissione europea, che sono sordi, ma parlo ai cittadini italiani ed europei che ci stanno seguendo fuori da questo palazzo.

Oggi siete complici dell'ennesimo regalo alle multinazionali e alla finanza. Ci rimetteranno il posto di lavoro in Europa circa 200 000 lavoratori: operai, agricoltori, piccoli imprenditori. Oggi voi scegliete di portare sulle tavole dei nostri figli la carne agli ormoni e il grano OGM, magari trattato con pesticidi vietati in Europa, dopo il riso della Birmania, l’olio della Tunisia, i pomodori e le arance del Marocco, voi, nel nome del vantaggio di pochi, riempite le tavole delle schifezze di altrettanto pochi, oltretutto permettendo l'arrivo in Europa di tutto il finto “Made in Italy”, il finto prosciutto di Parma, il finto parmigiano reggiano, la finta mozzarella. Datele ai vostri figli quelle schifezze! Noi vorremmo che ciascuno potesse mangiare quello che la terra e il mare e il buon Dio ci ha dato. Quarantamila posti di lavoro in Italia, quarantamila posti di lavoro in Francia: a rimetterci saranno sempre i soliti, a guadagnarci sarete voi.

Però io vi dico che la Brexit, Trump e le elezioni in Olanda, in Francia, in Germania, in Italia e in Austria stanno dimostrando che i popoli si stanno svegliando. Quindi fate in fretta a fare gli ultimi regali ai vostri amichetti, perché i popoli stanno arrivando a prendervi. Preparatevi a far le valigie per andare o in Canada o in Cina, che vi aspettano a braccia aperte.

(L’oratore rifiuta di rispondere a una domanda “cartellino blu” di Hilde Vautmans (articolo 162, paragrafo 8, del regolamento)).

  Janusz Korwin-Mikke (NI). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Argumenty zwolenników CETA są demagogiczne, kłamliwe i fałszywe. Argumenty przeciwników CETA są demagogiczne, kłamliwe i fałszywe. Arystoteles mówił, że demokracja to rządy osłów prowadzonych przez hieny. Poziom dyskusji w tym Parlamencie pokazuje, że jest znacznie gorzej.

Ponieważ diabeł tkwi w szczegółach, wyrażę tylko zaniepokojenie, że traktat ten otacza mgła niejasności. Dotyczy to zwłaszcza najważniejszego punktu traktatu, mianowicie arbitrażu. Zgadzam się, że prywatny arbitraż jest lepszy od sądów państwowych podatnych na korupcję i naciski polityczne – zwłaszcza dziwię się polskim posłom, którzy na polskich sądach nie zostawiają suchej nitki – jednak byłbym spokojniejszy, gdyby traktat stanowił, że superarbitrzy muszą pochodzić ze Szwajcarii, Japonii lub innych krajów, w których jeszcze dominuje uczciwość. A poza tym sądzę, że Unia Europejska musi być zniszczona.

  President. – Again, just before I give the floor to the next speaker, we are very tight on time and the vote is long and must begin at 12.00. So I will not take any more blue cards, in order to give colleagues who have indicated that they wish to speak an opportunity to do so at the end of the debate.

  Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE). – Madam President, the world is watching. Make no mistake: we are going to do a lot more today than just agree on CETA. For one thing, we are going to prove our credibility. With the conclusion of these negotiations we are going to prove that during difficult geopolitical times, when populism triumphs, we can set and support good international trade practices. With this Agreement we show that we are going to set certain rules that can be established for future agreements on trade around the world. If we can agree with Canada, if we can push forward to improve trade relations with Canada, if we can show the positive impact on citizens, on industry and on employment, this Agreement will show that this is the way to go. I believe that is why we should support it, because it is just one step towards reshaping the world in a positive manner.

  Elena Valenciano (S&D). – Señora presidenta, debemos darle un poco de perspectiva a este debate y, por cierto, respeto para las posiciones divergentes, menos arrogancia por parte de algunos de los portavoces. Lo cierto es que Europa está en una encrucijada, en un momento muy crítico y se enfrenta a un desafío proteccionista y hostil, por primera vez, por parte de la administración Trump. Nos enfrentamos a un desafío territorial y político por parte de Rusia, un auge imparable de China y su modelo, una vecindad sumida en la inestabilidad y un nacionalpopulismo rampante en las propias instituciones europeas. ¿Qué le queda a Europa sino consolidar o tratar de consolidar un bloque de valores comunes? ¿Y qué país puede hacerlo mejor, con Europa, que Canadá?

No tenemos tantos compañeros de viaje que compartan nuestros valores en el mundo actual. Yo no creo que este Acuerdo sea la panacea de nada ni sea el mejor acuerdo posible. Es el que hoy hemos conseguido. Por cierto, con muchas modificaciones que hemos introducido, también, los socialistas. Es un paso más en una dirección que yo creo que es la adecuada, aunque no es ni mucho menos nuestra meta.

Los socialistas no queremos una globalización sin control ni tampoco queremos levantar muros proteccionistas. Frente a ambos extremos, queremos un mundo abierto a los intercambios, pero con reglas democráticas, con control público. Queremos que el comercio sea libre, sí, pero justo.

  Jan Zahradil (ECR). – Paní předsedající, já tady reprezentuji Českou republiku, to je malá, exportně orientovaná země. Náš obchod s Kanadou dosahuje objemu miliard korun a 60 % našich exportérů jsou malé a střední podniky. Nejsou to žádné velké korporace. Vyvážíme tam strojírenské výrobky, elektrotechnické výrobky, výrobky z plastu, z gumy, motorové součásti, výrobky optiky, výrobky lékařské, lékařská zařízení a také potravinářské výrobky. To všechno se samozřejmě usnadní, obchod s těmito komoditami, pokud dohoda CETA vstoupí v platnost, protože všechny přirážky, tarify, cla klesnou postupně na nulu.

Je tedy celkem jasné, že já tady budu lobbovat za tuto dohodu, protože je v zájmu mojí země, její ekonomiky, našich zaměstnanců a zaměstnavatelů, aby ta dohoda vstoupila v platnost, a myslím, že pro jednou má zase Evropský parlament dobrou příležitost udělat něco pozitivního, schválit tuto dohodu. Já se za to velmi přimlouvám.

  Dita Charanzová (ALDE). – Madam President, first of all I would like to thank Madam Commissioner for not giving up, for being determined and, Commissioner, for all your efforts invested in the successful conclusion of this agreement. It is also thanks to you that we can today take this important step and give our clear ‘yes’ to the economic and trade agreement between the EU and Canada, the most comprehensive agreement concluded so far. It will create new business opportunities for EU businesses, especially SMEs. Not only that, it will facilitate access to public tenders at federal, provincial and local level in Canada. It will take care of European geographical indications, including Czech beer.

Madam Commissioner, the EU needs to show now, more than ever, that it has not resigned, unlike some others, on the liberalisation of trade at international level, but not only that, the EU should stand ready to shape it. Instead of closing our borders with protectionism we have to lead by example and make sure that there can be more such agreements with our key trade partners.

  Lola Sánchez Caldentey (GUE/NGL). – Señora presidenta, señorías, un clamor popular rodea hoy el Parlamento, pero la sordera de muchos de ustedes llevará a los europeos a creer menos aún en esta institución, dando alas a quienes rompen Europa, a quienes quieren levantar muros y a quienes quieren resucitar los fascismos otra vez.

Hoy, la casa de la democracia vende la democracia a las multinacionales. Están ustedes ciegos ante nuestros jefes, la ciudadanía. Son más de tres millones de firmas, más de dos mil municipios y regiones, sindicatos, jueces, oenegés, consumidores, agricultores, ganaderos, trabajadores públicos, ecologistas y pequeños empresarios los que dicen ¡no! al CETA. ¿Es que no los oyen? ¿A quiénes escuchan ustedes?

Y me dirijo ahora a mis compañeros socialistas, a mis compañeros del grupo socialista, y especialmente a mis compatriotas del PSOE, cuyo propio sindicato, la UGT, les está pidiendo que voten en contra. ¿Se dan ustedes cuenta de la enorme traición que cometen ustedes a las trabajadoras? ¿Con quién está hoy su lealtad? ¿Están, acaso, buscando un sitio en un consejo de administración?

Hoy es un día triste, pero la democracia se abrirá paso en los Estados. Seguimos en pie, voz en alto, diciendo ¡no! a la constitución de las multinacionales, ¡no! al CETA.

  Klaus Buchner (Verts/ALE). – Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Was sich in den letzten Jahren mit CETA abgespielt hat, ist einer Demokratie unwürdig. Die Verhandlungen waren geheim, nicht einmal wir als gewählte Abgeordnete durften die Unterlagen einsehen, aber die Lobbyisten der Konzerne spielten kräftig mit.

CETA ist gespickt mit Paragrafen, die nichts mit Handel zu tun haben, sondern mit Demokratieabbau und mit Einschränkungen des Arbeitsrechts. CETA verlangt Schiedsgerichtsverfahren, die uns Steuerzahlern Milliarden aus der Tasche ziehen. Natürlich wollen die Konzerne auch an das Geld, das wir in den Gemeinden für die Daseinsvorsorge – für Schulen, Abfallwirtschaft, Stromversorgung – ausgeben. CETA baut unser Sozialwesen weiter ab. CETA gibt also dem großen Geld immer mehr Macht über uns.

Hören Sie endlich auf, gegen die Bürger zu arbeiten, lehnen Sie CETA ab! Es zählt: Mensch vor Profit.

  Petr Mach (EFDD). – Paní předsedající, já podporuji dohodu CETA o zóně volného obchodu mezi Evropskou unií a Kanadou. Dohoda hlavně odstraňuje cla a překážky ve vzájemném obchodu a podle mě je skvělé, že Evropská unie bude mít méně peněz z cel a že tyto peníze zůstanou v kapsách lidí. Naši občané budou moci nakupovat kanadské zboží a Kanaďané zboží z EU levněji, tedy bez cel. Zvýší se tak o kousíček svoboda a životní úroveň lidí. Je to mnohem lepší dohoda než nechvalně známá dohoda TTIP, zejména pokud jde o arbitráže.

Jsem pro volný mezinárodní obchod a upřímně předpokládám, že nezávislá Velká Británie si sjedná velmi podobnou dohodu s Kanadou. A kdyby má země, Česká republika, byla nezávislým státem, tak bych podporoval, aby měla podobnou dohodu s Kanadou také. Třeba bychom dokázali sjednat ještě stručnější a lepší dohodu, ale princip mezinárodního volného obchodu podporuju.

  Marcel de Graaff (ENF). – Ik condoleer de bevolking van Canada en de EU-lidstaten met deze overeenkomst. CETA is een volgende stap naar dictatuur en armoede. Dictatuur, omdat de multinationale ondernemingen het voor het zeggen krijgen. Elke EU-richtlijn en elke nationale wet die de economie raakt, kan voortaan worden opgevat als het opwerpen van een handelsbarrière. En armoede, omdat de multinationale ondernemingen hun producten laten maken in de goedkoopste landen, goedkoop qua lonen en goedkoop qua eisen ten aanzien van milieu- en arbeidsomstandigheden. Het voordeel van lage prijzen voor de burger wordt tenietgedaan door het verdwijnen van banen en lagere lonen.

Maar er is hoop. Steeds meer burgers in de EU doorzien de leugens van de gevestigde orde en sluiten zich aan bij de patriotten. Wij vertegenwoordigen het volk. Wij strijden voor hun vrijheid. Het einde van de EU nadert en CETA zal haar ondergang niet keren.

  Λάμπρος Φουντούλης (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, πιστοί στις επιταγές του διεθνούς μεγάλου κεφαλαίου, των πολυεθνικών και στο ιδεολόγημα της παγκοσμιοποίησης, θα ψηφίσετε σήμερα μία κατάπτυστη εμπορική συμφωνία. Επειδή, μάλιστα, γνωρίζει η Επιτροπή πως η συμφωνία δεν θα υπερψηφιστεί σε όλα τα εθνικά κοινοβούλια, προσπαθεί να την επιβάλει μέσω του Δούρειου Ίππου της προσωρινής εφαρμογής. Δεν σας ενδιαφέρει καθόλου το γεγονός ότι θα δώσετε με αυτό τον τρόπο ένα ακόμη πλήγμα στις μικρές επιχειρήσεις. Δεν σας ενδιαφέρει που βιοπαλαιστές δεν θα καταφέρουν να αντέξουν στην επίθεση των πολυεθνικών. Άλλωστε, αυτοί δεν έχουν λομπίστες και τεράστια ποσά για δωρεές και χρηματοδοτήσεις, ώστε να επηρεάζουν τις αποφάσεις, δεν έχουν μέσα μαζικής ενημέρωσης να προπαγανδίζουν συνεχώς. Έχουν μόνο την ψήφο τους, όσο και αν σας ενοχλεί αυτό και θα θέλατε να μπορούσατε να την καταργήσετε. Όμως η ψήφος των πολιτών είναι αυτή που θα καταστήσει τη δική σας ψήφο, σήμερα, άνευ σημασίας. Ευτυχώς, θα υπάρξουν σύντομα εθνικές κυβερνήσεις σε πολλά κράτη της Ευρώπης και η CETA δεν θα είναι παρά ένα κομμάτι χαρτί χωρίς καμία ισχύ. Πρέπει μόνο οι πολίτες να κάνουν υπομονή και να προσπαθήσουν να αντέξουν, για όσον καιρό θα την εφαρμόζετε.

  Franck Proust (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, on se moque beaucoup des faits alternatifs que l’administration de M. Trump utilise pour évoquer sa vérité. Ils ont pourtant été inventés depuis longtemps par les ONG, les collectifs et les extrêmes, ici, sur le CETA. Vous avez beau présenter les faits de l’accord en y adjoignant des déclarations claires, les arguments n’ont malheureusement plus de place. La délégation française du PPE, elle, a cherché dans les moindres détails les garanties que cet accord, qui est bon, soit également bien appliqué, car c’est là l’essentiel.

Mais une inquiétude subsiste: la filière bovine souffre d’une crise et le CETA ne doit en rien l’amplifier. Quelles garanties apportez-vous sur les clauses de sauvegarde? La vigilance de la droite française sera à son maximum sur la réactivité de la Commission en cas de distorsion ou de chute des prix. À ce titre, le Canada a prévu un programme d’aide de 350 millions de dollars afin de compenser les effets négatifs du CETA sur son secteur laitier. Je souhaite donc, Madame la Commissaire, demander au nom de ma délégation que de telles modalités financières soient débloquées pour la filière bovine européenne.

  Bernd Lange (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Kommissarin! Klar, das CETA-Abkommen ist nicht perfekt. Aber gerade wir Sozialdemokratinnen und Sozialdemokraten haben die Sorgen und Befürchtungen der Menschen hier aufgenommen und Verbesserungen erkämpft.

Das, glaube ich, muss man bewerten, um zu sagen: Dieses Abkommen ist ein Schritt in die Richtung der Gestaltung der Globalisierung. Wir haben ja dafür gesorgt, dass private Schiedsgerichte auf den Müllhaufen der Geschichte kommen. Wir haben dafür gesorgt, dass Daseinsvorsorge gesichert wird und auch die Rekommunalisierung von dem Handelsabkommen unbeeinträchtigt ist. Wir haben dafür gesorgt, dass das universelle Arbeitnehmergrundgesetz, die Kernarbeitsnormen der Internationalen Arbeitsorganisation verankert werden und auch durchsetzbar gestaltet werden. Wir haben dafür gesorgt, dass unser Vorsorgeprinzip gesichert ist, dass also kein Hormonfleisch und keine GVO-Lebensmittel durch dieses Abkommen nach Europa kommen.

Also, das ist eine Messlatte für alle Abkommen – für zukünftige, aber auch für bestehende. Ich glaube, die privaten Schiedsgerichte müssen auch aus allen anderen Abkommen verschwinden. Aber ich bin auch der Überzeugung, dass dieses Abkommen nicht das Ende der Geschichte ist. Wir müssen weiter für vernünftige Abkommen streiten. Zum Beispiel für die Verbesserung der Durchsetzbarkeit von Nachhaltigkeit, für die Bekämpfung der Korruption, für die globalen Nachhaltigkeitsziele. Das muss auch in zukünftige Abkommen hinein.

Angesichts einer globalen Situation, wo mehr und mehr Protektionismus herrscht, wo mehr und mehr das Recht des Stärkeren gilt, brauchen wir stabile Regeln. Globalisierung können wir nicht abschaffen. Globalisierung müssen wir gerecht gestalten.

  Emma McClarkin (ECR). – Madam President, I would like to say this: ‘O Canada’, how long the EU has kept you waiting. After seven long years, the champions of free trade have battled through, and now we are at the final furlong. To be clear, CETA is an ambitious, modern and comprehensive trade agreement, which will bring tremendous benefits to the EU as a whole and to each one of the Member States. Once fully implemented, it is expected to increase bilateral trade between the EU and Canada by 23%, representing approximately EUR 26 billion per year. It will lead to the creation of jobs and economic growth, allowing small and medium-size enterprises access to the Canadian market, free of barriers. As a champion of free trade, I welcome this Agreement and look forward to seeing a positive vote in this Chamber today. In times of growing protectionism, the EU must not underestimate the benefits of trade agreements like this, especially when we are negotiating with reliable and strategic partners such as Canada who are, and remain, our allies.

  Urmas Paet (ALDE). – Madam President, first I should say that Trade Commissioner Cecelia Malmström has done very good and serious work in preparing this Agreement. The EU-Canada Trade Agreement is a good and modern trade agreement that will help boost trade and economic activity, and it has many advantages which have all been listed many times here already, including opening markets to goods, benefiting SMEs and opening up their procurement market. It also allows us to promote and protect our shared values. CETA will help create jobs and economic growth which is very much needed.

But this deal also has more significant value. It is the most elaborate deal with a successful OECD country, and in coming to an agreement with Canada we show that this kind of agreement can be done, and this is a very important message. It is also an important deal geopolitically. The EU and Canada must strengthen and hold their alliance in this changing, unstable environment. CETA is a good indication that where there is a will, there is a way.

  Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL). – Madame la Présidente, ceux d’entre nous qui voteront ce traité porteront une lourde responsabilité au regard de l’emploi, de l’environnement, du progrès social, de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation. Ils vont contribuer à enfermer les peuples dans une véritable camisole de force.

En effet, comment accepter d’appliquer un accord si néfaste de manière provisoire sans l’aval des parlements nationaux? Comment accepter un mécanisme dit de coopération réglementaire, qui adaptera la législation nationale et européenne a priori, c’est-à-dire avant même leur élaboration par les parlements? Et pour cadenasser l’ensemble, des tribunaux arbitraux condamneront les États et les peuples, s’ils n’obéissent pas aux ordres des multinationales.

Notre Parlement se grandirait à dire «non» à la constitutionnalisation du droit des affaires contre les droits humains, «non» à ce coup d’État institutionnel au service des puissances industrielles et financières!

  Franz Obermayr (ENF). – Frau Präsidentin! CETA steht nun vor der Abstimmung. Das Ergebnis scheint leider schon festzustehen. Warum auch wäre sonst der kanadische Premierminister bereits heute in der Tagesordnung verankert? Und letztlich bleiben unsere Kritikpunkte nach wie vor im Vertragstext enthalten, wie zum Beispiel Schiedsgerichte als Paralleljustiz, wie die sogenannten joint committees, durch welche unsere nationalen parlamentarischen Meinungsbildungen ausgehöhlt werden, wie die Abschaffung des Vorsorgeprinzips, wodurch der Verbraucherschutz in Europa geschädigt wird, und wie die enormen Importkontingente zu Niedrigpreisen, die unsere Landwirtschaft zerstören werden.

Ich sage klar und deutlich Ja zum Handel, aber Nein zum Abbau von nationalstaatlichen parlamentarischen Kompetenzen, Nein zur Umgehung der demokratischen Gerichtsbarkeit und Nein zur Entmündigung der Bürger in Europa. CETA ist und bleibt ein trojanisches Pferd, das die europäischen Werte gefährden und dramatisch verletzen wird.

  Santiago Fisas Ayxelà (PPE). – Señora presidenta, comisaria, muchas gracias por su trabajo: tiene el total apoyo de nuestro grupo político.

En estos tiempos de incertidumbre, es importante que la Unión Europea dé una señal clara de que apuesta por la apertura, por estrechar lazos con nuestros socios, por el comercio internacional, y qué mejor señal que la ratificación del Acuerdo con Canadá. Juntos podemos sentar las bases del comercio internacional del futuro, un comercio basado en nuestros principios y valores que respeta los altos estándares que ambas regiones compartimos.

El CETA es un acuerdo moderno, ambicioso y equilibrado, y sería deseable que pueda servir de modelo para otros acuerdos comerciales. El futuro de la Unión Europea pasa por el comercio exterior, del que depende gran parte de nuestro crecimiento económico y la creación de empleo.

Este Acuerdo es bueno para Europa, para las pymes, y es bueno para el presente y el futuro de los ciudadanos europeos. Los que están en contra del CETA, están a favor de las políticas de Trump.

  David Martin (S&D). – Madam President, even when I disagree with them, I normally understand where my colleagues in the Greens and my friends on the left are coming from, but frankly in relation to CETA I just do not get it.

CETA creates employment opportunities. CETA protects public services, no forced privatisation, no ratchet clause. CETA defends our right to regulate, so no Frankenstein foods in our market, no threat to food safety. It contains an ambitious Labour Chapter. It commits our partners to multilateral environment agreements at a time when Trump threatens the Paris Accord, a vital thing. It kills investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and replaces it with a modern, fair system of investment protection.

So what is it beyond the rhetoric, beyond the words that this is good for corporations, what is it in CETA that they really object to, because I do not hear it? I hear a lot of words, but I hear no substance in their objection to CETA, and that is what they should be standing up for. We live in a world that faces real dangers of protectionism. With this progressive deal, Canada and the EU are not only keeping markets open, they are keeping those markets open on the basis of common values, and that is something we should applaud.

  Joachim Starbatty (ECR). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich habe die Debatte hier aufmerksam verfolgt und habe hier eine bizarre Koalition festgestellt: Die Grünen, Marine Le Pen und GUE sind einer Meinung, was CETA angeht. Als Herr Jadot seine Rede gehalten hat, kam frenetischer Beifall von der Koalition von Marine Le Pen. Das ist die Realität, die sich hier darstellt. Und wir wissen aus der Geschichte: Das sind diejenigen, die sich immer gegen Offenheit und Freihandel gestellt haben. Das wissen wir, und das haben wir hier bestätigt gesehen. Und dann greift Herr Jadot Trump scharf an mit denselben Argumenten, die auch Herr Trump vertritt. Also er greift Trump an, spielt aber die Karte von Trump. Das sollte man sich einmal klarmachen. Mir geht es darum, dass die Feinde des Freihandels und die Freunde des Protektionismus sich einmal ihre Argumente klarmachen und selber mal durchdeklinieren.

  Louis Michel (ALDE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, je voudrais d’abord commencer par féliciter la commissaire Malmström pour l’extraordinaire patience, la remarquable compétence et la disponibilité, surtout, dont elle a témoigné pour faire face, souvent, à des outrances et à des contrevérités. Car, enfin, le CETA va-t-il nous forcer à manger du poulet chloré, du bœuf aux hormones, des OGM ou encore à démanteler nos services publics? Bien sûr que non! Ce qui n’est pas possible aujourd’hui ne le sera pas plus demain. Nous resterons libres de renforcer encore davantage nos normes de qualité et de développer nos services publics.

Est-ce que nous octroyons aux multinationales un poids démesuré qui va nuire à notre système juridique? Bien sûr que non! La volonté d’établir une nouvelle cour internationale ne fait que renforcer notre capacité à faire respecter les règles à l’échelle mondiale et à en inspirer de plus sévères si nous le souhaitons.

Chers collègues, si nous ne pouvons pas signer un accord avec le Canada, avec qui, alors, pourrons-nous encore en signer un? Qui peut croire sincèrement qu’un pays de 35 millions d’habitants, dont les performances démocratiques et les protections sociales et environnementales sont souvent supérieures aux critères de nombreux États européens, pourrait dévoyer le modèle économique, social et politique de la première puissance économique mondiale?

Ceux qui s’opposent à cet accord et qui abusent de la bonne foi des citoyens nient les progrès sociaux, humains et économiques du libre-échange, voilà la vérité.

En fait, c’est un blocage idéologique, rien de plus!

  Eleonora Forenza (GUE/NGL). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Commissario, sarebbe una buona battuta se non fosse una tragedia. Sarebbe una buona battuta dire che il CETA è la risposta progressista al protezionismo di Trump e al populismo delle destre.

Voi ponete in alternativa al protezionismo di Trump un'altra forma di protezionismo. Proteggete il diritto al profitto, istituite un diritto ineguale che protegge le multinazionali, protegge il profitto, gli investimenti e le multinazionali prima delle persone. Anche noi abbiamo una forma di protezionismo. Vogliamo proteggere il lavoro, l'ambiente, la salute alimentare, i cittadini e le cittadine europee. Vogliamo proteggere la democrazia.

Voi dite che il CETA creerà posti di lavoro. Peccato che gli studi hanno dimostrato che saranno persi 230 000 posti di lavoro, di cui 200 000 soltanto in Europa. Trudeau l'ambientalista che ha dato il suo via libera all'oleodotto Keystone negli Stati Uniti, plaudendo al famigerato Trump. Trudeau che si accinge ad esportare in Europa quel petrolio estratto dalle sabbie bituminose e dagli scisti che la direttiva ci invitava a tagliare.

Voglio dire un'ultima cosa: i Socialisti ci avevano annunciato la fine della grande coalizione. Oggi ci dimostrano che la grande coalizione continua. Noi restiamo in coalizione con i cittadini ...

(Il Presidente interrompe l’oratore)

  President. – I hate to say this, but your last words were wasted and, with respect, I did give you extra time. I am trying to be fair to everybody and I need to be strict. I would just like to advise colleagues who have come into the Chamber that we announced earlier that there will be no further blue cards. That is for the information of colleagues who have joined us.

  Salvatore Cicu (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, credo che in maniera responsabile e seria dobbiamo dire che oggi discutiamo su un buon accordo di libero scambio e discutiamo anche finalmente di una prospettiva di politica commerciale dell'Europa, di un'Europa che esiste, di un'Europa che costituisce un modello, un punto di riferimento, che realizza la possibilità di far capire che bisogna poter vincere le sfide se ci si prepara alle sfide. Intendo dire che questo libero scambio offre l'opportunità di uscire fuori dallo stallo dei mercati italiano, francese, spagnolo ed europeo, che sono nello stallo più totale.

Il Fondo monetario internazionale dice che il 90 % si può realizzare come sviluppo fuori dai confini dell'Europa. Allora io credo che seriamente l'approfondimento vada nella direzione di capire come e in che modo il processo di internazionalizzazione della nostra piccola e media impresa, con una dimensione adeguata, con un accesso di credito opportuno e con la possibilità di managerialità, vada realizzato per confrontarsi e per realizzare questi obiettivi. Il tempo a disposizione è poco e noi naturalmente come delegazione italiana sosteniamo questo accordo.

  Knut Fleckenstein (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Bei allen unterschiedlichen Meinungen zu CETA sollten wir doch gemeinsam auch unser Abkommen über strategische Partnerschaft positiv bedenken.

Das ist wichtiger denn je: Die bilaterale Zusammenarbeit in den Bereichen Kultur-, Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, Bekämpfung von Terrorismus und organisierter Kriminalität, Wirtschaft und Tourismus. Es gibt in Zukunft einen gemeinsamen Kooperationsausschuss und regelmäßige Konsultationen und das begrüßen wir sehr. Es geht nämlich um gemeinsame Werte: um Freiheit und Demokratie, Toleranz und Rechtsstaat, und um eine klare gemeinsame Stellung gegen Ausgrenzung und für ein gleichberechtigtes Miteinander.

Ich habe nicht den Eindruck, dass diese Werte sich im Moment rasend vermehren. Umso wichtiger ist es, dass wir mit Freunden zusammenarbeiten, die zu diesen Werten stehen. Vielleicht ist es in der Vergangenheit bei uns so gewesen, dass immer, wenn wir über den großen Teich geschaut haben, wir die Kanadier nicht richtig gesehen haben, weil so ein großes Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika dazwischen lag.

Nein, es wird Zeit – auch nach den letzten Entwicklungen –, dass wir aufstehen, dann kann man über manches hinwegsehen und man sieht seine wahren Freunde. Ich freue mich auf diese bessere Zusammenarbeit mit unseren Freunden in Kanada.

  Anna Elżbieta Fotyga (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Relacje polsko-kanadyjskie mają charakter strategiczny, nie koniunkturalny, potwierdzony wielokrotną walką o naszą wolność. CETA nie jest umową idealną. Nie ma zresztą umów idealnych. Chociaż jej szanse świetnie opisał czeski poseł Jan Zahradil. Tę umowę oceniał jednak jako dodatkowy element naszej architektury bezpieczeństwa. Relacje transatlantyckie wzmacniają Polskę, również w układzie wewnątrzeuropejskim.

  Sylvie Goulard (ALDE). – Madame le Président, il faut entendre les inquiétudes des peuples, mais il ne faut pas non plus suivre toutes les angoisses quand on détermine une politique.

Je tenais à dire que Mme Malmström et la Commission agissent dans le cadre de pouvoirs qui leur ont été conférés dans les traités démocratiquement. Les parlements nationaux ont accepté que les compétences commerciales soient exclusivement exercées au niveau européen. Il n’y a pas eu d’entourloupes, il y a eu des débats dans tous nos pays quand nous avons pris cette décision. Je fais confiance non seulement à la commissaire, mais aussi à la Commission pour également exercer, à l’avenir, tous les devoirs de sauvegarde qui seront nécessaires.

Le Canada, que je tiens à saluer, est un pays démocratique et doté de règles. C’est un de nos alliés et – j’attire l’attention des Français sur ce point – c’est aussi un pays qui est en partie francophone et envers lequel nous devons faire preuve d’une certaine solidarité. La France est un pays qui a de grandes difficultés en matière de commerce extérieur. Nous accusons un déficit de 48 milliards d’euros pour l’année 2016, donc les débouchés avec un pays sûr, juridiquement proche de nous, sont toujours bons à prendre dans des conditions encadrées. Nous comptons sur vous pour les faire respecter, Madame le Commissaire.

  Jean-Luc Mélenchon (GUE/NGL). – Madame la Présidente, cet accord est mauvais pour la France et mauvais pour l’Europe. Il est une contribution aggravante à la crise écologique et sociale de la civilisation humaine, parce qu’il ne comporte pas la moindre mention au traité sur le climat de Paris, qu’il encourage l’importation des énergies fossiles les plus sales du monde, qu’il encourage l’agriculture la plus brutale, la plus cruelle et la plus déloyale, et qu’il instaure des tribunaux spéciaux qui permettent aux grandes entreprises d’ester contre les lois des peuples, mais il accepte en même temps le dumping social d’un pays qui n’a pas signé la convention de l’Organisation internationale du travail sur les négociations.

Ce texte n’aurait jamais pu être adopté ni même négocié si ma patrie s’y était opposée, et le gouvernement de mon pays porte une responsabilité particulière en cet instant. De même qu’ici, dans cette assemblée, cet accord ne serait pas accepté si le groupe social-démocrate ne donnait pas son appui. C’est en définitive un très mauvais coup contre l’Europe et contre ma patrie qui va se commettre. Les générations futures s’en souviendront  – je veux le croire –, au moins à l’élection présidentielle française de 2017.

  Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, verehrte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Als stellvertretende Vorsitzende der Delegation für die Beziehungen zu Kanada habe ich CETA seit Beginn der Verhandlungen verfolgt.

Nach zahlreichen Gesprächen auf beiden Seiten des Atlantiks ist es höchste Zeit, die Ziellinie zu überqueren, und ich bin zuversichtlich, dass wir heute unseren Teil dazu beitragen werden. CETA ist für die Zukunft gedacht. Der ist nicht nur für jetzt und für uns. Wir müssen uns positionieren: als Europäische Union, als Europäer in einer Welt in Veränderung. Wir wollen diese Veränderung gestalten, und da bleibt nicht viel anderes übrig, als endlich zu handeln. Dies ist ein Zeichen, dass wir es können.

Wir sollten allerdings auch nicht so tun, als ob Investitionsschiedsgerichte bisher nicht existieren. Nein, sie existieren schon. Verschließen wir nicht die Augen für die Realität: CETA wird dieses System verbessern. Das begrüße ich.

Als Letztes: Mich wundert in dieser politischen Situation sehr, dass Rechts und Links exakt die gleichen Argumente benutzen und dann noch glauben, sie hätten beide recht.

  Miroslav Poche (S&D). – Paní předsedající, paní komisařko, Evropská unie a Kanada udržují bezmála čtyřicet let velmi dobré obchodní i politické vztahy. Ty je nutné prohlubovat i v oblastech nejenom obchodních, ale i bezpečnostních, ochrany klimatu nebo životního prostředí. Z tohoto pohledu je dohoda o strategickém partnerství zcela jistě přínosem pro obě strany.

Nesmíme však zapomínat, že Kanada bude mít vždy nadstandartní vztahy například se Spojenými státy nebo zeměmi bývalého Britského společenství. Není možné pod vlivem brexitu a vítězství Donalda Trumpa opustit pragmatický přístup při vyjednávání mezinárodních smluv. Současná kanadská reprezentace nám může být blízká hodnotově a může nám být i sympatická. Na druhou stranu na tom nemůžeme ale stavět naše vztahy k ní, není možné přistupovat dvojím metrem k TTIP a CETA. Obě dohody jsou vyjednány špatně a my musíme najít odvahu hledat nové znění této obchodní dohody a odmítnout tento návrh.

  Bernd Kölmel (ECR). – Frau Präsidentin! Wir reden heute über CETA. Allerdings nutzen einige das, um einen Stellvertreterkrieg zu führen gegen die Folgen der Globalisierung. Das ist schade, denn CETA ist ein hervorragend verhandeltes Handelsabkommen zwischen zwei Partnern, die die gemeinsamen gleichen Werte vertreten. Insofern ist es ausgesprochen unfair, die Folgen der Globalisierung, die man ja tatsächlich durchaus kritisch betrachten kann und wo man durchaus auch überlegen kann, wie man die abmildern kann, jetzt an dem Verfahren zu CETA festzumachen. Die Globalisierung findet statt, ob wir das wollen oder nicht. Also müssen wir sie, so gut es geht, gestalten. Das ist bei CETA meines Erachtens der Fall.

Ich danke insbesondere unseren kanadischen Freunden auch sehr, dass sie bereit waren, auch nach Abschluss der Verhandlungen die Verhandlungen für einen Teil, nämlich den Bereich der internationalen Handelsschiedsgerichte, nochmal zu öffnen. Das war nicht selbstverständlich. Und als Vorsitzender der EU-Kanada-Delegation bin ich dafür besonders dankbar.

  Iuliu Winkler (PPE). – Madam President, we need to protect European industries and European farmers and to support and protect our SMEs, start-ups and exporters. We also need to protect and promote our service industries, innovation and European IPR. I believe that there is a broad consensus on this both inside and outside this House.

But how can we achieve this? Is protectionism the best protection that we can provide? The history of the global economy and trade in the last hundred years teaches us that protectionism is a poor tool. The cost of protectionist measures has always turned out to be higher than the short—term gain of such measures. The best we can do for European industries, SMEs and farmers is to actively promote their interests. Today that means providing for a fair, modern, 21st century trade agreement with a like—minded partner. Today that means approving CETA.

  Pier Antonio Panzeri (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sono dell'opinione che gli accordi di libero scambio dovrebbero essere effettivamente posti al servizio di obiettivi più vasti, quali l'occupazione, i diritti umani, la coesione e lo sviluppo sostenibile.

Mi domando se possiamo dire che il CETA risponde a questi diversi obiettivi e confesso davvero che ho grande difficoltà a rispondere positivamente a questa domanda. Seconda considerazione: sembra esserci in questo Parlamento un'opinione prevalente che ritiene che questo accordo possa diventare un modello di riferimento per la prossima generazione di accordi. Io la penso diversamente e non ritengo che il CETA possa essere l'inizio di un nuovo corso.

Infine, voglio ricordare a lei, signora Commissario, che i rischi di ritorno al protezionismo e a guerre commerciali non si combattono con una critica promozione della liberalizzazione e della deregolamentazione degli scambi e degli investimenti, come lei immagina, ma cambiando radicalmente l'approccio fin qui seguito, ed è quello che dobbiamo fare davvero anche con il voto.

  James Nicholson (ECR). – Madam President, Commissioner, CETA has been many years in the making and we are now at the final stage. Canada is a country very similar to ourselves. If we cannot do a trade deal with Canada, who can we do a trade deal with? There are many historical ties between my constituency of Northern Ireland, and Canada, and we have significant economic ties today. For instance the Canadian company Bombardier has operations in Northern Ireland and I hope that once this deal is in place it will strengthen and deepen those ties.

We all know that any trade deal is not perfect and CETA comes with positives and also negatives, we are well aware of that. When the United Kingdom eventually leaves the European Union and embarks on its own trade policy, I hope it takes a balanced approach. The government seems to believe at the moment that we can do deals quickly. I believe quick deals are bad deals for the people. Throughout discussions on CETA, TTIP and Mercosur, I have repeatedly made the point that the European Union must not use agriculture as a bargaining chip, and I will continue to make that case as the United Kingdom embarks on its own bilateral trading relationships.

  Tokia Saïfi (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, le CETA est un accord intéressant et équilibré. Il représente de nombreuses opportunités pour nos entreprises. Nous avons entendu les préoccupations des citoyens et c’est la raison pour laquelle nous allons suivre de très près la mise en œuvre de l’accord s’il est ratifié.

La Commission devra respecter ses engagements et déclarations. Les clauses de sauvegarde devront être déclenchées immédiatement en cas de difficulté d’un secteur et, à cet égard, une attention particulière devra être portée au secteur agricole.

Madame la Commissaire, les inquiétudes exprimées reflètent une défiance grandissante vis-à-vis de la politique commerciale de l’Union et doivent obtenir des réponses. Nous devons développer une transparence maximale autour des négociations.

À l’heure où, aux États-Unis, Donald Trump a fait le choix du protectionnisme, nous devons renforcer nos liens avec des partenaires qui, comme le Canada, partagent nos valeurs.

Enfin, je regrette que Mme Le Pen évoque le vote en commission des députés Les Républicains car elle semble oublier que, ce jour-là, elle était absente et qu’elle n’a pas voté.

  Jeppe Kofod (S&D). – Fru Formand! Fru kommissær Malmström! Vi politikere har en simpel pligt til altid at stræbe efter bedre standarder, efter bedre beskyttelse af arbejdere, miljøet, klimaet og folkesundheden. Vi må altid sætte menneskers ve og vel over hensyn til profit. Det er principper, værdier og holdninger, der for mig er helt ufravigelige. Og sådan skal det være!

I CETA-aftalen har vi for første gang for alvor skrevet disse garantier, ja disse værdier direkte ind i en handelsaftale. Sammen med Canada åbner vi et nyt kapitel for fair og bæredygtig handel. Vi lægger den med rette forhadte ISDS-mekanisme i graven, og vi slår fast med syvtommersøm, at virksomheder ikke kan sagsøge lande, fordi de mister indtægter på grund af skrappere, nye nationale eller europæiske regler. Det er kun folkets demokratiske, valgte repræsentanter, der skal lave love, og det skal de kunne gøre frit. Blandt andet derfor støtter jeg som socialdemokrat CETA-aftalen og håber, at den bliver vedtaget senere i dag. Tak for ordet.

  Christofer Fjellner (PPE). – Fru talman! Efter sju år så är vi äntligen här, men jag känner mig kluven.

Jag är glad att vi ska få godkänna avtalet, men jag är beklämd över att det sitter så hårt inne, att så många extremister härinne och annorstädes ägnat så mycket tid och kraft till att försöka stoppa ett samarbets- och handelsavtal med Kanada; att man med lögner eller ”alternativa fakta”, som de kanske kallas nu för tiden, försökt att kidnappa det här avtalet för att istället driva sin egen agenda på höger- och vänsterkanten av nationalism och socialism. För det är här man ser att de är samma andas barn. Det är när det handlar om att försvara protektionism och sätta upp gränser som högerextremer och vänsterextremer möts.

Men det här är ett bra avtal. Det är ett väldigt bra avtal. Det tar bort 99 procent av alla tullar, det skapar jobb i de över 900 000 företag som är beroende av handeln med Kanada, och indirekt skapar det jobb i hela Europa.

Men det handlar inte bara om Kanada. Det handlar om vår trovärdighet på den internationella scenen. Kan vi inte ens sluta ett avtal med Kanada, då lägger vi ner vår möjlighet att påverka världshandeln. Det har inte Europa råd med, det har inte världen råd med och därför ska vi rösta ja idag.

  Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández (S&D). – Señora presidenta, vamos a decidir hoy qué modelo de comercio internacional defiende la Unión Europea, si el proteccionismo de Trump, «América primero», o los principios y valores primeros a través de una política comercial que pone reglas a la globalización para que sea más justa. Una política comercial que no se limita solo a suprimir barreras comerciales, sino a garantizar y promover los estándares sociales, laborales y medioambientales de la Unión Europea en el resto del mundo.

El CETA no es un acuerdo perfecto. Ningún acuerdo lo es. Siempre hay margen de mejora, y ese es nuestro papel, pero con el CETA, gracias al trabajo de muchos ―también, desde luego, de nuestro Grupo―, hemos dado pasos importantes en materia de transparencia, de desarrollo sostenible, de participación de la sociedad civil y de defensa de nuestro Estado del bienestar y de los servicios públicos.

El CETA es una oportunidad, porque con este Acuerdo nos comprometemos con nuestros socios canadienses a avanzar hacia una globalización más justa y solidaria. Y a mis compañeros de la GUE españoles les digo que ser de izquierdas no es ser proteccionista ni nacionalista. Si creen eso, les superan por la izquierda Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen y los compañeros antieuropeístas de la bancada de la extrema derecha.

  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). – Šiandien ratifikuojame labai svarbų, Europos Sąjungai labai reikalingą susitarimą, moderniausią susitarimą Europos Sąjungos istorijoje, susitarimą, kurį pasiekė dvi demokratijos – Europos Sąjunga ir Kanada, mūsų susitarimą su tas pačias vertybes gerbiančia Kanada, kurioje, atleiskite už palyginimą, gyvūnų teisės yra labiau gerbiamos negu žmogaus teisės kurioje nors kitoje mūsų šalyje partnerėje, su kuria mus sieja laisvosios prekybos susitarimai. Kritika dėl to, kaip viešosios paslaugos reglamentuojamos šiame susitarime, yra visiškai nepamatuota (kalbu apie švietimą, apie sveikatos apsaugą ir apie aplinką). Neabejoju, kad, kai susitarimas ims galioti, Europos Sąjungos piliečiai, darbininkai ir kompanijos greitai pajus jo naudą, kaip buvo ir Europos Sąjungos ir Korėjos susitarimo atveju. Naudą pajus ir Lietuvos eksportuotojai. Remiu šį susitarimą.

  Maria Arena (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Madame la Commissaire, chers collègues, la caricature selon laquelle il n’existe que deux écoles en matière de commerce international – l’école du protectionnisme, prônée par les populistes, et l’école de l’ultralibéralisme, partagée par une grande majorité de ce Parlement – est insupportable. Je dirais même que cette conception bipolaire est suicidaire aujourd’hui pour l’Europe.

L’Europe est capable de faire mieux, l’Europe mérite mieux. À l’heure où tous s’interrogent sur leur avenir et où la rupture de confiance vis-à-vis du système politique et du système économique est à son paroxysme, nous, dans cette assemblée, nous allons signer un accord. Nous allons voter un accord «business as usual»; un accord qui donne plus de droits aux multinationales; un accord qui fragilise les services publics, les agriculteurs, les PME et les pays les moins exportateurs; un accord qui place les droits des investisseurs au-dessus des droits sociaux et des droits environnementaux; un accord qui n’est pas un accord de nouvelle génération, mais un accord du passé. C’est la raison pour laquelle je voterai contre.

  Viviane Reding (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, chers collègues, on entend tout et son contraire sur le CETA.

Je voudrais un instant revenir aux faits car voter pour le CETA, c’est garantir la réciprocité, soutenir nos PME, promouvoir des produits de qualité, protéger les consommateurs et défendre nos artistes. Voter contre, c’est pérenniser la justice privée et refuser des normes internationales élevées en matière sociale, environnementale et agroalimentaire.

Voter pour le CETA, c’est fixer le modèle de référence pour de futurs accords internationaux et réguler la globalisation en parfaite adéquation avec nos valeurs et nos intérêts. Voter contre, c’est consentir au manque de réciprocité et à l’absence de règles.

Voter pour le CETA, c’est protéger et partager les valeurs, bétonner les normes et créer des emplois. C’est la raison pour laquelle je vote pour le CETA, afin d’affirmer le leadership de l’Europe et d’entériner un accord qui est dans l’intérêt des citoyens et des entreprises, et qui bétonne nos valeurs et nos systèmes démocratiques.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il CETA contrasta con principi e standard che ritengo assolutamente non negoziabili, dall'approccio alla sicurezza alimentare alle misure sugli interferenti endocrini, dagli impegni per il raggiungimento degli obiettivi climatici ed energetici ai livelli massimi per i residui di pesticidi, dal meccanismo di arbitrato agli spazi per l'intervento dei privati nei servizi pubblici, dal rischio d'ingresso di prodotti OGM alla tutela delle produzioni di qualità.

In Europa abbiamo 1 300 prodotti alimentari ad indicazione geografica, 2 800 vini e 330 distillati. Di questi il CETA ne tutelerà solo 173. Molte denominazioni di origine, dunque, che siamo abituati a considerare indicative di prodotti di qualità, con forte legame al territorio, non saranno protette oltreoceano. È davvero un peccato che il CETA non abbia segnato una discontinuità e che l'Europa non abbia orientato i negoziati ad una maggiore protezione dei diritti dei consumatori, del principio di precauzione e delle clausole di protezione dell'ambiente. Io voterò contro perché il CETA non porta alcun beneficio ai cittadini europei.

  José Ignacio Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señora comisaria, señorías, este Acuerdo con Canadá llega en un momento muy particular de nuestro calendario, cuando se ha caído la primera prioridad de la política comercial de la Unión Europea, que era el Acuerdo con los Estados Unidos.

La Unión Europea es el principal bloque exportador del mundo de bienes; es el principal bloque exportador del mundo de servicios; principal inversor y receptor de inversión extranjera directa, y uno de los principales bloques importadores.

En contra de lo que se ha dicho, este Acuerdo es un paso decidido en la buena dirección y es un acuerdo equilibrado, justo, que redundará en beneficio de los intereses de nuestros ciudadanos, creando prosperidad y empleo.

Por lo tanto, quisiera felicitar a la Comisión por esta negociación y, aunque a mí me hubiera gustado que hubiera podido concluirse en un plazo de tiempo más breve —siete años es demasiado largo—, creo que va a marcar un hito este Acuerdo.

Y, por lo tanto, animaría a la Comisión a que, en el plazo que queda de su mandato antes del fin de esta Comisión Juncker, concluyera los acuerdos pendientes, y me gustaría citar, entre algunos, Japón, Australia, Nueva Zelanda y, por supuesto, Mercosur.

  Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Senhora Presidente, Senhora Comissária, o acordo comercial com o Canadá é de importância estratégica para a União Europeia, sobretudo depois de Trump, e é a resposta necessária contra a perigosa ilusão do isolamento e do protecionismo.

Este é também um bom acordo, um acordo equilibrado do ponto de vista económico, que ilumina tarifas e permite o acesso ao mercado, e é uma nova referência para o comércio internacional, um acordo progressista para uma globalização mais regulada.

Hoje, podemos dizer que demos ouvidos aos cidadãos e que este acordo, por pressão deste Parlamento e da sociedade civil, respeita os valores ambientais, sociais da União Europeia, o nosso direito a regular no interesse público.

Foi por pressão deste Parlamento e do grupo socialista que o sistema privado de arbitragem foi substituído por um novo sistema de arbitragem pública e é porque este acordo foi melhorado que a sua versão final merece a confiança dos cidadãos e merece o voto favorável deste Parlamento Europeu.

  Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Niektórzy tu mówią cynicznie do nas, do zwolenników CETA: „Pokazujecie państwo, jak bronicie obywateli Europy”. To ja na to powiem: „Pokazujecie państwo, jak cynicznie okłamujecie obywateli Europy, bo prezentujecie tu kłamstwa i opowiadacie bzdury”. Tym, co mówią: „Jesteśmy przeciwko CETA, bo liczy się człowiek”, ja powiem: „Jesteśmy za umową CETA, bo liczy się człowiek”. CETA to most przez Atlantyk łączący przyjaciół we współpracy na rzecz dobrej przyszłości. Niższe ceny, wyższa jakość, bezpieczeństwo obywateli, ochrona demokracji, ochrona praw człowieka i praw pracowniczych, a także ochrona środowiska i klimatu – to jest CETA. To są wartości, których chcecie tu bronić, a jednocześnie jesteście przeciwko CETA. Musicie się zdecydować.

  Emmanuel Maurel (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, plus nous avançons dans ce débat sur le CETA, plus j’ai l’impression que nous discutons en réalité d’un accord du Vieux Monde, parce que, contrairement à bien des collègues, je crois que le CETA n’est pas du tout un modèle pour l’avenir.

D’abord, il passe à côté de toutes les grandes réussites de la diplomatie multilatérale des dernières années : la COP 21 sur le climat, l’accord du G20 sur l’évasion fiscale, il n’en parle pas. Surtout, aux grands défis d’aujourd’hui – changement climatique, creusement des inégalités, défiance démocratique –, le CETA n’oppose que des réponses passéistes. Toujours plus de libéralisation, toujours moins de services publics, toujours plus de concurrence, toujours plus de pouvoir pour les multinationales... Je crois que ce n’est pas la voie que nous devons emprunter et je reprends la formule d’une collègue à l’instant: «L’Europe, elle mérite mieux.»

Chers collègues, certains nous disent aujourd’hui que c’est soit Donald Trump et Marine Le Pen, d’un côté, soit le CETA, de l’autre – franchement, nous pourrions nous garder de ce type de caricature. Je pense que l’Europe mérite mieux, elle peut mieux et, heureusement, nous avons de formidables points d’appui, comme en témoignent la mobilisation de la société civile et la résistance de certains gouvernements. Alors, nous pouvons aller de l’avant et imaginer une autre politique commerciale.

  Fernando Ruas (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhora Comissária, este acordo, iniciado em 2009 e concluído em 2014, é, em nossa opinião, bastante completo, moderno, transparente, também voltado para o futuro. Acreditamos que, doravante, vai trazer benefícios para as empresas, para os trabalhadores e para os consumidores. É que, para lá da eliminação de 98 % dos direitos aduaneiros, este acordo prevê também a salvaguarda dos serviços públicos, audiovisuais, dos transportes e dos produtos agrícolas mais sensíveis.

Com este acordo, haverá a garantia de proteção de 143 indicações geográficas europeias, 20 das quais são portuguesas. Importante também, na nossa opinião, é o reconhecimento mútuo de certificação para muitos produtos, bem como o reconhecimento de um conjunto alargado de profissões, desde engenheiros a arquitetos ou advogados, a manutenção de elevados padrões em matéria ambiental, de segurança alimentar, saúde e direitos dos consumidores, sempre com respeito pelo cumprimento das regras e dos regulamentos europeus é também um aspeto gostamos de marcar.

Estou certo que a União Europeia irá beneficiar com este acordo e o meu país não será exceção, pois Portugal tem atualmente mais de mil empresas a exportar para o Canadá, sendo 89 % pequenas e médias empresas que asseguram 12 mil postos de trabalho.

É, pois, por isso, que vou votar a favor do CETA.

  Karoline Graswander-Hainz (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin, werte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! CETA ist kein Teufelswerk, da irren viele Kritikerinnen und Kritiker.

Aber CETA ist ein Vertrag, der intransparent verhandelt wurde und der meiner Meinung nach nicht die richtigen Antworten auf die Globalisierung gibt. Wir haben heute schon mehrmals die Frage gehört: Wie können wir Globalisierung gerecht gestalten? CETA in vorliegender Form leistet dazu keinen Beitrag. Deshalb kann ich CETA nicht zustimmen.

CETA ist noch nicht gut genug. Nun, was lehrt uns CETA? Auf jeden Fall, dass wir es künftig anders machen müssen. Vielleicht wäre es gut, wieder zurück zu klassischen Handelsabkommen zu kommen und die regulatorische Kooperation in sektorspezifischen Abkommen zu regeln. Essenziell ist aber, die nationalen Parlamente, die Zivilgesellschaft, die NGO sowie das Europäische Parlament von Beginn an an den Verhandlungen teilhaben zu lassen und während der Verhandlungen regelmäßig darüber zu informieren, die Bedenken ernst zu nehmen, die Haltung der Bürgerinnen und Bürger respektieren und mit einzubeziehen. Nur auf diese Weise kann die europäische Handelspolitik wieder an Legitimation gewinnen. Was bei CETA schief gelaufen ist, darf sich nicht wiederholen!

  Othmar Karas (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! Wir erleben soeben eine Auseinandersetzung zwischen Verantwortung übernehmen und Ängste schüren, zwischen Globalisierung regeln und sich abschotten, zwischen Zukunft gestalten und Chancen verspielen, zwischen Bewertung des Verhandlungsergebnisses und fake news, zwischen ernsthaften sachlichen Debatten und einem unaufrichtigen parteitaktischen Doppelspiel.

Ich bin froh, dass die Mehrheit der Abgeordneten der Europäischen Volkspartei, der Liberalen, der Konservativen und auch der Sozialdemokraten die Sorgen der Menschen ernst nimmt und sich nach intensiver Debatte entschieden hat, für das Handelsübereinkommen zu stimmen, weil wir das Ergebnis geprüft haben und weil die Sorgen und Fragen der Menschen in diesem Abkommen auf dem Boden der Rechts- und Wertegemeinschaft der Europäischen Union beantwortet werden.

Wer sich abschottet, verliert. Wir gestalten. Wir wollen die Chance nutzen!

  Андрей Ковачев (PPE). – Г-жо Председател, споразумението е в интерес на европейските граждани и на бизнеса. То означава растеж и нови работни места, без да се застрашават европейските стандарти в нито една сфера, въпреки безпардонните лъжи, които чухме днес от някои от колегите.

Българската икономика зависи от износа на стоки и услуги, който е около 80 процента от брутния вътрешен продукт. Тя има нужда от преки чуждестранни инвестиции и свободен достъп до пазари и на трети страни. Затова България, както и Европейският съюз като цяло, ще спечелят от споразумението, от безвизово пътуване, от по-лесно признаване на професионални квалификации и по-добър достъп до пазара на труда, от по-ниски разходи за износителите, от възможности българските фирми да участват в търгове за обществени поръчки и отварянето на канадския пазар.

Споразумението не е в ущърб на малките и средните предприятия, а в тяхна полза. Големите и без споразумението могат да оперират глобално. В продължение на месеци бяхме засипвани с апокалиптични сценарии: споразумението ще залее Европа с ГМО, ще зароби европейските народи, ще доведе до колапс в икономиката. Когато споразумението започне да се прилага, ще стане ясно колко плоски са били тези лъжи. Много е по-лесно да се поддадем на популизма, но е по-отговорно да обясним на гражданите ползите от това споразумение.

  Tunne Kelam (PPE). – Madam President, the EU was founded 60 years ago on the principles of four freedoms. Our rapporteur, Mr Pabriks, told us today that the EU has a choice between future openness or protective and angry closing into ourselves. Also, some time ago, Pope Francis spoke to the European Parliament of his impression of a wary and ageing Europe, reminding us of a grandmother, hesitant and defensive, but now also believing in political horror stories. Only opening up will bring wide-ranging success and well-being to the citizens of Europe.

The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) constitutes a key means of rejuvenating the EU’s dynamics because every additional billion of EU exports supports 14 000 jobs in Europe. It is, in fact, a crucial test of the EU’s credibility, self-respect and reaffirmation of our founding principles of four freedoms.

Commissioner Malmström, tack så mycket for your dedication, faith and persistence.

  Richard Corbett (S&D). – Madam President, is it in order for Members to absent themselves from the debates and leave big placards rather than actually take part in the debate?

  President. – I do not have the Rules of Procedure, but we take note of your comment.

  Francisco José Millán Mon (PPE). – Señora presidenta, yo quiero manifestar mi apoyo al CETA y al Acuerdo de Asociación Estratégica con Canadá. Compartimos con este país muchos valores y objetivos. Son, además, nuestros socios en la OTAN y cooperamos estrechamente para hacer frente a desafíos globales como el cambio climático. También apostamos por el multilateralismo y por el respeto del Derecho internacional. El Acuerdo de Asociación Estratégica mejorará nuestro diálogo y coordinación.

El acuerdo CETA es el acuerdo de libre comercio, como ya se ha dicho, más moderno que la Unión Europea ha negociado. Permitirá un mejor acceso para nuestras empresas al mercado canadiense de alto poder adquisitivo. Además de un sistema innovador para la resolución de conflictos entre inversores y Estados, el CETA establece una amplia apertura en materia de contratación pública, lo que me parece muy importante, pues permitirá a las empresas europeas participar en contratos públicos también a nivel de provincias y municipios en Canadá. Es el acuerdo más amplio abierto en esta materia por este país. El CETA dinamizará las relaciones económicas y comerciales con Canadá.

En el mundo de hoy no se puede estar contra el comercio internacional. Todo lo contrario, el comercio trae prosperidad, beneficia a los consumidores y también crea empleo, tan necesario en Europa.

  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE). – Frau Präsidentin! Die CETA-Gegner haben uns einzureden versucht, Kanada mit seinen 36 Millionen Einwohnern sei für die Europäische Union eine existenzielle Bedrohung.

Ein Land, in dem die Queen das Staatsoberhaupt ist, wo Französisch gesprochen wird, der Staat die Medikamente bezahlt, in dem es eine sozialliberale Regierung gibt, die großherzig Flüchtlinge aufnimmt. Was für ein Unsinn. Wenn es uns als Europäer nicht gelingt, mit diesem Land ein Abkommen zu schließen, dann können wir alle anderen Verhandlungen sofort beenden.

Ich will es hier mal deutlich sagen: Ich habe auch den offenen Brief der Grünen, von Reinhard Bütikofer und den Kollegen, gelesen. Ich finde, es ist sowohl ahistorisch als auch scheinheilig zu sagen: Rechte Abschottung á la Marine Le Pen oder Donald Trump ist schlecht, linke Abschottung á la ATTAC oder Verdi ist super. Rechter Nationalismus á la UKIP ist schlecht, linker Nationalismus à la Jean-Luc Mélenchon ist gut. Es gibt auch keinen Unterschied zwischen rechten alternativen Fakten von Donald Trump und linken alternativen Fakten von der Linkspartei und anderen. Beide sind Lügen.

Stimmen wir diesem Abkommen zu! Eine weltoffene Haltung heißt, Brücken über den Atlantik zu bauen, und nicht, Mauern zu errichten.

(Beifall)

  Michael Gahler (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich werde heute für das CETA-Abkommen stimmen. Ich komme aus einer exportstarken Region, aus dem Land Hessen, das ist Frankfurt und Umgebung. Wir haben ein starkes Interesse daran, dass sich auch der Handel mit Kanada verbessert, insbesondere auch für die Klein- und Mittelbetriebe, die es bisher schwierig hatten, in diesem Land Fuß zu fassen.

Ich bin immer wieder überrascht, welche seltsamen Konstellationen sich gegen dieses Abkommen finden. Das ist dann in Deutschland von Sahra Wagenknecht bis zur AfD-Vorsitzenden, das ist dann von Donald Trump bis Mélenchon, von Marine Le Pen bis zu einigen deutschen Sozialdemokraten, was ich außerordentlich bedaure.

Von daher hoffe ich, dass wir mit diesem Abkommen ein Zeichen setzen für eine neue Generation von fortschrittlichen Freihandelsabkommen, die als Vorbild auch für künftige Abkommen dienen können. Deswegen bitte ich alle herzlich, diesem Abkommen zuzustimmen.

Catch-the-eye procedure

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, as a member of the Committee on International Trade, and of the Delegation for relations with Canada in the last mandate, I have been following this agreement all that time. I must say I am somewhat amazed at the alternative facts which are now in vogue in this establishment and around the world. You could say this is the age of alternative facts.

One of them, which has been flying around my Twitter feed over the last few days, says CETA will put 90 million jobs at risk. That is nearly half the jobs in the European Union and this from a country, Canada, which has only 35 million people itself. These are the facts being perpetrated and which the people out there protesting today believe.

If I thought it was going to cost 90 million jobs I would be against it too. In actual fact, it is the opposite. We are in favour of it because it is going to create jobs. It is going to create jobs in Europe, in Ireland, and that is what we want. The agreement with South Korea created 210 000 jobs, and yet the Canadian agreement is going to cost us jobs? Is this logical? No.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, doamnă comisar, este un moment istoric pentru Uniunea Europeană, pentru că este primul acord de liber schimb pe care Uniunea Europeană îl încheie cu o altă economie majoră din cadrul OCDE.

Personal, cred în nevoia acordurilor comerciale încheiate cu alte țări non-europene, dar, evident, pe principiul câștig-câștig. Piața internă are nevoie să se dezvolte, să își internaționalizeze afacerile, în special IMM-urile. Totdeauna, când închei un acord, trebuie să te gândești ce pierzi și ce câștigi. Nu poți să pretinzi să câștigi doar tu. De aceea eu susțin acordurile comerciale, concomitent cu măsuri de apărare comercială – și aceasta este datoria Comisiei.

Temerile mele de la începutul negocierilor au fost spulberate, cele legate de standarde de produs și de mecanismul juridic. Până la urmă, avem de luat o decizie economică, dar și politică și totdeauna trebuie să știm să alegem varianta cea mai bună, pentru că soluția ideală nu există. Așadar, cred că avem datoria să susținem dezvoltarea pieței interne prin acorduri comerciale bune, nu să închidem piața internă.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjednice, oko CETE se digla nepotrebna prašina, a ljevičarske krajnje stranke i nevladine organizacije namjerno su je vezale uz TTIP kako bi izazvale konfuziju javnosti. CETA je u svojoj srži puno transparentniji i benevolentniji sporazum, koji europskim tvrtkama otvara jedno bogato tržište zemlje koja ne predstavlja nikakvu ugrozu za Europu. Nema crnog scenarija. Problema će naravno biti, ali zar nemamo problema u Europskoj uniji između država članica? Naravno, te probleme rješavamo novim pregovorima, a s Kanadom ih možemo rješavati i sustavom sporova.

Kolegice i kolege, ako nismo sposobni sklopiti sporazum s jednom benignom Kanadom, onda s kim jesmo? Slobodna je trgovina između Europe i Kanade prilika za obje strane. Za Hrvatsku je to prilika da se još bolje ekonomski poveže sa svojom dijasporom u Kanadi i vjerujem da ćemo biti hrabri i iskoristiti ovu priliku.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señora presidenta, comisaria, gracias a usted y a su equipo por el gran trabajo realizado.

Vamos a apoyar el CETA porque favorece a las pymes, que son las principales creadoras de empleo en la Unión Europea; porque abre nuevas oportunidades de intercambio en sectores en los que somos líderes mundiales en calidad y tecnología, incluidas las producciones primarias de alta calidad —lo que solo puede reforzar esta posición—; y porque compartimos con Canadá valores y principios que van a salir reforzados, al crecer con un Acuerdo que los hace más presentes y fuertes en el comercio mundial.

Esta es la mejor respuesta frente a otros estándares sociales o medioambientales que, sin acuerdos como este, encuentran más facilidades para prosperar.

El equipo de comercio de la Comisión Europea ha demostrado en esta legislatura conocimiento, capacidad real para hacer evolucionar realidades hasta ahora inmóviles —como el sistema de arbitraje— y sensibilidad social y capacidad de interlocución.

Oportunidades como las que abre este Acuerdo son siempre mucho más que un no.

  Luke Ming Flanagan (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, I am here to represent the people and I would imagine most of us are here to represent the people. The problem is that the person who went out and negotiated this agreement has said that she does not take her mandate from the people. What sort of a democracy is this, where we send someone out to negotiate on our behalf and she brazenly says to us that she does not take her mandate from the people? I suppose she is being honest, unlike a lot of the other Commissioners.

The Committee on Employment and Social Affairs is against this agreement because it will cost 204 000 jobs, and if Mr Kelly, MEP, thinks this is an alternative fact let him go into the Employment Committee and call them liars. The great irony, though, is that the man who casts doubt on the unemployment that will be occurring actually comes from a party with a leader who is openly a liar, and I can say that because it is official.

  Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I would vote in favour of CETA if I could judge that the balance of interests is correct, but I do not think so. I think it weighs heavily on the side of enterprises and investors but, having said this, I look very much forward to working with the Commissioner on the new trade agreements where this balance will be set right.

I welcome, Commissioner, your suggestion on broad consultation on how to embed sustainable development in a legally binding way in the Treaties. I also believe that Parliament has to support you when you call for the Council to publish negotiation mandates at an early stage in the future, because that would be the right way to proceed from now on.

At this moment we are dealing with the CETA Agreement and let me say that, even if Canada is a very nice country and Trudeau is a very nice guy, some Canadian mining companies are not best known for their responsibility and accountability, and this may be felt even in my country, Finland.

  Fabio Massimo Castaldo (EFDD). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, i carnevali passano ma certe maschere restano. Le maschere dell'ipocrisia di quanti spacciano il CETA per un semplice e banale accordo con il ridente Canada, fondato su principi e valori comuni, una pietra miliare del commercio sostenibile. Togliete la maschera e dite la verità. La verità sulla finta abolizione degli ISDS, sui conflitti di interesse delle corti arbitrali, sui nostri diritti costituzionali calpestati a favore delle multinazionali. La verità sulle privatizzazioni e liberalizzazioni selvagge di acqua, sanità e servizi pubblici. La verità su 230 000 lavoratori europei di cui avete svenduto per trenta denari impiego e dignità.

Noi portavoce del Movimento 5 Stelle abbiamo scelto da che parte stare: dalla parte di chi non vuole farsi consumare dal consumismo, dalla parte di chi difende il diritto di tutti contro il profitto di pochi, dalla parte di tre milioni e mezzo di firme di cittadini europei. No al cavallo di Troia e al TTIP, no al CETA!

(End of catch-the-eye procedure)

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, honourable Members of this House, it has indeed been a very long and interesting debate. We are here discussing a trade agreement. Trade has made the European Union the biggest economy of the world. It has benefited the prosperity and welfare of Europeans. Trade with other countries outside the European Union has created millions of jobs, 31 million in the export sectors and many, many millions in the import sectors. Countries are queuing up to make trade agreements with us but they are, of course, looking very carefully at what is going to happen today, whether we are a reliable partner or not. Trade globally has lifted millions and millions of people out of poverty, so trade is a good thing, but of course trade needs to be regulated in trade agreements and that is what we are discussing here today.

This is not business as usual; this is a new type of trade agreement. It has economic advantages: we are taking away tariffs, we are increasing market access, we have achieved the recognition of many important geographical indications, we are taking away red tape and this is beneficial. After all, most small and medium-sized companies – 80% of the 70 000 companies who today export to Canada are SMEs – have smaller margins than the big companies because the latter can always manage. SMEs benefit from lower tariffs, from increased market access, from less red tape. We are taking away tariffs, for instance on textiles of 18%, on shoes of up to 18%, on machinery of 9%. These are not small sums for small companies, and many of them are also involved in exporting geographical indications. We know that trade works. The trade agreement with South Korea has increased exports by impressive figures and created many jobs.

This is also an agreement about values, about the right of governments to regulate, about maintaining our high standards, about labour rights, about environmental rights, about sustainable development, about reforming the old ISDS system – because it was not invented in CETA, it has existed since 1959, it was invented in Germany. All countries, except Ireland, have ISDS clauses. We have made them more democratic, more transparent and introduced a more ethical system. You, here in the European Parliament, have been very active in that transformation.

(The President interrupted the speaker to call for less noise in the House)

J’allais juste répondre aux collègues français qui ont exprimé leurs inquiétudes par rapport au secteur bovin. J’ai discuté avec le commissaire Hogan et M. le Président Juncker, et nous allons vous adresser une lettre pour répondre plus en détail à vos questions.

Je peux vous affirmer qu’en ce qui concerne l’accord avec le Canada, celui-ci a été bien conçu, en tenant compte de la sensibilité de ce secteur. Je reste convaincue que les importations n’auront pas un effet dramatique sur le secteur. Les services de la Commission assureront le suivi régulier des importations en question, y compris le taux de remplissage des contingents, en utilisant tous les instruments dont nous disposons afin d’être en mesure de réagir avec efficacité et rapidité en cas de distorsion. Vous aurez plus de détails dans une lettre à la fin de cette semaine.

Actually, honourable Members of this House, for years many of you have been calling for trade agreements which include sustainable development, human rights, labour rights, environment, climate, animal rights. All this is in this unique agreement, but it does not include anything which forces any municipality, country or region to implement privatisation. It will not lower standards, and it will not deprive the governments of their right to regulate in the interests of their citizens. Things that are forbidden on the European market today will remain forbidden, and the Joint Committee will not change anything in our legislation. That is for the EU institutions, including you, to do.

We are making this agreement with Canada, and I would like to salute the presence of the Minister of International Trade, Mr Champagne, who is in the Tribune here today. Canada is a democratic country which shares so many of our values, which is committed to the rule of law, to human rights, and which plays an important international role in defending the multilateral system. They have a strong public sector and they are committed to working with us to shape globalisation.

(Interruption by the President)

  President. – Sorry, Commissioner, please take a breath for one moment.

I am not going to resume this debate until we have some semblance of order and silence because the Commissioner is responding in detail to questions raised during the debate. Please bear with us. We have two more speakers and then we vote. Commissioner, again, apologies for the interruption.

  Cecilia Malmström, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, Canada is committed, in the framework of CETA and of our partnership agreement, to working with us on all the issues that you have mentioned, shaping globalisation to set strong international rules, faithfully respecting the mandate given to us in the Commission by the Member States and expressed in the resolution of this Parliament. Twenty-eight governments have signed this agreement, and it has been done in transparency. The CETA texts have been public since September 2014. The old Investment Court System (ICS) reform has been public for a year. The original version has been online for two and a half years. There have been 12 meetings on this with the European Parliament, nine meetings with the Committee on International Trade, three workshops, two EP delegations, and I could go on. It has not been negotiated in secret. Honourable Members will be involved in the implementation of all this, and we will work with you in order to make sure that we reform and look at how we can become better in the implementation of the sustainable development chapter. I do respect – and that is perfectly normal – that there are different views on this. You can be in favour and you can be against.

(The President interrupted the speaker to call for less noise in the House)

I respect that there will be people voting in favour and against, but calling a trade agreement with Canada a coup d’état is, frankly, going too far.

(Applause)

So, voting in a few minutes on the two agreements we have in front of us will enable us to take a great economic and geopolitical opportunity, deepening economic relations, affirming our social and environmental protection, showing that trade and values can go hand—in—hand, and strengthening a shared partnership. I hope that you will vote in favour of these two agreements that will send a strong signal to our friends in Canada, and also to the rest of the world.

(Applause)

  Artis Pabriks, rapporteur. – Madam President, I will not repeat all those arguments in favour of trade agreements between the European Union and Canada because it was very well argued by all the Commission recently.

(The President called for quiet in the House)

I would like very much to thank all those shadow rapporteurs like Mr Moisă, Ms Schaake, David Martin and others, who contributed so that this trade agreement here in Parliament is of such a high quality. Thank you to all of you. I would also like to agree with speakers such as Alexander Graf Lambsdorff and others who noted that, once more, the far right and the far left of this House are united against everything that is good for the European Union.

(Applause from certain quarters)

If anybody is taking away jobs, if anybody is taking away the wealth of the people of Europe, if anybody is loosening the foundations of European nation states, then turn to these radicals on both sides.

I believe that we will vote today correctly to the benefit of the European Union. I would also like to say that already next week, we will have the first national parliament – that of my country, Latvia – that will ratify this agreement, and the other countries will be able to follow. Those who want to listen to facts and not to be ‘trumped’ by alternative arguments to the right and left, should rather listen to what kind of benefits this will bring after it comes into force provisionally. I believe that this vote is the right vote for our Member States and for the European Union as a whole. Let’s go forward.

(Applause)

  Charles Tannock, rapporteur. – Madam President, what has been very clear to me today in the debate is that – across the House, other than for a minority of alarmist, protectionist and isolationist voices on the far left and right of the Chamber – there is near-universal appreciation for the strong ties that exist between Canada and the European Union. Our shared culture, democratic norms and history bind us together in a way that is unique. It is vital that the EU champions those shared values to maintain the levels of prosperity and success that we enjoy today and to stand together as strong advocates for free trade and liberal multilateralism across the globe.

The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and the Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) will act as a model for future trade and political relationships between the European Union and third countries. This is also a potential model around which the United Kingdom could base its future trade relationships with the EU post—Brexit. Fighting international crime and terrorism, tackling climate change and ensuring continued space for economic growth and job creation in an era of globalisation and technological change are all issues that cross borders, and they can only be tackled by democracies like Canada and the EU Member States working together.

As these changes take effect, it is vital that we all pull together to ensure that they work for all our citizens, and that we do not allow our economies to drift towards the simple allure of nationalism, isolationism and protectionism that can only lead to less prosperity and security for our citizens. It has taken many years to reach today and to conclude these deals, but as we are now finally moving in this House to ratify the SPA and CETA, it is clear that this time and effort has been very well worthwhile.

(Applause)

  President. – I would like to thank the Commissioner and you too, honourable Members, for your cooperation in this lengthy and important debate.

I have received six motions for resolutions tabled in accordance with Rule 123(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The debate is closed.

The vote will take place shortly.

Written statements (Rule 162)

  Dominique Bilde (ENF), par écrit. – Le Traité de libre-échange UE-Canada, dit CETA, va achever de faire de nos régions désindustrialisées des cimetières commerciaux. Lorsque le Premier Ministre canadien, Justin Trudeau, est venu s’adresser aux eurodéputés, il s’est réjoui du fait que les consommateurs européens pourront désormais acheter à bas prix les « magnifiques bottes d’hiver canadiennes Mukluks », du fait de la disparition des tarifs douaniers entre l’UE et le Canada. N’en déplaise à Monsieur Trudeau, les européens ne sont pas seulement des consommateurs prêts à faire tourner la machine commerciale canadienne. Ce sont des artisans, commerçants, ouvriers qui, à l’image des entreprises Bata et André, ont fait vivre pendant près d’un siècle des milliers de familles et exporté le savoir-faire français partout dans le monde. À l’image de l’usine Bata d’Hellocourt, surnommée « Bataville », mis à genoux par la concurrence asiatique déloyale, c’est aujourd’hui à la marque « Andre » du groupe Vivarte de subir la mise à mort du libre-échange sauvage. Avec le nouveau traité CETA, nos TPE-PME françaises vont désormais être condamnées à lutter contre des multinationales canadiennes sans plus bénéficier de la protection douanière. Monsieur Trudeau, vous oubliez que, lorsque les emplois disparaîtront, les consommateurs aussi.

  Κώστας Χρυσόγονος (GUE/NGL), γραπτώς. – Λόγω ανυπέρβλητου προσωπικού κωλύματος δεν μπορούσα να βρίσκομαι στο Στρασβούργο στις 15 Φεβρουαρίου ώστε να συμμετάσχω στην ψηφοφορία για τη συμφωνία «CETA» ανάμεσα στον Καναδά και την Ε.Ε. Αν ήμουν παρών, θα καταψήφιζα τη συμφωνία αυτή, καθώς συμμερίζομαι την άποψη ότι η CETA, παρά κάποιες βελτιώσεις που σημειώθηκαν, κυρίως μετά από προτάσεις των κρατών μελών κατά την περίοδο ολοκλήρωσης των διαπραγματεύσεων, εξακολουθεί να έχει στο τέλος ένα αρνητικό ισοζύγιο για τις ευρωπαϊκές οικονομίες και κοινωνίες. Σε αυτή τη βάση, θα καταψήφιζα τη σχετική συμφωνία, όπως έπραξε η κοινοβουλευτική ομάδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Αριστεράς GUE/NGL στην οποία ανήκω.

  Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg (S&D), na piśmie. – Umowa gospodarczo-handlowa między UE i Kanadą (CETA) proponuje zniesienie niemal wszystkich ceł i barier pozataryfowych oraz liberalizację handlu usługami między jej partnerami. Ma także otworzyć kanadyjski rynek przetargów publicznych dla europejskich przedsiębiorstw. W 2015 roku wartość towarów importowanych z Kanady wynosiła 28,3 mld euro, a eksportowanych – 35,2 mld euro. Szacuje się, że kwoty te mogą wzrosnąć o 20% po wdrożeniu powyższego porozumienia. W kwestiach najbardziej spornych, które budziły najwięcej kontrowersji, UE i Kanada potwierdziły, że kraje mają prawo do stosowania własnych przepisów. Kolejną taką kwestią był mechanizm rozwiązywania sporów na linii inwestor-państwo. Został on ostatecznie zastąpiony przez Sąd Inwestycyjny, który zapewni kontrolę rządu nad wyborem arbitrów oraz wzmocni przejrzystość całego procesu. Dzisiaj zagłosujemy również nad Umową o partnerstwie strategicznym między UE i Kanadą, która uzupełnia umowę CETA, wzmacniając dwustronną współpracę w takich obszarach jak polityka zagraniczna i bezpieczeństwa, przeciwdziałanie terroryzmowi, zwalczanie przestępczości zorganizowanej, zrównoważony rozwój, badania i kultura. Mimo wielu atutów CETA pozostaje wciąż sporo niejasności, jak choćby ta dotycząca zgodności umowy z Traktatami, dlatego nie poprę tego porozumienia.

  Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE), in writing. – MEPs received very large numbers of messages from constituents, expressing opposition to this CETA deal. I am not against trade deals. Scotland is a trading nation, with a long history of building valuable commercial links around the world. I want that to continue. Although I acknowledge that changes in the CETA deal have been achieved, these improvements had been strongly resisted, and only very grudgingly given when serious democratic challenges have been mounted, such as the Wallonian opposition to the original text and the threat of resistance to ISDS in this Parliament.

I find myself unconvinced that the current CETA text is the best deal available, and am very suspicious of the moves to limit debate and steamroller the deal to a conclusion, both at Westminster recently and in this Parliament where the normal committee processes have been curtailed. Labour law standards have not been adequately safeguarded and an envisaged consultation process remains opaque in its eventual effect. The Investor Court System, while admittedly improved, will still undermine the general corporate law by developing a specific, and unnecessary, supranational court for investors. These are just some of the reasons why I will vote against giving consent at this time.

  Urszula Krupa (ECR), na piśmie. – Głosowałam przeciwko kontrowersyjnej, globalizacyjnej umowie nowej generacji CETA z wielu powodów. Zarówno z powodu opracowywania dokumentu w sposób niejawny, z możliwym wpływem podmiotów trzecich na proces negocjacji, natomiast bez udziału rządów i parlamentów poszczególnych państw członkowskich Unii, jak i bez udziału strony społecznej, co stanowi pogwałcenie podstawowych zasad demokracji. To także niebezpieczeństwo utraty suwerenności państw członkowskich w dziedzinie stanowienia prawa i ochrony interesu publicznego. Według ekspertyz w całej UE grozi utrata od 200 do 600 tysięcy miejsc pracy, a w Polsce ocenia się na około 200 000.Według wielu ekspertyz CETA poprzez mechanizm ICS (ponadpaństwowy sąd arbitrażowy) daje korporacjom możliwość zaskarżenia praktycznie każdej regulacji, zarówno wewnątrzkrajowej, jak i wewnątrzwspólnotowej. Mogłoby to zagrozić spodziewanym zyskom koncernów, co stawia korporacje ponad prawem państwowym i jest sprzeczne z interesami szczególnie mniej zasobnych społeczeństw. CETA jest zagrożeniem dla małoobszarowego rolnictwa rodzinnego w Polsce, gdyż zniesienie wszelkich barier grozi załamaniem polskiego rolnictwa. CETA spowoduje obniżenie standardów żywności, szczególnie poprzez niebezpieczeństwo sprowadzania żywności modyfikowanej genetycznie i wytwarzanej w sposób przemysłowy, tańszej, o słabej jakości. CETA może ograniczyć prawa państw do renacjonalizacji lub regulowania usług publicznych oraz może zagrozić środowisku poprzez ułatwienie importu paliw pochodzących z kanadyjskich piasków bitumicznych.

  Илхан Кючюк (ALDE), в писмена форма. – Силно вярвам, че споразумението СЕТА ще даде нов импулс на нашите икономики в бързоразвиващата се глобална търговия. Отношенията между ЕС и Канада се основават на споделени ценности, което е видно от дългата история на широко политическо и икономическо сътрудничество и ние трябва да ги задълбочим, а не да се капсулираме. През 2015 г. ЕС е внесъл стоки от Канада на стойност 28,3 млрд. евро, докато износът на стоки от ЕС към Канада е на стойност 35,2 млрд. евро, а се очаква тази цифра да се повиши с повече от 20%, когато споразумението бъде приложено в пълна степен. Това е истински пример за ползите, които СЕТА ще донесе на ЕС и Канада.

Не трябва да пренебрегваме и факта, че споразумението въвежда нова инвестиционна съдебна система и подобрява правилата за защита на инвестициите. С нея уреждането на инвестиционните спорове ще става по-справедливо и по-прозрачно. СЕТА е първото споразумение за свободна търговия, сключено от ЕС с друга установена и значима държава — членка на ОИСР. То е също така най-амбициозното споразумение, сключено както от ЕС, така и от Канада и ние трябва да го подкрепим.

  Vladimír Maňka (S&D), písomne. – EÚ má obchodné dohody s desiatkami krajín. Kanada je z nich najvyspelejšia. Je jednou z krajín s najvyššou kvalitou života na svete. Slovensko má s ňou podpísanú starú obchodnú dohodu, ktorá zvýhodňuje kanadských investorov pred našimi firmami. Komplexná hospodárska a obchodná dohoda (CETA) medzi Kanadou a Európskou úniou predstavuje najrozsiahlejšiu dohodu v oblasti obchodu, služieb a investícií, akú doposiaľ EÚ uzatvorila. Jej vykonávanie prinesie hospodársky rast a tvorbu pracovných miest, vzájomný obchod by mal vzrásť až o 12 miliárd EUR ročne. Odstránenie ciel vo výške 400 miliónov EUR na tovar s pôvodom v EÚ a vzájomné uznávanie osvedčení o zhode výrobkov a tovarov zníži náklady európskych podnikov a zvýši ich konkurencieschopnosť a prístup na trh. Kanada umožní európskym záujemcom účasť na svojich vládnych, ale aj regionálnych verejných obstarávaniach, poskytne ochranu 140 zemepisným označeniam potravín a nápojov na rovnakej úrovni, ako majú v EÚ. Posilnené pravidlá na ochranu investícií a spravodlivejšie a transparentnejšie riešenie investičných sporov zvýšia právnu istotu európskych podnikateľov a prispejú k rastu vzájomného obchodu. Dohoda podlieha ratifikácii členských krajín.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR), γραπτώς. – Καταψήφισα την Συμφωνία Στρατηγικής Εταιρικής Σχέσης ΕΕ-Καναδά (CETA) στην ψηφοφορία που έγινε στην Ολομέλεια της Ευρωβουλής στις 15/2/2017, όπως άλλωστε είχα διαμηνύσει δημόσια εδώ και χρόνια, από την πρώτη στιγμή που ξεκίνησαν οι διαπραγματεύσεις ΕΕ-Καναδά. Είχα εξαρχής τοποθετηθεί ενάντια στη CETA, καθώς πρόκειται για συμφωνία απελευθέρωσης του εμπορίου που έχει μία σειρά σοβαρότατων αρνητικών επιπτώσεων για την Ελλάδα. Ανοίγει το δρόμο στην εισαγωγή μεταλλαγμένων τροφίμων, διαλύει τις εργασιακές σχέσεις, εμπορευματοποιεί τα δημόσια αγαθά, όπως είναι η υγεία και η παιδεία, και ανατρέπει την αρχή της πρόληψης, η οποία είναι σημαντική για την προστασία της δημόσιας υγείας. Ευνοεί τις πολυεθνικές, καταστρέφοντας τους ντόπιους μικροπαραγωγούς, ανοίγει στους Καναδούς τον τομέα παροχής υπηρεσιών και ταυτόχρονα δημιουργεί ένα παραδικαστικό σύστημα παρακάμπτοντας τα δικαστήρια των κρατών μελών της ΕΕ. Επιπλέον, η CETA διαλύει την αγροτική οικονομία σε Ευρώπη και Ελλάδα και καταργεί το καθεστώς αυξημένης προστασίας που είχε η ελληνική φέτα ως προϊόν Προστατευόμενης Ονομασίας Προέλευσης (Π.Ο.Π.), ζημιώνοντας ανεπανόρθωτα την παραγωγή και την ποιότητα της ελληνικής φέτας, ενός παραδοσιακού προϊόντος, το οποίο, μόνο από τις εξαγωγές, αποφέρει στην Ελλάδα πάνω από 185 εκατομμύρια EUR. Ταυτόχρονα, η CETA ευνοεί τον κυριότερο καναδό παραγωγό δήθεν «φέτας», ο οποίος, σημειωτέον, είναι Σκοπιανός!!! Ο αγώνας κατά της CETA συνεχίζεται.

  Christine Revault D’Allonnes Bonnefoy (S&D), par écrit. – L’accord économique avec le Canada nous engage sur le plan sociétal. Il met en jeu nos modèles agricoles, nos marchés publics, nos systèmes juridiques et les normes européennes sanitaires ou encore environnementales. Or, en l’état, trop d’incertitudes demeurent sur le plan juridique, économique ou environnemental.

C’est pourquoi j’appelle à voter contre cet accord. Il ne s’agit pas de voter contre le Canada. Ce n’est pas parce que le Canada est une démocratie que cet accord est forcément bon et que nous devons arrêter de penser et de prendre du recul sur un texte qui va durablement impacter la politique commerciale de l’UE.

Sur le plan économique, les résultats seront pratiquement inexistants, de l’aveu même de la Commission. Sur le plan juridique, l’on ne sait pas encore quelle forme prendra le mécanisme d’arbitrage. Sur le plan environnemental, le principe de précaution risque d’être mis à mal par le processus de «reconnaissance d’équivalence».

Je considère aussi que le processus de négociation n’a pas permis de créer les conditions d’un véritable débat transparent. Le débat public va maintenant pouvoir continuer dans chaque État membre en vue du vote des parlements nationaux.

  Claude Rolin (PPE), par écrit. – Le CETA en l'état n'est pas acceptable, car c'est un accord de nouvelle génération qui vise à harmoniser les normes. Or il n'offre pas la garantie de tirer celles-ci vers le haut. Ces normes sont essentielles et profondément culturelles. S'il est envisageable de faire des compromis en matière de droits de douane, on ne peut faire par contre, aucune concession en ce qui concerne les normes européennes. Imaginons quel pourrait être l'impact sur l'alimentation ou les exigences sociales, si les garde-fous n'étaient pas clairement établis. Aujourd'hui, l'Union européenne négocie de grands traités commerciaux considérant le commerce comme l’alpha et l’oméga du développement, sans définir au préalable son positionnement tant d’un point de vue économique, qu’aux niveaux social et environnemental. L’objectif qui sous-tend ce type d’accords est la coopération et la convergence réglementaire en vue de supprimer les barrières non-tarifaires au commerce, mais sans régler au préalable la question des différences au niveau des réglementations et des aides publiques, l'Union européenne court le risque d’une concurrence déloyale entre Canadiens et Européens. Ce sont, entre autres, les raisons pour lesquelles je vote aujourd'hui contre le CETA.

  Monika Smolková (S&D), písomne. – V ostatnom období sme poslanci EP pod väčším tlakom občanov EÚ, a to pre obchodnú dohodu medzi EÚ a Kanadou. Aj tento tlak mňa osobne prinútil k tomu, aby som počúvala argumenty občanov, ale aj odborníkov. Aj dnes, keď o zmluve CETA rokujeme v pléne, máme možnosť si vypočuť argumenty od našich kolegov poslancov za, ale aj proti. Ja sa chcem pridať na stranu tých, ktorí dohodu podporia. Aplikáciou dohody by mal vzrásť vzájomný obchod až o 12 miliárd ročne, takisto by sa mal podporiť hospodársky rast a tvorba nových pracovných miest. Pre mňa je presvedčivým argumentom aj fakt, že tovar dovážaný z Kanady musí spĺňať všetky pravidlá stanovené EÚ. Ďalší dôležitý argument je aj to, že Kanada bude uznávať viac ako 140 tradičných a chránených výrobkov vyrábaných v EÚ len v určitej oblasti. Presvedčili ma aj argumenty eurokomisárky pre obchod Cecilie Malmströmovej, ktorá objasnila, že dohoda s Kanadou neznamená privatizáciu verejných služieb, nepovedie k zníženiu štandardov pre spotrebiteľov, a tiež vysvetlila úlohu arbitrážnych súdov. Od dohody medzi EÚ a Kanadou očakávam prínos aj pre Slovensko, a to nie len pri obchodnom styku, napríklad v automobilovom sektore, ale aj pri vzájomných výmenách skúseností medzi našimi a kanadskými vzdelávacími a vedeckými inštitúciami.

  Igor Šoltes (Verts/ALE), pisno. – Danes je Evropski parlament pustil na cedilu Evropejce in v ospredje postavil interese korporacij in brezkompromisno kapitalistično logiko, s tem pa poteptal naše socialne in delavske pravice, javno zdravje, prehranske standarde, naravne vire, temeljna načela demokracije in vladavino prava.

Evropski hram demokracije je s tem povsem ignoriral do sedaj enega največjih množičnih državljanskih uporov, ki je združil več milijonov državljanov, nevladnih organizacij, predstavnike sindikatov, lokalnih skupnosti, strokovnjake in druge, a vse to očitno ni bilo dovolj.

Takšna poteza je v času, ko imajo ljudje vse bolj občutek, da ne odločajo o ničemer več ter da se ključne odločitve sprejemajo daleč stran, predvsem v vsemogočnih centrih kapitala, še toliko bolj zaskrbljujoča. Ali ni že skrajni čas, da se pri vprašanjih, ki so tako bistvenega pomena za našo prihodnost, upošteva glas ljudi, ki je tukaj jasen?

Sam sem glasoval proti sporazumu, ki zasleduje ozkogledo in pogoltno trgovinsko politiko in ogroža temeljne postulate naše družbe, namesto da bi uveljavljal pravično in transparentno trgovinsko politiko, ki se ne igra z usodami in pravicami ljudi.

Sedaj pozivam parlamente držav članic, da v postopku ratifikacije pokažejo posluh za državljane ter Ceti odrečejo svojo podporo. Očitno nacionalni parlamenti ostajajo zadnji branik evropskih standardov in evropske demokracije.

  Romana Tomc (PPE), pisno. – Podpiram sporazum CETA, saj menim, da gre za sodoben sporazum, ki ponuja zelo dobro podlago za sodelovanje, brez nevarnosti, da se znižajo evropski standardi.

To ne ocenjujem le na podlagi splošnih ocen, ampak na podlagi tega, da sem sporazum tudi podrobno pregledala. Razumem zaskrbljenost ljudi glede ohranitve evropskih standardov, pridobljenih pravic in vpliva korporacij, vendar so skrbi odveč.

V preteklem letu je ostalo očitno, da pri nasprotovanju CETI ne gre toliko za vsebino, ki je mnogi sploh ne poznajo, ampak bolj za vprašanje nasprotovanja globalizaciji in širjenje populizma. Nevarno bi bilo, da bi se EU gospodarsko zaprla sama vase. Z odpravo carin bo na primer mogoče kupovati izdelke na e-bayu brez dodatnih stroškov. Diplome, ki so pridobljene v Sloveniji, bodo veljale brez dodatnega preverjanja, podjetja, ki svojo priložnost iščejo z izvozom na kanadski trg, pa bodo poslovala z manj birokratskimi ovirami.

Protekcionizem, monopoli in politika izolacije v globalnem svetu ne prinašajo pozitivnih izidov, kvečjemu nasprotno, povzročajo nepopravljivo škodo gospodarstvu ter blaginji evropskih državljanov.

(The sitting was suspended for a few moments)

(Noisy protests in the public gallery)

PRESIDENZA DELL'ON. ANTONIO TAJANI
Presidente

5. Priekšsēdētāja paziņojums

Presidente. – Oggi siamo chiamati ad esprimerci anche sull’accordo economico e commerciale con il Canada. È stato un processo lungo e non privo di ostacoli. Credo che sia stata manifestata la posizione contraria. Questo Parlamento è una casa di vetro e le regole devono essere rispettate da tutti. Ci sono stati molti che si sono espressi contro questo accordo. Molti cittadini hanno manifestato fuori da quest’Aula per esprimere le loro idee. L’importante è che si rispettino sempre le regole e che si rispettino le idee degli altri.
Il Parlamento deve essere protagonista. Il mio impegno è quello di fare in modo che le decisioni prese da quest’Aula permettano al Parlamento europeo di essere al centro dell’attività politica, perché i cittadini che noi tutti rappresentiamo debbono sapere che i loro rappresentanti difendono i loro interessi.

Come al solito, io non voterò, non perché io non abbia le mie idee ma perché, a mio giudizio, la posizione del Presidente deve essere la posizione adottata dal Parlamento.

  James Carver (EFDD). – Mr President, ahead of such a controversial vote I thought it might be quite nice to break the tense atmosphere here with some good news and point out that on 6 February 2017 Her Majesty the Queen celebrated her sapphire jubilee: 65 years on the throne in the United Kingdom. I think colleagues would like to join me in paying their respects to Her Majesty the Queen, especially colleagues from the Commonwealth, from Malta and from Cyprus.

  Elena Valenciano (S&D). – Es solo una pregunta, señor presidente, porque no he entendido. Es una pregunta: ¿usted no va a votar hoy o no va a votar nunca?

  Presidente. – Non ho mai votato come vicepresidente e non voterò mai quando presiederò la seduta. È una mia scelta personale, lo potrei fare, ma la posizione del Presidente deve essere la posizione del Parlamento.

6. Delegāciju sastāvs (sk. protokolu)

7. Balsošanas laiks

  Presidente. – L’ordine del giorno reca il turno di votazioni.

(Per i risultati delle votazioni e altri dettagli che le riguardano: vedasi processo verbale)

7.1. ES un Kanādas visaptverošs ekonomikas un tirdzniecības nolīgums (A8-0009/2017 - Artis Pabriks) (balsošana)

7.2. ES un Kanādas visaptveroša ekonomikas un tirdzniecības nolīguma (CETA) noslēgšana (B8-0141/2017, B8-0142/2017, B8-0143/2017, B8-0144/2017, B8-0145/2017, B8-0146/2017) (balsošana)

7.3. ES un Kanādas stratēģiskās partnerības nolīgums (A8-0028/2017 - Charles Tannock) (balsošana)

7.4. ES un Mongolijas pamatnolīgums par partnerību un sadarbību (A8-0382/2016 - Helmut Scholz) (balsošana)

- Prima della votazione:

  Helmut Scholz, rapporteur. – Mr President, dear colleagues, I want to draw your attention to the forthcoming file, the partnership agreement with Mongolia, which has been negotiated and concluded, and finally today we can give consent to this agreement. Unfortunately, we did not have the chance to discuss the content, and I want to draw your attention in particular to the fact that we need the opening of a representation of the European Union in Mongolia to accompany the future cooperation and political, economic and cultural relationship with this important country in Asia.

7.5. ES un Mongolijas pamatnolīgums par partnerību un sadarbību (rezolūcija) (A8-0383/2016 - Helmut Scholz) (balsošana)

7.6. Līgums par tirdzniecību ar civilajiem gaisa kuģiem (pielikumā pievienotais produktu saraksts) (A8-0007/2017 - Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández) (balsošana)

7.7. Emisiju izmaksefektīva samazināšana un investīcijas mazoglekļa risinājumos (A8-0003/2017) (balsošana)

- Dopo la votazione:

  Ian Duncan, rapporteur. – Mr President, I would like to thank all my colleagues who helped us get to this point. There is an expression in the English language, which is called ‘squeaky bum time’. I think we have lived through that today and yesterday and for several months. I would now like to request a mandate to refer this back to committee in order to begin interinstitutional negotiations.

(La richiesta di rinvio in commissione è approvata)

7.8. Iebildumu izteikšana saskaņā ar Reglamenta 105. panta 3. punktu: regulatīvie tehniskie standarti par pozīciju limitu piemērošanu preču atvasinātajiem instrumentiem (B8-0139/2017, B8-0147/2017, B8-0148/2017) (balsošana)

- Prima della votazione:

  Anneliese Dodds (S&D). – Mr President, I am very sorry to take up 60 seconds of your time, but I think it is essential people in this Chamber know what they are about to vote on. Charities, religious groups and many businesses support rejection of this technical standard because they are concerned about the impact of speculation on food commodity prices. Many of you will know that those spikes in food commodity prices have been linked to famine in some countries, pushing millions of people into poverty. We are asking for a very small change to tighten up rules. National regulators will still have the power to loosen those rules if they have to, and farmers who use derivative markets to hedge their bets are accepted. Please, whatever group you are in, reject these technical standards.

– Dopo la votazione sulla proposta di risoluzione del gruppo socialista:

  Markus Ferber (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen und liebe Kollegen. Ich will nur darauf aufmerksam machen, dass zur Ablehnung die qualifizierte Mehrheit notwendig ist. Deswegen ist Stimmengleichheit auch noch weit weg von der qualifizierten Mehrheit, und deswegen macht es auch keinen Sinn, darüber jetzt zu diskutieren.

7.9. 2016. gada ziņojums par Albāniju (A8-0023/2017 - Knut Fleckenstein) (balsošana)

7.10. 2016. gada ziņojums par Bosniju un Hercegovinu (A8-0026/2017 - Cristian Dan Preda) (balsošana)

7.11. Eiropas ekonomikas politikas koordinēšanas pusgads: 2017. gada izaugsmes pētījums (A8-0039/2017 - Gunnar Hökmark) (balsošana)

7.12. Eiropas ekonomikas politikas koordinēšanas pusgads: nodarbinātības un sociālie aspekti 2017. gada izaugsmes pētījumā (A8-0037/2017 - Yana Toom) (balsošana)

7.13. Vienotā tirgus pārvaldība saistībā ar 2017. gada Eiropas pusgadu (A8-0016/2017 - Antonio López-Istúriz White) (balsošana)

7.14. Banku savienība — 2016. gada ziņojums (A8-0019/2017 - Danuta Maria Hübner) (balsošana)

7.15. Bioloģiskie zema riska pesticīdi (B8-0140/2017) (balsošana)

  Presidente. – Con questo si conclude il turno di votazioni.

PRZEWODNICTWO: RYSZARD CZARNECKI
Wiceprzewodniczący

8. Balsojumu skaidrojumi

8.1. ES un Kanādas visaptverošs ekonomikas un tirdzniecības nolīgums (A8-0009/2017 - Artis Pabriks)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – Hr. formand! Da jeg skulle ind i Parlamentet i morges, lå der en masse unge mennesker på jorden herude foran indgangen og demonstrerede. Og jeg vil sige, at det synes jeg var temmeligt opløftende. Alt den stund, at når unge mennesker sidder på gaden i køer, så er det oftest, fordi de sidder og venter på en iPhone eller et eller andet, men her der er det nogen, som valgte at stå op – eller rettere at lægge sig ned – for en politisk idé, som de tror på. Det synes jeg er al ære og respekt værd. Men når det er sagt, så stopper enigheden så også. For jeg har valgt at stemme for CETA-aftalen, og det gør jeg simpelthen, fordi jeg som udgangspunkt synes, at frihandel er godt. Den er endnu bedre, når det er sådan, at den er reguleret. Det er min opfattelse, at både hvad angår retssystemet, hvad angår beskyttelse af forbrugere og miljø og hele den politiske åbne proces, der har været om denne aftale, så står vi i dag med verdens bedste frihandelsaftale. Og i en tid, hvor vi har en præsident Trump, som forsøger sig med at isolere og med protektionisme, da synes jeg, at det skridt, vi har taget i dag fra europæisk hold og fra canadisk hold, er det helt rigtigt signal at sende til omverdenen.

  Igor Šoltes (Verts/ALE). – Torej, CETA ni v interesu ljudi, pač pa je v interesu kapitala, ki vlada politiki, in to se je danes pokazalo tudi na današnjem glasovanju. Danes je Evropski parlament pustil na cedilu Evropejce, ki so glasno protestirali, tudi tu pred Evropskim parlamentom, proti sporazumom, ki ogrožajo tudi okolje, ki pravzaprav posegajo v prihodnost tudi generacij, ki šele prihajajo.

In seveda z argumenti, ki ne zdržijo. Tak sporazum ne bo prinesel gospodarske rasti, celo še več, iz izkušenj, ki jih ima Kanada s podobnim sporazumom z Ameriko pomeni izgubo delovnih mest in tveganje na mnogih področjih, tudi na področju okolja, delavskih in socialnih pravic.

Sedaj so na vrsti nacionalni parlamenti in upam, da bo tudi slovenski med njimi, ki se bo postavil na zemljevid branika prihodnosti naših generacij.

  Vicky Ford (ECR). – Mr President, removing barriers to trade boosts growth, encourages innovation, raises wages and gives consumers greater choices, and in the case of the EU-Canada deal it even gives us cheaper chocolate. This is a good deal. But the Canada deal is not the best template for the future relationship between the UK and Europe, as our own trade is much more sophisticated and intertwined, especially in key 21st—century economic sectors. High product standards underpinned by the mutual recognition principle is what this relationship is based on, and I hope that the UK-EU deal will be a much more advanced and future-looking partnership.

  Момчил Неков (S&D). – Г-н Председател, аз гласувах против СЕТА, защото не смятам, че тя е в интерес на България. Години наред земеделието в страната се свива. С падането на вносните квоти и на вносните мита за Канада българското производство най-вероятно само ще получи допълнителна конкуренция. Във вътрешния и в европейския пазар сериозна част от продуктите са с преходни квоти, например за телешко и свинско месо са пряка заплаха за тези сектори в България. Също така нито един български продукт, защитен с географско значение, не е включен в СЕТА. Техните производители не са предпазени от имитация и злоупотреба на канадския пазар.

Още повече, че отделно от това Канада е петият производител на ГМО храни в света. В тази връзка Европейската комисия твърди, че канадските храни ще трябва да спазват европейското законодателство. Но това означава да се обозначават храните. Това не означава, че тези храни нямат да бъдат разпространявани. Те ще бъдат разпространявани неограничено и тези храни ще се купуват от най-бедните слоеве в Европа, включително и от българи, и от български пенсионери.

  Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, he dicho «no» al CETA porque se perderán más de doscientos mil puestos de trabajo en la Unión Europea. He dicho «no» al CETA porque aumentarán las desigualdades, caerán los salarios y aumentará el desempleo de larga duración. He dicho «no» al CETA porque se desequilibran las relaciones laborales en favor de las multinacionales, que tendrán tribunales de arbitraje para atacar los derechos de los trabajadores. He dicho «no» al CETA porque Canadá es un país que ni siquiera ha firmado el Convenio de la OIT sobre el derecho a la negociación colectiva.

Y no soy yo quien lo dice: fue este Parlamento cuando votó su Resolución sobre el empleo y el CETA. Lamento que hoy ignore sus propias palabras y prefiera defender a las grandes multinacionales antes que a los propios trabajadores y trabajadoras. La lucha sigue y no nos rendiremos. ¡No al CETA, no al TISA y no al TTIP!

  Marina Albiol Guzmán (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, hoy no es un buen día: hoy se acaba de aprobar aquí en el Parlamento Europeo el CETA, el Acuerdo con Canadá.

Nosotras, desde la izquierda europea, hemos votado «no» pero, claro, aun así, se ha aprobado con 408 votos a favor del Partido Popular Europeo, de los liberales y la gran mayoría de socialdemócratas, incluido el PSOE. La gran coalición funciona aquí a la perfección. Pero no hemos perdido esta batalla, porque esto acaba de empezar.

Ahora el CETA debe ser ratificado, debe ser votado en todos los Estados miembros y es ahí donde tenemos que redoblar nuestros esfuerzos. Esto solo lo vamos a parar si somos miles, millones en las calles, organizadas, las fuerzas políticas y sociales de toda Europa y de Canadá juntas.

Por eso, esto es una llamada más a participar en las campañas que están organizadas contra el CETA, contra el TTIP y contra el TiSA. Vamos a seguir en esta lucha, y como siempre, desde Izquierda Unida, también estaremos ahí.

  Diane James (NI). – Mr President, today, in the face of absolute commercial trade logic, the EU Parliament actually capitulated and gave away a huge amount in terms of what is common sense in trade policy. Everything about trade policy is about generating jobs and protecting people; it is not about succumbing to lobbyists and to bigger principles from the big corporates. But that is what we gave away today and, in doing so, the United Kingdom may well have given away the protection that the National Health Service has enjoyed.

Indisputably, what was also sanctioned today was the investment and court system being brought into play. That is going to allow big corporates to sue governments if they want to. Is that really the future for trade policy across Europe? I do not think it is. So today a very, very disappointing decision by this Chamber.

  Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Mr President, the EU is currently struggling with multiple crises, one of them being the new trends of protectionism that we see around the world, particularly from the Trump administration. Today has been different. Today, the European Parliament has been able to send a united strong signal to the world, a signal that we want to uphold the post-war consensus of openness and free trade. I am therefore very proud to have supported CETA today. It is an act of resistance against Mr Trump’s new administration. It is an ambitious, modern, progressive deal that will, when it enters into force, abolish over 98% of the tariffs still in place today. It will open bidders for a public procurement on EU businesses, and it will also protect our environmental and social standards. Today, we have taken a good step. We should continue in that way.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, voting ‘no’ to CETA was a most difficult vote for me. I come from a small open economy, and I am in favour of free trade. Certainly in Ireland we need to trade in order to survive and thrive economically. I listened to the debate this morning and I heard people say, what about the geopolitical situation? The EU, of which I am a full supporter, is under attack from both inside and outside, and if we cannot do a deal with those decent Canadians, who can we do a deal with? Well, all of those arguments are valid, but you cannot vote on a very detailed trade deal on your gut feelings only. You must vote on the essential elements that are in the deal.

There are many elements I could comment on, but in my limited time I will mention just one, and that is the inclusion of investor courts in this deal. In one of his first addresses to this Parliament, President Juncker said: ‘My Commission will not accept that the jurisdiction of courts in the EU Member States be limited by special regimes for investor-to-state disputes’. Yet that is precisely what we have in this agreement. And just as President Junker would not accept it, neither can I.

  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – Monsieur le Président, j’ai voté contre l’accord UE-Canada que tout le monde connaît sous le nom de «CETA».

En effet, contrairement à ce que répète la Commission comme un mantra, ce n’est pas un bon accord. Il est dangereux pour notre agriculture et la préservation de l’intérêt général. Les multinationales pourront contester les lois sociales ou environnementales qu’elles jugeraient potentiellement nuisibles à leur profit – qu’importe d’ailleurs, à cet égard, le nom du tribunal.

Il est aussi dangereux pour les services publics. Il ne fait que rééquilibrer une situation aberrante de réciprocité ou plutôt de manque de réciprocité, jusqu’à présent, dans l’accès aux marchés publics.

Il est antidémocratique du fait de l’opacité de sa négociation et du rôle quasi législatif illégitime donné au comité mixte, mais aussi parce que la majeure partie de cet accord, pourtant mixte, entrera en vigueur dans quelques semaines sans attendre l’avis des parlements nationaux nécessaire à sa ratification.

Sur ce sujet comme tant d’autres, le fossé entre les élites autoproclamées et les peuples ne cesse de se creuser.

  Xabier Benito Ziluaga (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, lo que hemos vivido hoy en esta Cámara es un esperpento. Los propios diputados y diputadas a este Parlamento votando en contra de este Parlamento, votando en contra de la democracia. Han votado que esta Cámara y el resto de Parlamentos nacionales y locales pierdan su poder, pierdan su soberanía para dársela al negocio, para dársela a los lobbies.

¿Cómo? Con el CETA, un tratado de libre comercio que antepone el beneficio privado a las personas y al planeta, que creará su propia justicia y que herirá de muerte a las pymes y a los pequeños agricultores y ganaderos.

Populares, liberales, socialistas de pegatina que votaron a favor: la semana que viene se os llenará la boca diciendo que necesitamos más Europa, pero vuestro modelo de Europa es un precipicio y la gente no va a seguirles a su precipicio. Más de tres millones y medio de firmas, más de dos mil municipios declarados libres de CETA. Este tratado no verá la luz. La gente lo va a enterrar para siempre a su paso por los Parlamentos nacionales.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, dilema je relativno jednostavna - Trudeau ili Trump, slobodna trgovina ili protekcionizam?

Kada sam nedavno čuo kako gospodin Trump govori o tome kako će biti manje automobila proizvedenih u Europi na američkim cestama i kako ih više ne želi vidjeti, bilo mi je jasno da će onda naši zaposlenici, naši radnici u autoindustriji u Hrvatskoj i njihovi kooperanti, koji su male tvrtke, doći u probleme. Jer će biti manje izvoza iz Europe u Sjedinjene Američke Države, i zato sam za slobodnu trgovinu.

Zato sam i za ovaj sporazum, jer sam siguran da ovakvi sporazumi omogućavaju i daju veću šansu, ne samo velikim kompanijama, već i malim i srednjim poduzećima.

  Klaus Buchner (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Ich habe gegen CETA gestimmt, weil er ein Abkommen ist, das unsere demokratischen Wurzeln wirklich angreift.

CETA ist das erste Abkommen in einer ganzen Reihe von Abkommen – wie etwa auch TiSA –, die eigentlich dazu da sind, die neoliberale Wirtschaftsform bei uns in der EU einzuführen. Sehr bald werden wir hier in diesem Haus nämlich über TiSA abstimmen. Dabei geht es immer um die gleichen Grundsätze, die Grundsätze der liberalen Wirtschaftsphilosophie. Es geht um Deregulierung, das heißt Abbau des staatlichen Einflusses, die Wirtschaft zu zügeln, es geht um Sozialabbau und es geht um Privatisierung öffentlicher Aufgaben. Damit werden unsere demokratischen Grundsätze erschüttert. Deshalb habe ich gegen CETA gestimmt.

  Agnes Jongerius (S&D). – Eigenlijk is het nog te vroeg voor een definitief oordeel over CETA. Door nu ja of nee te zeggen gaat de kans verloren om door te knokken voor een handelsakkoord dat model kan staan voor eerlijke wereldhandel. De onderhandelingen kennen nog vele open eindes.

Onder druk van onze fractie en van de samenleving is ISDS van de baan. Voor het beslechten van geschillen wordt nu gekozen voor ICS. Wij vinden dit geen perfecte oplossing, maar tegelijkertijd heeft de Commissie toegezegd door te onderhandelen om ICS om te vormen tot een internationaal publiek hof en daarmee komen ook de ruim 1300 Europese ISDS-clausules te vervallen. We wachten die ontwikkeling dus graag af.

De PvdA wil verder dat milieu- en vakorganisaties het recht krijgen om juridisch op te treden ter bescherming van arbeids- en milieunormen. Ook hier heeft de Commissie toegezegd om samen met Canada nog voor deze zomer met een sanctiesysteem te komen dat kan omgezet worden bij schendingen van deze rechten. Het oordeel van het Europese Parlement is niet het laatste oordeel over CETA. Ook de nationale parlementen komen nog aan bod. En dan weten we genoeg voor een definitief oordeel.

  Maria Lidia Senra Rodríguez (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, votei contra o acordo com o Canadá porque, embora afirmem que essas exportações nos vão salvar, deslocalizam as nossas produções e as nossas indústrias.

Quando nos dizem que vai haver produtos baratos nos mercados, estão a dizer-nos que vamos ter menos salário e que vamos ter menos ingressos na agricultura.

Votei contra o CETA porque põe a soberania dos povos nas mãos das grandes corporações transnacionais, porque põe em perigo a nossa vida, a nossa saúde, a nossa alimentação, os nossos serviços públicos, ensino, saúde, a nossa agricultura, as nossas pescas e as nossas pequenas e médias empresas.

Votei contra o CETA porque quero um futuro para nós, para as classes populares e para o nosso povo. Votei não, porque defendo o direito a decidir livremente sobre o nosso futuro, e peço que não se aplique este tratado até que os Parlamentos dos Estados digam a última palavra.

  Steven Woolfe (NI). – Mr President, free trade is something I believe it when it is fair and when it enables all the parties in each country to trade freely. But this EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is not one of free trade. It is not one that is fair. It is not one that can be fair when the corporates were the only ones invited to make agreements in secret with the Commissioners, when investors will be able to sue freely through the new Investor Court system, and when corporations will actually be invited to make the rules.

There were no protections for the National Health Service, which is vital to the United Kingdom. Wallonia opposed it and was bought off. Our parliaments do not have the opportunity to vote on it before it is in place. People emailed me in their thousands: they have been ignored. Demonstrators were dragged away in this Chamber: they have been ignored. Huge corporates and wealthy bureaucrats won today. The people, democracy and trade lost.

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem hlasoval pro tuto dohodu o volném obchodu. Jsem velmi rád, že jsem byl u tohoto historického hlasování, a jsem přesvědčen, že tato dohoda povede k posílení obchodních vztahů mezi Evropskou unií a Kanadou. Já jsem ostatně příznivcem obecně principů volného obchodu, jsem odpůrcem cel a jiných obchodních bariér, proti kterým bychom jako Evropská unie měli vystupovat a bojovat.

Ostatně Evropská unie, jedna z myšlenek naší integrace, je právě volný pohyb zboží, služeb, kapitálu a osob, a tato dohoda do naší filozofie, naší spolupráce svobodných právních států zapadá. Jsem tedy velmi rád, že tato dohoda byla přijata a doufám, že se naplní odhady, že povede ke zvýšení obchodu mezi Evropskou unií a Kanadou, a to až o 20 %, a že přínos bude v řádech miliard eur pro obě strany a že povede k většímu množství volných pracovních míst, nikoliv k tomu, čím nás straší levice, že naopak pracovní místa ubydou.

  Marek Jurek (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Orędownicy CETA mówią, jak powiedział sprawozdawca rekomendujący zalecenie, że Kanada jest nam bliższa niż niektóre państwa Europy. Oczywiście ja bardzo podziwiam naród Kanady i jego udział w dwóch wojnach światowych po naszej stronie. To jest państwo, które jest z nami sprzymierzone. Ale kiedy słuchałem tego kolegi, to pomyślałem, że międzynarodowe koncerny ulokowane w Kanadzie są mu bliższe niż polscy czy greccy rolnicy. Tak naprawdę decyzję tę podjęto z pominięciem zasad, na które się często powołujemy. Mówimy o mniejszościach, ale czy ktoś pomyślał właśnie o rolnikach? Mówimy o równości podmiotów, a kto pomyślał o uprzywilejowaniu międzynarodowych koncernów w stosunku do naszych własnych przedsiębiorców? Mówimy o walce z populizmem, a ten traktat jest jednym wielkim dziełem populistycznego konsumpcjonizmu – dlatego głosowałem przeciw.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, dar ndóigh, mar a dúirt mé ar maidin, bhí mé i bhfabhar an tionscadail seo agus vótáil mé ar son na tuarascála agus ba mhaith liom na daoine a d’oibrigh ar an tionscadal seo ar feadh 7 mbliana a mholadh. Tá an-jab déanta acu; agus duine amháin ba mhaith liom a lua ná an Cathaoirleach ar Thoscaireacht Pharlaimint na hEorpa don Chaidreamh le Ceanada ar feadh 5 bliana, sin é an tUasal Bradbourn nach bhfuil beo a thuilleadh. Tá sé imithe ar shlí na fírinne. Ach gach cruinniú a bhí againn, bhí an t-ábhar seo ar an gclár agus bhí suim ar leith aige san ábhar seo. Ach inniu, tá dea-thoradh tagtha ar an obair a rinne sé. Bhí daoine ag déanamh agóide, agus mar sin de, agus tá sé sin go maith; ach caithfidh mé a rá gur fhreagair an Coimisinéir Malmström gach duine inniu mar d’inis sí cad atá i gceist sa chomhréiteach iontach seo.

  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem rovněž podpořil tuto dohodu o volném obchodu s Kanadou, protože podle mého názoru volný obchod, pokud mu nejsou kladeny administrativní nebo jiné překážky, prostě pomáhá. Jsem přesvědčen, že dobře zvládnutá obchodní pravidla a obchodní politika můžou naopak evropské hospodářství ještě více rozhýbat. Předpokládá se, že podle konzervativních odhadů tato dohoda při jejím vstupu v účinnost zvýší objem ekonomiky mezi těmito dvěma celky o 20 %. Ty konzervativní odhady hovoří o 12 miliardách dolarů. Odstraňuje se většina cel a poplatků. Já jsem přesvědčen, že tato dohoda nebude vést ke ztrátě zaměstnanosti, jak tvrdí levice, naopak že zaměstnanost podpoří. A rovněž jsem rád, že se podařilo ochránit i různá zeměpisná označení, jako je například české pivo nebo žatecký chmel. Takže i v tomto směru já dohodu vítám a pevně věřím, že přinese benefity, o kterých zde hovoříme.

  Zoltán Balczó (NI). – Elnök Úr! A CETA veszélyezteti az uniós normákat a környezetvédelem, az élelmiszerbiztonság, a munkajog területén. Veszélyezteti a fenntartható európai mezőgazdaságot. A beruházásvédelmi bíróságok intézménye csorbítja a tagállami szuverenitást. Az uniós kkv-k 87%-a belső piacra termel, így nem ők jutnak ki a kanadai piacra, hanem az ottani tőkeerős vállalkozások jönnek majd ide. Az USA székhelyű cégek pedig leányvállalataikon keresztül, kerülő úton, a CETA előnyöket élvezve jelenhetnek meg az uniós piacokon. Az EP honlapja büszkén hirdeti: az Európai Parlament 751 képviselője Önöket, a polgárokat képviseli. Ezért szégyen, hogy ezt a globális cégek érdekeit képviselő megállapodást ez a parlament elfogadta.

  José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, votei favoravelmente a celebração de um acordo económico e comercial global entre o Canadá e a União Europeia no reconhecimento que o Canadá é um importante parceiro e aliado comercial e de investimento para a União Europeia e que o acordo constitui um instrumento importante nos esforços da União Europeia para definir um contexto rigoroso quanto às normas do comércio mundial.

Nesta minha decisão, pesou o facto de hoje vivermos um tempo de incertezas e de ambiguidades e um recrudescimento de perigosas políticas protecionistas, que constituem um retrocesso ao sistema de comércio multilateral e bilateral e abrem uma incógnita sobre o futuro das relações comerciais.

Entendo, pois, que a União Europeia deve, assim, reforçar parcerias e modelos de cooperação mais intensas com Estados com que partilha uma comunhão de valores e interesses estratégicos.

No entanto, quero ressalvar que, em matéria ambiental, o CETA deveria ter sido mais ambicioso e consentâneo com os compromissos assumidos em Paris e até com o próprio projeto europeu em matéria de objetivos energéticos climáticos, que visam uma economia verde, sustentável, dando prioridade às energias renováveis e à luta contra as alterações climáticas.

Deveria ainda o CETA promover, de uma forma mais rigorosa, práticas agrícolas sustentáveis, uma vez que o nexo entre energia, alimentação e água é condição essencial para o bem-estar dos cidadãos, para a redução da pobreza e para o desenvolvimento sustentável.

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, já jsem podpořila dohodu s Kanadou stejně jako dalších 407 poslanců a poslankyň. Jsem ráda, že nakonec dohoda měla tak velkou podporu. Myslím si, že v této nejisté situaci potřebuje Evropská unie silného, stabilního partnera. Jsem také ráda, že tato obchodní dohoda není jen o obchodních vztazích, ale také o spolupráci v zahraniční a obranné politice, ve výzkumu, ve vzdělávání. Dohoda CETA jde nad rámec pouhého závazku k odstranění obchodních cel. Obsahuje také závazky k ochraně vysokých standardů v oblasti životního prostředí nebo pracovních podmínek, ochrany spotřebitelů a zeměpisných označení, jak už tady o tom hovořili kolegové. Dovozní kvóty a výhradu veřejného pořádku považuji za naprosto dostatečná ochranná opatření a záruky pro zajištění hospodářské soutěže.

Dámy a pánové, jsem velmi ráda, že Evropský parlament udělal tento důležitý krok.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Mr President, CETA is a landmark free trade agreement that would make both parties richer. By abolishing 98% of tariffs and other trade barriers, it would provide excellent opportunities for SMEs. It would also liberalise cross-border investment and trade in services. It would open competition for large government contracts, it would support enforcement of intellectual property rights and would facilitate mutual recognition in the extremely important services market.

Beyond the merits of the agreement itself, its adoption would also signify two essential things. It would reinforce that the EU still believes in the benefits of free trade and open markets that ensured its post-war prosperity, and that it is able to regain some of the trade negotiation credibility that it lost when it decided to give up its exclusive competence over the deal.

  Janusz Korwin-Mikke (NI). – A spoonful of tar, as the Polish proverb says, spoils a barrel of honey. There are several spoonfuls of tar in this barrel of honey. I voted for, because I like honey, but with a heavy heart. In fact, I support the position of Mr Petr Mach of the Bohemian Party of Free Citizens who proposes: dissolve the European Union, dissolve the Dominion of Canada, and let the Canadian provinces and European countries live happily under CETA .

8.2. ES un Kanādas visaptveroša ekonomikas un tirdzniecības nolīguma (CETA) noslēgšana (B8-0141/2017, B8-0142/2017, B8-0143/2017, B8-0144/2017, B8-0145/2017, B8-0146/2017)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania

  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). – Senhor Presidente, este acordo entre as partes foi um acordo muito, muito parcial. De um lado, temos três milhões e meio de pessoas que assinaram, que nos enviaram as suas assinaturas, aliás, rejeitando este acordo. Temos também mais duas mil regiões que se declaram livres do CETA e do TTIP e, do outro lado, temos as multinacionais e o lucro.

A maioria deste Parlamento decidiu escolher as multinacionais e o lucro em vez de escolher aqueles que são os interesses dos cidadãos e das cidadãs. Para além disso, teve um comportamento, diria eu, estranho. É um Parlamento que vota a favor de um acordo maioritariamente, mas que não tem posição política sobre ele. Não é capaz de fazer uma resolução política que possa expor aquela que é a posição do Parlamento. Portanto, é um Parlamento que não pensa.

Por isso mesmo, quero dizer que os cidadãos e as cidadãs vão continuar a resistir e, seguramente, os Parlamentos nacionais terão que ouvir esses cidadãos e essas cidadãs.

O jogo não acabou ainda e eu fico seguramente do lado das pessoas, não fico do lado do lucro.

  Tiziana Beghin (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il Parlamento europeo, tenuto al guinzaglio dalle multinazionali, ha appena approvato il CETA. Complimenti! Avete realizzato il primo colpo di Stato silenzioso della storia. Avete condannato i cittadini europei, eroso la sovranità e pugnalato al cuore la democrazia.

Per entrare in Parlamento questa mattina siamo tutti passati attraverso una manifestazione di centinaia di persone sdraiate davanti alle porte d'ingresso. Questa era la voce dei cittadini e non sono i primi ad opporsi al CETA. In 150 000 hanno scritto alla Commissione contro le malefiche clausole ISDS, 2 137 regioni e comuni si sono dichiarati liberi dal CETA e oltre tre milioni e mezzo di europei hanno firmato la petizione contro questo trattato, la petizione all'Unione europea con più firmatari mai realizzata.

Colleghi, voi li avete ignorati e, più che aver votato un trattato, voi avete tradito una fiducia. I vostri padroni saranno orgogliosi di voi e del vostro lavoro. Ma io, francamente, mi vergogno per tutti quanti voi.

  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, continuing my comments on the investor—state dispute courts, I want to say that we don’t have special courts to enforce workers’ rights, and we don’t have special courts to enforce citizens’ rights, yet this deal gives us special courts to enforce the rights of investors when they take on national governments. It’s also worth saying that these courts are not answerable to any national court – not even to the European Court of Justice. And I don’t believe European citizens support the inclusion of these outdated, unnecessary and – in my view – undemocratic regimes in any trade deal.

I have other significant issues with CETA. What about negative listing, where we in Ireland have one of the shortest lists when it comes to extra sectors to be excluded from liberalisation. I wonder how many of our politicians were involved in drawing up our short, miserable list of just three extra exceptions. And from an Irish perspective, the amount of beef with tariff—free access to the EU market will be very significant, and would pose significant challenges to our suckler herd. Add to that the impact of a hard Brexit with 63 million fewer consumers for tariff—free beef, and this has the potential to undermine the entire sector.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, ευθύς εξαρχής είχα τοποθετηθεί ενάντια στη συμφωνία της CETA, και γι` αυτό και καταψήφισα τη Συνολική Οικονομική και Εμπορική Συμφωνία Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης-Καναδά, όπως επίσης και τη Συμφωνία Στρατηγικής Εταιρικής Σχέσης Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης-Καναδά. Θεωρώ ότι η CETA είναι μία συμφωνία, η οποία καταστρέφει την ευρωπαϊκή γεωργία, καταστρέφει την ελληνική γεωργία, δεν προστατεύει τα προϊόντα Ονομασίας Προέλευσης, όπως είναι η ελληνική φέτα και οι ελιές Καλαμών, ανοίγει το δρόμο στα Γενετικώς Μεταλλαγμένα, διαλύει τις εργασιακές σχέσεις, εμπορευματοποιεί τα δημόσια αγαθά, όπως είναι η υγεία και η παιδεία, ανατρέπει την αρχή της πρόληψης, η οποία είναι σημαντική για την προστασία της δημόσιας υγείας, είναι στην υπηρεσία των πολυεθνικών και, ταυτόχρονα, δημιουργεί ένα παραδικαστικό σύστημα, παρακάμπτοντας τα δικαστήρια των κρατών μελών. Επιπλέον, παρακάμπτει τα Κοινοβούλια των κρατών μελών που έχουν και την εξουσία και εκεί θα δώσουμε τη μάχη για να μην περάσει η CETA.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Poštovani predsjedniče, uostalom, koga se mi to bojimo? Bojimo se Kanade, najeuropskije države izvan europskog kontinenta. Više od 75 % stanovništva Kanade ima europske korijene.

35 000 000 stanovnika, koje ima Kanada, protiv jednog tržišta od 500 000 000 stanovnika, koje ima Europska unija. Mislim da se trebamo zaista zapitati koga se to mi bojimo. Definitivno sam siguran da je slobodna trgovina unutar Europske unije, ukidanje barijera unutar Europske unije, donijela bolju ekonomsku situaciju unutar Europske unije.

I Hrvatska ima odličan rast BDP-a u zadnjih nekoliko mjeseci, godinu dana, dvije, i to upravo zato što smo postali članica Europske unije. Upravo zato što smo iskoristili slobodnu trgovinu. Zato mislim da je slobodna trgovina ona trgovina koja omogućava gospodarski rast.

8.3. ES un Kanādas stratēģiskās partnerības nolīgums (A8-0028/2017 - Charles Tannock)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania

  Miguel Urbán Crespo (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, he votado en contra del CETA porque va contra los derechos sociales y solo beneficia a las multinacionales de los dos lados del Atlántico. Más de tres millones y medio de firmas de ciudadanos europeos pidiendo votar «no» al CETA que han sido literalmente tiradas a la basura por la gran coalición del PP, el Partido Socialista y Ciudadanos, estas firmas que tenemos nosotros en nuestros escaños.

El CETA pone en venta nuestros servicios públicos, nuestra salud, nuestros hospitales, nuestros colegios y, como decían las mareas, «nuestra sanidad y nuestra escuela no se venden, se defienden». Y eso es lo que hemos hecho justamente aquí.

El CETA pone en venta nuestra democracia. Los tribunales de arbitraje privados son un golpe al Estado de Derecho que anteponen los beneficios de las corporaciones al Derecho de los Estados. El CETA y las políticas neoliberales austericidas y los recortes son el caldo de cultivo perfecto para allanar el camino a los fantasmas del fascismo como Trump o como Le Pen.

Porque nuestras vidas valen más que sus beneficios, justamente por eso, he votado contra el CETA.

  Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Powiem szczerze, że chciałem powiedzieć parę innych słów, ale mój przedmówca jednak sprowokował mnie do tego, żeby się odnieść do jego wypowiedzi. Jest to fantastyczna wypowiedź. Fantastyczna. Pan wymienił, jako ogromne zagrożenie dla Unii Europejskiej i społeczeństwa naszych państw członkowskich, wszystkie elementy, których nie ma w umowie CETA i które są wyłączone. Służba zdrowia, usługi komunalne, edukacja, kultura etc. są wyłączone. Dlatego mówiłem tutaj podczas wcześniejszego wystąpienia, że słyszymy tu kłamstwa i bzdury, ponieważ wymienia się tu kwestie i straszy się obywateli – mieszkańców Europy – sprawami, których nie ma w umowie CETA albo które są, ale zostały ograniczane, istnieją w związku z nimi gwarancje i zabezpieczenia. Dlatego bardzo się cieszę, że oczywiście oprócz kwestii, o której mówimy, także i sprawy dotyczące umowy CETA zostały załatwione pozytywnie. Można by spuentować i powiedzieć, że rozum dzisiaj nie umarł, a nacjonalizm i głupota przegrały.

  Jens Rohde (ALDE). – Hr. formand! Jeg har al ære og respekt for dem, som gerne vil gøre sig til talsmænd for de 3,5 millioner, der har leveret underskrifter, men lad være med at gøre jer til "folkets stemme", for så vil jeg gerne gøre mig til stemmen for de 496,5 millioner, der ikke har underskrevet en protest mod CETA-aftalen, og som godt ved, at dette er en aftale, som måske i virkeligheden er den bedste frihandelsaftale, vi nogensinde har set i verden. Og jeg vil gerne lige kort tage fat omkring det med det investment court system, som jo er blevet nævnt af mange som det helt store problem i denne aftale. Hertil er der bare at sige, at muligheden for at sagsøge stater jo ligger i stort set alle frihandelsaftaler i forvejen igennem det system, vi har i dag, som er et ad hoc-system. Nu får vi endelig et transparent system men en meget stringent code of conduct, og det bør være i alles interesse. Derfor et klart JA til denne aftale i dag.

  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, upravo zato što je slobodna trgovina omogućila ovakav rast naše ekonomije, europske ekonomije, praktički imamo situaciju u kojoj će se, uz odgovarajuće propise i ovaj sporazum, kanadsko gospodarstvo priključiti, na neki način, zajedničkom europskom gospodarstvu.

Multinacionalne kompanije djeluju i u Europskoj uniji, one su sveprisutne. Nemojmo zaboraviti da je naš sektor srednjeg i malog poduzetništva najvitalniji i najbolji sektor Europske unije. Upravo su to šanse zajedničkoga prožimanja naših gospodarstava, u tome vidim veliku šansu za srednja i mala poduzeća koja djeluju na području Europske unije i u Kanadi.

Vidljivo je da su krajnja ljevica i krajnja desnica protiv ovog sporazuma. Možda to nije čak ni tako čudno jer nemaju nikakvu ozbiljnu odgovornost nigdje, pa ni ovdje u Europskoj uniji, jer nigdje ne upravljaju, niti su na vlasti. Zato, ta krajnja neofašistička desnica i krajnja neokomunistička ljevica, zaista u ovom trenutku ne zaslužuju da ih slijedimo.

  Michał Marusik (ENF). – Panie Przewodniczący! Otóż przeżyliśmy tutaj spektakl popisów demagogii i popisów kłamstw propagandowych. Nie była to raczej debata polityczna, a szkoda. Tym bardziej szkoda, że mainstream polityczny, parlamentarny niejako wierzy w kłamstwa własnej propagandy. Oni są świetnymi propagandzistami, ale wiara w te ich kłamstwa propagandy szkodzi debacie politycznej i jej skutkom. Europa na tym bardzo dużo straci. Gdyby to była umowa o wolnym handlu, to miałaby jedno zdanie: „Zakazuje się ingerencji w kontrakty gospodarcze zawierane między obywatelami i firmami”, koniec. A jak się tworzy kilka tysięcy stron aktów prawnych, to tam są same nieszczęścia zaszyte i Europa za te nieszczęścia zapłaci, i to zapłaci drogo – to jest właśnie poczucie braku odpowiedzialności za losy europejskich państw i narodów. Źródłem nieszczęścia jest brak odpowiedzialności w tej Izbie, emanujący z tej Izby. Ja mam nadzieję, że opamiętają się europejskie parlamenty poszczególnych państw i że do takiego nieszczęścia nie dojdzie.

  Nathan Gill (EFDD). – Mr President, I voted against CETA today. CETA negotiations were done behind closed doors, between the unelected Commission and the Canadian Government. On 14 October last year, the regional parliament of Wallonia in Belgium voted to block CETA. However, two weeks later, the Canadian Prime Minister was in Belgium signing the deal with the Commission. We do not fully know what was discussed behind closed doors, as is always the case with the Commission, but we do know that the documents were signed, despite elected representatives saying ‘no’ and the people saying ‘no’. Welcome to democracy, EU style. CETA has not been designed to benefit my constituents. Instead it benefits big business and global cooperation.

8.4. Emisiju izmaksefektīva samazināšana un investīcijas mazoglekļa risinājumos (A8-0003/2017)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania

  Jens Geier (S&D). – Herr Präsident, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Ich trage als Abgeordneter aus dem Ruhrgebiet Verantwortung in einer Region, die immer noch das industrielle Herz Deutschlands ist.

Wir sind stolz darauf in dieser Region, dass es immer noch einen hohen Besatz mit Industrie gibt. Dieser hohe Industriebesatz hat sich in der Vergangenheit bewährt, weil dies die Krisenresistenz der deutschen Wirtschaft verstärkt hat. Ich bin in der Vergangenheit bei der Entscheidung, die uns ins Haus stand – hinsichtlich der Reform des Emissionshandelssystems – mit großen Sorgen aus Betriebsräten und Gewerkschaften konfrontiert worden. Diese Sorgen habe ich heute in meinem Abstimmungsverhalten sehr ernst genommen, weil es uns darum geht, die Planbarkeit von Investitionen in der Zukunft und damit die Sicherheit von Arbeitsplätzen unserer Region sicherzustellen.

Mir ist klar: Klimaschutz und der Schutz industrieller Arbeitsplätze, das muss Hand in Hand gehen – das geht nicht gegeneinander –, und so habe ich mich heute in den Abstimmungen verhalten.

  Vicky Ford (ECR). – Mr President, policies on energy and emissions are areas where countries need to work together. Carbon emissions are a real danger and the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) has not worked. This is a good review: it focuses on those industries which produce the most emissions and it has simplified the rules for smaller companies. It will give industry the incentive to modernise and innovate and will help European countries to live up to their international commitments.

However, it is important that Europe remains a place in which it is attractive for industry to be located, and we must not simply export our energy-intensive sectors to other parts of the world. The tax on our borders was not the right solution and it is good to see that part of the package rejected. I am pleased that this work has been led by a British negotiator. I wish him and the rest of the team the best of the luck at the next negotiating stage, and I hope that in a post-Brexit world, the UK and EU will continue to work together on areas of mutual interest, like this.

  Μαρία Σπυράκη (PPE). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω σήμερα το Σώμα για την υιοθέτηση της τροπολογίας 149 που δίνει στην πατρίδα μου στην Ελλάδα τη δυνατότητα να επωφεληθεί από τη χρηματοδότηση του Ταμείου Εκσυγχρονισμού, στο πλαίσιο της αναθεώρησης της οδηγίας για το Σύστημα Εμπορίας εναέριων ρύπων. Ιδιαιτέρως θα ήθελα να ευχαριστήσω τους 27 συναδέλφους του Ευρωπαϊκού Λαϊκού Κόμματος, χωρίς τους οποίους δεν θα κατορθώναμε να συγκεντρώσουμε τις 38 υπογραφές για να γίνει σήμερα η τροπολογία απόφαση του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου. Χάρη στην τροπολογία 149, η Ελλάδα μπορεί να συμμετάσχει στο Ταμείο Εκσυγχρονισμού και έτσι διορθώνεται η στρέβλωση, ενθαρρύνεται στην πράξη η σταδιακή απεξάρτηση από το λιγνίτη και μπορούμε, με περισσότερη άνεση, να συμμετάσχουμε στην προσπάθεια επίτευξης των στόχων για την αντιμετώπιση της κλιματικής αλλαγής. Κυρίως όμως έχουμε την έμπρακτη αλληλεγγύη των συναδέλφων μας, ως απάντηση στον ευρωσκεπτικισμό και τον λαϊκισμό και σε όλους εκείνους που δεν αναγνωρίζουν ότι είμαστε στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση για να εξασφαλίσουμε την πρόοδο, την ποιότητα της ζωής μας, την ασφάλεια των πολιτών, αλλά και τις θέσεις εργασίας.

  Seán Kelly (PPE). – A Uachtaráin, caithfidh mé a rá go bhfuil mé an-sásta leis an tuarascáil seo agus leis na leasuithe ar glacadh leo agus nár glacadh leo inniu. Bhí seans agam labhairt ar an ábhar seo sa Pharlaimint oíche Dé Luain agus na pointí a luaigh mé, glacadh leo inniu. Go háirithe, ní bheimid ag easpórtáil ár n-astaíochtaí de CO2 go tíortha eile, ach ag an am céanna is féidir linn ár spriocanna maidir le COP21 agus COP22 a bhaint amach. Tá sé sin thar a bheith tábhachtach. Freisin, bhí mé sásta gur glacadh le PRODCOM in ionad NACE 4. Beidh sé sin an-tábhachtach don tionscadal déiríochta. Freisin, an meastachán cáilíochta: tá sé íslithe go dtí 0.12 in ionad 0.16, mar a mhol an Coimisiún agus tionscadal SHRINE; an t-ualach a bhí á chur orthu siúd, tá sé sin ardaithe anois. Dá bhrí sin, tá jab an-mhaith déanta ag Duncan, Belet agus De Lange agus na daoine eile a d’oibrigh ar an ábhar seo.

  Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Nie ulega wątpliwości, że Unia Europejska jest na zakręcie. Dowodem tego jest chociażby nasza wczorajsza debata, podczas której przez wiele godzin zastanawialiśmy się, jak Unia ma wyglądać w przyszłości, jak ją zmieniać, żeby była lepsza dla swoich obywateli. Rozmawiamy o skutkach kryzysu finansowego z przeszłości, o kryzysie gospodarczym państw w strefie euro, przede wszystkim oczywiście o gwałtownym i olbrzymim napływie migrantów, uchodźców do Unii Europejskiej. Staramy się odpowiedzieć na pytanie jak sobie z tymi wszystkimi zagrożeniami poradzić. Wydaje mi się, że najmniej czasu poświęcamy gospodarce. Wydaje mi się, że najmniej czasu poświęcamy przedsiębiorcom, a przecież to gospodarka daje dochód państwom członkowskim i samej Unii Europejskiej. To przedsiębiorcy tworzą miejsca pracy, dzięki którym ludzie mają z czego żyć i mogą planować swoją przyszłość. Debata na temat ETS-u potwierdza to, że nie czujemy gospodarki i nie robimy wszystkiego, aby europejska gospodarka była silna i konkurencyjna na świecie.

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Chciałabym skorzystać z okazji, by wyraźnie podkreślić, dlaczego uznałam za stosowne głosowanie przeciwko poprawkom 12 i 84 w ramach sprawozdania przyjętego przez Komisję Ochrony Środowiska w sprawie reformy systemu ETS. Poprawki te zawierały bardzo niebezpieczne zapisy w odniesieniu do funkcjonowania sektora cementowego i sektora wapienniczego. Zawierały nieakceptowalną propozycję wyłączenia tych sektorów z mechanizmu bezpłatnego przydziału uprawnień do emisji oraz objęcia obu sektorów bliżej nieokreślonym mechanizmem ochrony granic. Na takie działania i eksperymenty nie ma mojej zgody. Sektor cementowy i sektor wapienniczy stanowią ważne źródło dochodu gospodarczego w całej Unii Europejskiej. Tylko w moim kraju, w Polsce, w sektorze oraz w obsłudze sektora zatrudnionych jest około 30 tys. pracowników. Propozycje Komisji Ochrony Środowiska doprowadziłyby do drastycznego wzrostu kosztów produkcji, spadku inwestycji, niepoprawności prawnej i operacyjnej, obniżenia konkurencyjności sektora, a w konsekwencji do spadku zatrudnienia. Dlatego też głosowałam przeciwko wyłączeniu sektora cementowego i sektora wapienniczego z mechanizmu bezpłatnego przydziału uprawnień do emisji.

  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Pane předsedající, my jsme dnes odhlasovali důležitou změnu pro trh s povolenkami. Přebytek povolenek na trhu logicky vede k výraznému snížení jejich ceny, nedávno spadla cena emisní povolenky pod 4 EUR. Nemůžeme se pak divit, že efektivita fungování tohoto systému je zpochybňována. Pokud chceme, aby daný systém efektivněji fungoval, a já předpokládám, že si to všichni přejeme, musíme se logicky snažit, aby se postupně počet povolenek v oběhu určitým způsobem snížil, ovšem úměrně tomu, co unese průmysl. Proto jsem nepodpořila snížení počtu povolenek o 800 milionů, jak navrhoval výbor ENVI. Zároveň jsem ale podpořila zachování lineárního redukčního faktoru na úrovni 2,2 %, a nikoliv jeho zvýšení. Dobře si uvědomuji, že zde proti sobě stojí zájem na ochranu životního prostředí a zefektivnění systému fungování povolenek proti udržitelnosti podnikání v některých odvětvích těžkého průmyslu. Myslím, že jsme dnes nalezli vyvážené řešení. Proto jsem hlasovala pro.

  Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący, Szanowni Państwo! Głosowałam przeciwko ETS-owi w tym kształcie, który został dzisiaj przez Państwa zaproponowany. Dlaczego? Dlatego, że on jest niezgodny z zapisami traktatowymi, które dają państwom członkowskim prawo do kształtowania swojego koszyka energetycznego. Państwo, przegłosowując limity na poziomie 450 gram na kilowatogodzinę, chcą doprowadzić do wyłączenia możliwości finansowania modernizacji wszelkich elektrowni węglowych, a więc nie trzeba zmieniać Traktatu, żeby coś wyjąć z tego Traktatu. Można takimi sytuacjami jak dzisiejsza pozbawić państwo członkowskie tego, co jest mu w Traktacie zapewnione i zagwarantowane. Państwo powołują się często na ustalenia paryskie. Czyżbyście zatem Państwo zapomnieli, że w Paryżu doszło do końcowego ustalenia tylko dlatego, że nie wpisano do niego dekarbonizacji? Dziś jesteśmy świadkami dekarbonizacji. Spowodowali Państwo, że żadna instalacja węglowa nie będzie mogła skorzystać z funduszy przeznaczonych na modernizację, a nawet większość instalacji gazowych i, co ciekawe, tylko nieliczne instalacje gazowe produkowane w Niemczech. Tak się odbywa lobbing. Czy tego chcemy? Czy chcemy forsować jedne instalacje kosztem drugich, pozbawiając państwo członkowskie zapewnienia swoim obywatelom godnych warunków życia? Bo poprzez te regulacje państwo doprowadzą do pogłębienia ubóstwa energetycznego, do ucieczki emisji, a tym samym do wzrostu bezrobocia w Unii Europejskiej, a szczególnie w moim państwie, w mojej ojczyźnie, w Polsce.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, βασικό αίτημα της Ελλάδας εδώ και χρόνια ήταν να εξαιρεθεί από το σύστημα εμπορίας δικαιωμάτων αερίων ρύπων και τούτο διότι όσες χώρες είχαν ΑΕΠ χαμηλότερο του 60% μέχρι το 2013 πήραν αυτήν την εξαίρεση, όπως η Βουλγαρία και η Πολωνία. Η Ελλάδα ζητούσε αυτή την εξαίρεση. Κατέθεσα λοιπόν την τροπολογία υπ` αριθμόν 162 που όριζε το 2014 έτος βάσης, όταν και η Ελλάδα είχε ΑΕΠ χαμηλότερο του 60%. Αυτή θα ήταν μια ρύθμιση που θα ανακούφιζε τη ΔΕΗ, η οποία πληρώνει 400 εκατομμύρια EUR το χρόνο σε δικαιώματα αερίων ρύπων και θα της έδινε ταυτόχρονα τη δυνατότητα να προχωρήσει μέχρι το 2030 συνεχίζοντας να αξιοποιεί και το λιγνίτη που είναι βασικός παράγοντας για τη λειτουργία της ΔΕΗ. Όμως υπάρχει ένα ζήτημα: η υπ` αριθμόν 162 τροπολογία μου δεν μπήκε σε ψηφοφορία, διότι θεωρήθηκε ότι καλύφθηκε από την υπ` αριθμόν 89 τροπολογία, τροπολογία όμως που δεν έχει καμία σχέση με την τροπολογία που κατέθεσα, αφού η δική μου τροπολογία αναφέρεται στο 2014 και η τροπολογία που ψηφίστηκε αναφέρεται στο 2013. Για τούτο ευθύνεται η νομοθετική ρύθμιση εδώ στην Ολομέλεια και θεωρώ απαράδεκτο το ότι δεν τέθηκε σε ψηφοφορία η τροπολογία που καταθέσαμε, η τροπολογία υπ` αριθμό 162.

  Steven Woolfe (NI). – Mr President, there is the law of unintended consequences, and then there is the law of unintended consequences as it applies to the European Union in its rule-making capacity. Here today we have a policy that says we want to try and reduce emissions and bring low-carbon investments to Europe, but the law of unintended consequences is very clear, in a very small rule that you heard about in this Chamber today from Members from Poland to Ireland to Greece and now the United Kingdom: the border adjustment mechanism will simply drive jobs out of the United Kingdom and across Europe.

We have in the British ceramic sector an industry of some 5 000 people. In concrete we are talking about 15 000 jobs and in industries such as our building industry 2.93 million jobs. All of them are under threat from the fact that this regulation will increase their costs and, as the Commission says, potentially close down 20 factories across Europe. It is a bad law and, once again, it has been made here.

  Janusz Korwin-Mikke (NI). – Panie Przewodniczący! Głosowałem przeciwko, ponieważ uważam te ograniczenia za skandal. Chodzi o to, żeby energię produkować w sposób możliwie najtańszy, bo dzięki temu korzysta konsument, dzięki temu tworzą się miejsca pracy – bo jak ludzie mniej wydadzą na energię, zostanie im więcej pieniędzy na kupienie czegoś innego i wtedy powstają miejsca pracy. To się również odbija na Śląsku, który tutaj reprezentuję, i na Zagłębiu Ruhry, które jest źle reprezentowane przez panią Merkel.

Proszę państwa, co więcej chciałem zauważyć jedną podstawową rzecz. Rośliny potrzebują emisji, potrzebują dwutlenku węgla, potrzebują ciepła. Rośliny rosną z dwutlenku węgla, rosną z ciepła. Ciepło i dwutlenek węgla są potrzebne roślinom. Kto nie chce dwutlenku węgla, ten zabija rośliny. Chcę przypomnieć, że w tej chwili, po zwycięstwie Donalda Trumpa już trwa śledztwo i ludzie z amerykańskiej Komisji Oceanów i Powietrza pójdą niedługo do więzień za fałszowanie wyników badań, które spowodowały, że na konferencji paryskiej podjęto takie decyzje, jakie podjęto. I tu ci wszyscy w Europie też pójdą do więzień.

  Eleonora Evi (EFDD). – Mr President, we, the Five Star Movement, have always been very critical of ETS as we believe that the system simply does not work. Considering that we had to play this game again, we played it hard, supporting all the amendments to increase the ambition of the system as much as possible, such as ‘rebasing’, meaning adjusting the starting level to actual emissions in order to get rid of the huge surplus pollution permits and adopting the mechanism to include importers of cement and clinker. We do not believe that the inclusion of the maritime sector in the ETS would be a good deal for the environment. Shipping is a sector that has a big margin of improvement in terms of reducing its emissions by pushing the transition to less carbon fossil fuels in a stronger manner, rather than starting a market-based approach again. Nevertheless, the amendments have been rejected, and therefore we voted against the report.

I hope the EU will realise soon that trying to fix the ETS again will not bring any real reduction in emissions and any real investment in clean production. A new and alternative solution could finally be debated and hopefully adopted and implemented. The sooner this happens, the better for the climate.

8.5. 2016. gada ziņojums par Albāniju (A8-0023/2017 - Knut Fleckenstein)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε πρόεδρε, καταψήφισα την έκθεση του 2016 για την Αλβανία διότι, καταρχάς, διαφωνώ κάθετα με οποιαδήποτε προοπτική ένταξης της Αλβανίας στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και, δεύτερον, διότι η έκθεση δεν είναι ισορροπημένη. Η έκθεση μεροληπτεί υπέρ των Τιράνων διότι δεν αναφέρει βασικά ζητήματα, όπως είναι η συνεχής παραβίαση των δικαιωμάτων της Ελληνικής εθνικής μειονότητας της Βορείου Ηπείρου, οι παραβιάσεις που γίνονται από την πλευρά της κυβέρνησης της Αλβανίας, οι κατασχέσεις περιουσιών, οι κατεδαφίσεις Εκκλησιών, οι διώξεις, οι απειλές και κυρίως οι μετακινήσεις πληθυσμών στην περιοχή της Βορείου Ηπείρου προκειμένου να αλλοιωθεί η πληθυσμιακή σύνθεση. Επιπλέον, τα Τίρανα και η Αλβανία προωθούν αλυτρωτική πολιτική και καλλιεργούν την δήθεν αντίληψη της Μεγάλης Αλβανίας, μέσω της διεκδίκησης εδαφών τα οποία ανήκουν στην Ελλάδα. Αξιοποιούν τους Τσάμηδες για να δημιουργήσουν προβλήματα, τους Τσάμηδες οι οποίοι είναι εγκληματίες πολέμου και έχουν καταδικαστεί από δικαστήρια της Ελλάδος, τα Ειδικά Δικαστήρια Δωσιλόγων, γιατί ήταν συνεργάτες των SS κατά τη διάρκεια της γερμανικής κατοχής στην Ελλάδα.

8.6. 2016. gada ziņojums par Bosniju un Hercegovinu (A8-0026/2017 - Cristian Dan Preda)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania

  Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Herr talman! Jag välkomnar de framsteg som Bosnien och Hercegovina har gjort under föregående år och hoppas att landet fortsätter på sin väg till EU:s framtida medlemskap. Därför tycker jag också att kommissionens godkännande av ansökan skickar rätt signal.

Jag skulle därför också vilja igen påpeka att i ett land med 14 parlament, 3 presidenter och 130 ministrar är allt tal om ytterligare federalisering nonsens som EU inte bör ägna sig att stödja.

Bosniens egentliga problem är att nationalistiska politiker ostraffat har kunnat hålla på i 20 år. Man har låtit dem hålla på, trots att det finns både medel och sätt att stoppa det. Så nu efter 20 år börjar också allt fler tänka ”Men kanske vi också ska föra den politiken, det lönar sig ju”.

Om EU ska hjälpa Bosnien med deras närmande till unionen bör vi minska stödet till nationalistiska och separatistiska krafter och istället främja skapandet av en fungerande rättsstat, satsa på att hjälpa landet att bli en fungerande rättsstat. Då kommer många av dagens problem att försvinna.

8.7. Eiropas ekonomikas politikas koordinēšanas pusgads: 2017. gada izaugsmes pētījums (A8-0039/2017 - Gunnar Hökmark)

8.8. Eiropas ekonomikas politikas koordinēšanas pusgads: nodarbinātības un sociālie aspekti 2017. gada izaugsmes pētījumā (A8-0037/2017 - Yana Toom)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania

  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Pomimo tego, że miniony rok okazał się stosunkowo dobry dla europejskiej gospodarki i sytuacji na rynku pracy, to jednak nie powinniśmy zapominać o wciąż nierozwiązywanych problemach. Wydaje się, że z punktu widzenia długookresowych konsekwencji największym wyzwaniem jest wciąż wysokie bezrobocie wśród osób młodych. W całej Unii Europejskiej ponad 4 miliony ludzi w wieku 15–24 lat pozostaje bez pracy, a ci, którzy ją mają, bardzo często muszą pracować poniżej swoich kwalifikacji w niepełnym wymiarze czasu lub w tzw. elastycznych formach zatrudnienia. Sześć i pół miliona osób w tym przedziale wiekowym należy z kolei do kategorii NEET, co niejednokrotnie oznacza, że niełatwo będzie ich przywrócić na rynek pracy lub skłonić do podniesienia swoich kwalifikacji. Blisko 30% młodych osób nie ma pracy dłużej niż rok i trzeba będzie podjąć szczególnie intensywne działania aktywizujące ich zawodowo. Te wszystkie dane pokazują, że w przyszłości pojawią się ogromne problemy dla systemów zabezpieczenia społecznego, ale konieczność intensyfikacji działań przez publiczne i prywatne służby zatrudnienia jest bezwzględnie potrzebna. Rośnie w Europie całe pokolenie, którego znaczna część nigdy nie pracowała lub nie będzie miała stabilnego zatrudnienia, dlatego też konieczne jest podjęcie odpowiednich działań na wszystkich poziomach, w tym również Unii Europejskiej. Ponadto my, jako Parlament Europejski, musimy dopilnować w czasie przeglądu wieloletnich ram finansowych tego, aby zostało zagwarantowane odpowiednie i stabilne finansowanie wszystkich inicjatyw służących poprawie sytuacji młodych osób na rynku pracy. Dlatego też poparłam sprawozdanie dotyczące aspektów społecznych i zatrudnienia w rocznej analizie wzrostu na rok 2017.

  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Mr President, first of all I would like to thank the rapporteur, Yana Toom, for the very good report and acceptable proposals. We can see the disproportion in development between the economic and social dimension of the European Union. A big part of the social agenda was left to national states and very often these national states failed to provide adequate social protection for their citizens. From the other side, the European Union developed free movement of people inside the EU and the result of this imbalance is that many citizens move to other EU states with higher salaries and higher social protection.

In the last 25 years, my country, Latvia, has lost more than 35% of its population, partly because of low birth rates, but mainly because of migration to other EU countries. Thus places have been created in the EU where population density is very low. The economy cannot develop because of the declining number of workers, taxpayers and customers, the remaining population becomes older, and in these circumstances it is very hard to maintain and develop infrastructure and attract investment. This means the lack of prospects will push more young people to leave the country. Colleagues, we cannot move ahead without a common social policy. We have to break this taboo.

8.9. Vienotā tirgus pārvaldība saistībā ar 2017. gada Eiropas pusgadu (A8-0016/2017 - Antonio López-Istúriz White)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania

  Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! To niezmiernie ważny dokument, ale pod jednym warunkiem – że wyciągane wnioski potem wprowadza się w życie, wykorzystuje w praktyce. Natomiast nie zawsze i nie ze wszystkim tak jest. Ja ze względu na niedługi czas, jaki mam do dyspozycji, skupię się tylko na jednej kwestii – partykularyzmach. Tworzymy jednolity wspólny rynek, natomiast niestety niemalże każdego dnia możemy usłyszeć doniesienia potwierdzające, że funkcjonują w Unii Europejskiej na wspólnym rynku różnego rodzaju partykularyzmy krajowe, regionalne, branżowe, sektorowe. Co najgorsze w tym wszystkim, że towarzyszy temu taka spolegliwość, można by to tak odebrać, organów, które powinny dbać o uczciwą konkurencję na wspólnym rynku, łącznie niestety z Komisją Europejską. Wystarczy spojrzeć na dziwną i nieakceptowaną przeze mnie przewlekłość spraw dotyczących transportu międzynarodowego. Latami toczą się takie sprawy. Jak mogą przedsiębiorcy stabilnie pracować, zatrudniać swoich pracowników, świadczyć im to, co im się należy, skoro każdego dnia nie wiedzą, co ich spotka w drodze? Z tym musimy skończyć, żeby budować siłę europejskiej gospodarki.

8.10. Bioloģiskie zema riska pesticīdi (B8-0140/2017)

Ustne wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania

  Urszula Krupa (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Głosowałam za wprowadzeniem biopestycydów niskiego ryzyka, czyli ograniczeniem pestycydów chemicznych, stanowiących część ksenoestrogenów, które są nie tylko odpowiedzialne za liczne choroby, zwłaszcza nowotworowe, ale powodują także poważne zanieczyszczenie środowiska, powietrza, wody i gleby. Poza argumentami przytoczonymi podczas debaty chciałabym zwrócić szczególną uwagę na bardzo ciekawe francusko-duńskie badania dotyczące znacznego zmniejszenia populacji dżdżownic pełniących w naturze funkcję użyźniania i utleniania gleby, których liczba i wymiary drastycznie się zmniejszają w ziemi poddawanej działaniu pestycydów chemicznych, a szczególnie fungicydów. Co prawda populacja dżdżownic w pewien sposób zmniejsza toksyczność tychże pestycydów chemicznych, jednak dżdżownice stanowią tylko jeden zbadany przykład degradacji środowiska gleby przez stosowaną chemię, dlatego istotne jest przyspieszenie procedur i badań nad pestycydami naturalnymi.

  Przewodniczący. – Niniejszym zamykam wyjaśnienia dotyczące głosowania.

9. Balsojumu labojumi un nodomi balsot (sk. protokolu)

(Posiedzenie zostało zawieszone o godz. 14.40 i wznowione o godz. 15.00)

Președinte: IOAN MIRCEA PAŞCU
Vicepreședinte

10. Iepriekšējās sēdes protokola apstiprināšana (sk. protokolu)

11. Terorisma apkarošana (debates)

  Președintele. – Următorul punct de pe ordinea de zi este dezbaterea privind raportul Monikăi Hohlmeier, în numele Comisiei pentru libertăți civile, justiție și afaceri interne, referitor la propunerea de directivă a Parlamentului European și a Consiliului privind combaterea terorismului și de înlocuire a Deciziei-cadru 2002/475/JAI a Consiliului privind combaterea terorismului (COM(2015)0625 – C8–0386/2015 – 2015/0281(COD) (A8–0228/2016).

  Monika Hohlmeier, Berichterstatterin. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich freue mich, dass wir heute hier im Europäischen Parlament die Diskussion dazu führen können, die den Kampf gegen den Terrorismus betrifft und die sich im Schwerpunkt mit der Strafrechtsrichtlinie, der Antiterrorismus-Richtlinie, auseinandersetzt.

Die Anschläge der vergangenen Monate, der vergangenen zwei Jahre, haben uns innerhalb der Europäischen Union immens aufgeschreckt. Viele Menschen wurden getötet, sie wurden verletzt, es gibt viele Betroffene. Und für uns innerhalb der Europäischen Union war es nicht ganz leicht zu verstehen, dass wir nunmehr das Ziel im Schwerpunkt des internationalen Terrorismus sind. Deshalb freue ich mich besonders, dass es gelungen ist, in dieser Richtlinie die wesentlichen Fragen der modernen und neuen internationalen Standards, die vonseiten der UN gesetzt worden sind, als auch der FATF in Fragen der Finanzierung von terroristischen Netzwerken sinnvoll einzubauen. Es dreht sich auf der einen Seite um die Überführung dessen, was wir an Rahmenbeschlüssen vonseiten der Innenminister hatten, nämlich schon bevor wir als Mitentscheider, als Europäisches Parlament, mitsprechen konnten. Dies musste überführt werden in eine Richtlinie.

Auf der anderen Seite dreht es sich aber auch darum, die neuen Herausforderungen anzugehen. Zu diesen neuen Herausforderungen gehört zum Beispiel das Thema Training von Terroristen, also entweder wenn du der Organisator, der Facilitator, bist oder der Finanzierer, oder jemand, der tatsächlich sich trainieren lässt für terroristische Anschläge. Dazu gehören die Fragen der Propaganda und auch der Rekrutierung von jungen Menschen, des Anwerbens von jungen Menschen für terroristische Zwecke.

Es gab auch hier die Diskussion: Was bedeutet Glorifizierung? Glorifizierung – man schaue sich einfach mal die Folgen von Bataclan an, wie die Darstellung im Internet durch die Propagandamaschine des IS gewesen ist. Die Glorifizierung der Täter und der Aufruf konkreter Art dazu, diesen Tätern nachzufolgen, ähnliche glorreiche Taten zu begehen. Das heißt, der Versuch, junge Menschen zu radikalisieren und für entsprechend verbrecherische und terroristische Ziele zu gewinnen.

Ein weiterer Schwerpunkt ist die Terrorismusfinanzierung. Ein weiterer Schwerpunkt ist auch das Thema Beihilfe und Anstiftung zu terroristischen Straftaten. Es ist uns in dieser Richtung etwas Besonderes gelungen, und da bedanke ich mich ganz herzlich auch bei meinen Mitberichterstattern, bei Dir, liebe Caterina Chinnici, genauso bei meinem Kollegen Petr Ježek. Ich bedanke mich ganz herzlich bei der Kollegin Monica Macovei und auch in kritischer Diskussion bei Cornelia Ernst und bei der Kollegin Joly, weil wir wirklich versucht haben, im Besonderen das Thema Verpflichtung zum Informationsaustausch festzulegen. Zum ersten Mal haben sich die Mitgliedstaaten verpflichten lassen, einen Informationsaustausch durchzuführen.

Wir haben aber auch gleichzeitig die Opferrechte gestärkt. Da danke ich im Besonderen meiner Kollegin Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio und auch der Maite, die sich im Besonderen dafür einsetzen, dass die Rechte der Opfer gesehen werden. Sie werden nämlich Opfer, weil hier Terroristen gegen unser Wertesystem, gegen den Staat vorgehen. Und das bedeutet in der Konsequenz: Wir müssen den Opfern bessere Rechte einräumen. Dies ist in dieser Richtlinie gelungen.

Ebenfalls gelungen ist, dass wir eine gute Balance gefunden haben zwischen der Sicherheit auf der einen Seite, aber auch dem strikten Einhalten von Grundrechten, denn Sicherheit ohne Grundrechte geht nicht. Sicherheit dient den Grundrechten und muss sich an ihnen orientieren. Aus diesem Grund auch die ausdrückliche Aufführung der Grundrechtecharta in Artikel 23, die ausdrückliche Aufführung der Meinungsfreiheit, der Pressefreiheit. Auch die Klarstellung, dass man sich auch mal polemisch oder auch mal radikal äußern darf; das hat nichts mit Propaganda zu tun, das hat nichts mit Glorifizierung zu tun, das ist einfach Meinungsfreiheit und nichts anderes. Ich glaube, dass uns hier diese Balance sehr gut gelungen ist. Ich bedanke mich ausdrücklich bei allen Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die bereit waren, hier so intensiv mitzuarbeiten, konstruktiv mitzuarbeiten. Ich bedanke mich bei der Kommission für die hervorragende Zusammenarbeit und für die Bereitschaft, immer auch mit neuen Ideen und Unterstützungskraft beizutragen, und ich bedanke mich beim Rat, bei der slowakischen Präsidentschaft, für die sehr konstruktive Haltung.

  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, honourable Members. Terrorism creates havoc. It takes away lives and leaves those of us who live on scarred forever. In the last 18 months, in particular, we have seen too many attacks and far too many victims. At the same time, the terrorist threat has continued to change and evolve. It is more than ever present and more indiscriminate. That is why I think we should be proud that, together, we have been able to reach this point on this very important piece of legislation.

I would like to thank the Council for the work they have done, and, in particular, the Parliament and the rapporteur, Ms Hohlmeier, for their commitment and the effort made to review this counter-terrorism directive. It will contribute greatly to the effective work done by law enforcement authorities and prosecutors in countering the terrorist threat, and this will contribute to making our lives safer, without compromising our values, which are the very same values that the terrorists seek to harm. Fundamental rights are and must remain at the heart of our action.

As Ms Hohlmeier said, with this piece of legislation we are also aligning the EU definitions of terrorist offences with the standards agreed under the Council of Europe Convention on Terrorism.

Let me highlight very briefly the main elements of the text. First, it will criminalise travel for the purposes of terrorism. Not only will it be a crime to travel from the EU to conflict zones to participate in terrorist activities but also, thanks to the support of people in this House, it will cover those coming to the EU with terrorist intent, including terrorist fighters. Second, an efficient exchange of information is key to combating the terrorist threat. The new rules will strengthen the obligation to exchange information and will make the Member State receiving information responsible for taking appropriate action.

Last, but by no means least, the new law will make a real difference for victims. It builds on existing rules, reinforcing in particular the immediate and coordinated nature of the response to victims of a terrorist attack, including legal aid and medical treatment. It also strengthens the rights of cross-border victims, who will get help with information and referrals to relevant services.

I am happy to say that this piece of legislation shows that the EU is able to act in a swift and united manner. The political agreement on the directive was reached in less than a year. Now, we need to make sure that implementation follows with the same speed The Commission is ready to support the Member States in this task and will organise transposition workshops in the coming months.

Let me conclude, Mr President, by saying it is clear that an effective response to terrorism is a complex and challenging process, which includes the fight against radicalisation as well as the efficient exchange of information between all relevant parties. That is why I would like to reiterate the Commission’s support for the joint statement by the three EU institutions which accompanies the agreement on this directive, expressing commitment to take forward action in all of those fields.

I am also glad that, later this afternoon, we are going to have the opportunity to discuss in more depth the crucial issues of information exchange and interoperability.

  Roberta Metsola, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, the terrorist attacks in Europe that we have witnessed in the last years shocked us all, but our grief and our anger gave way to a grim resolve to counter the terrorist threat and to address both the immediate danger of more attacks and the causes of radicalisation that plague our societies. The attacks on our soil were no random attacks. Paris, Nice, Brussels, Berlin, were all targeted because these cities are the very embodiment of what Europe stands for. They were planned to strike the maximum amount of panic into all of us and designed to make us feel unsafe doing the things we always do, and living the lives that we want to live. They failed because fear did not define us, but determination did. And with this report we are going some way in ensuring that our systems adapt to the reality under which we find ourselves and ensure that we remain one step ahead of criminals and terrorists while respecting the values we cherish in Europe.

We are coming down harder on those so-called foreign fighters, EU nationals who travel to conflict zones only to return radicalised and recruit more people for their murderous cause. We are pushing forward concrete plans for better cooperation between Member States, and we come down on hate preachers or anyone who incites terrorism. Crucially, the report also lays down provisions that will allow victims of terrorism to receive all and whatever assistance they may require. Finally, allow me to thank the rapporteur for her very excellent work in pushing this file through, and urge you all to vote in favour of the report tomorrow so that we can send the strongest possible signal to our citizens.

  Caterina Chinnici, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, desidero innanzitutto ringraziare la relatrice, la collega Monika Hohlmeier, e tutti i colleghi relatori ombra per l'impegno e lo spirito costruttivo dimostrato nelle diverse fasi del negoziato interistituzionale che ha portato al testo che ci apprestiamo a votare.

La direttiva sulla lotta contro il terrorismo è un importante documento legislativo con il quale l'Europa pone la base comune per armonizzare le legislazioni nazionali degli Stati membri, alcuni dei quali, purtroppo anche di recente, hanno vissuto drammatici attentati terroristici.

Ritengo che come Parlamento siamo riusciti a dare un buon contributo al testo, introducendo nel bilanciamento fra sicurezza e rispetto dei diritti misure particolarmente significative per il contrasto al terrorismo, tra cui l'obbligatorietà dello scambio di informazioni, nell'ottica di un incremento della cooperazione e del coordinamento fra forze di polizia giudiziaria e di intelligence. Troppe volte, infatti, in quest'Aula ci siamo ritrovati a discutere del fatto che un tempestivo scambio di informazioni avrebbe forse potuto prevenire drammatici attentati.

La direttiva consegna poi agli Stati membri alcuni strumenti normativi finalizzati a contrastare il finanziamento del terrorismo, ma anche a spezzare il crescente rapporto di collaborazione fra gruppi criminali e formazioni terroristiche. Penso alla confisca o alla punibilità di alcuni reati connessi all'attività terroristica come la produzione di documenti falsi o il traffico di beni culturali. Tuttavia, dovremmo ancora lavorare per arrivare ad una rapida approvazione di ulteriori misure che contrastino il finanziamento al terrorismo, quale ad esempio la revisione della direttiva antiriciclaggio.

Last but not least, voglio citare le disposizioni dedicate alla tutela e al sostegno delle vittime del terrorismo e sono soddisfatta dell'accordo raggiunto, che pone in capo agli Stati membri l'assistenza medica e psicologica e il sostegno legale nei confronti di chi ha subito un attacco mirato a destabilizzare uno Stato o un governo.

  Monica Macovei, în numele grupului ECR. – Domnule președinte, după șoc și lacrimi după atacuri teroriste, după moarte, am făcut ceea ce trebuia să facem: ne-am adunat și am lucrat un pachet împotriva terorismului, un pachet de mai multe legi care vor fi votate în mare parte în această sesiune.

Vrem să ne apărăm valorile, vrem să ne apărăm stilul de viață, nu vrem să-l schimbăm, dar trebuie să ne apărăm împotriva celor care vor să ne distrugă și valorile și stilul de viață și toată istoria civilizației și civilizația la care am ajuns astăzi.

Această nouă directivă, directiva pentru combaterea terorismului, îi pedepsește pe cei care finanțează, organizează sau facilitează călătorii către zonele unde operează Statul Islamic. De asemenea, îi pedepsește pe cei care organizează antrenamente pentru luptători sau finanțează acte teroriste.

Incitarea la terorism și distribuirea publică a mesajelor, inclusiv mesajele care glorifică actele teroriste, vor fi acum definite ca activități teroriste. Deci vom avea noi infracțiuni în ceea ce privește activitățile teroriste, care vor trebui transpuse în legislația statelor membre.

Amenințarea terorismului nu este o chestiune de moment, ci una pe termen lung. Este de necontestat că avem nevoie de un răspuns unit pentru a ne proteja și a rezista împreună la pericolul terorismului.

În primul rând, trebuie să vorbim despre dreptul la viață. Dreptul la viață este primul drept care trebuie protejat pe lumea aceasta pentru că fără dreptul la viață nu există nici un alt drept și, deci, amenințarea reală vine de la cei care urmăresc să distrugă dreptul la viață.

Îi mulțumesc Monikăi Holhmeier pentru cum a condus munca pe acest raport și o felicit încă o dată și eu îndemn pe toată lumea să voteze acest raport.

  Petr Ježek, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, while the terrorist threat in Europe remains at a critical level and as ISIS loses ground in the Middle East, this threat and the one posed by their returning foreign fighters is likely to persist. Whereas responsibility for security lies primarily with Member States, recent terrorist attacks in Europe have shown that no country can manage on its own.

We need to adapt our counterterrorism measures to this reality and add a truly European approach. 82% of Europeans want Europe to do more to combat terrorism and 69% consider its current measures to be insufficient. I believe that this new directive is part of our response to their demands. It will strengthen the EU’s arsenal against terrorism by criminalising acts such as receiving training for terrorism or travelling for terrorist purposes, while, of course, preserving fundamental rights and freedoms. Giving Member States harmonised judicial tools should also facilitate their cooperation. This is key for me and my group, and we will not give up on this.

I would like to thank the rapporteur, Monika Hohlmeier, the shadows, the Commissioner, his team and and the Slovak Presidency. Well done, well done.

  Cornelia Ernst, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! In Ungarn wurde kürzlich der Syrer Ahmed zu zehn Jahren Haft verurteilt, weil er sich an Protesten gegen die Schließung der Grenze beteiligt hatte.

Als Terroristen hat man ihn verurteilt, weil es die ungarischen Antiterrorgesetze auch so hergeben. Nur, er ist kein Terrorist – er hat demonstriert. Mehrfach wurden diese Gesetze schon vor dem Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte wegen ihrer unklaren, viel zu weiten Definitionen gerügt. Ich frage Sie: Ändern wir mit der Richtlinie etwas Substanzielles daran? Nein, ich glaube es nicht.

Die Terrorismusdefinition in der Richtlinie bleibt nach wie vor verwaschen. Im Gegenteil, man muss sich fragen, wie sicher Demonstranten – Andersdenkende – noch ihre Rechte ausüben können. Auch die strafrechtliche Verfolgung der Verherrlichung von Terrorismus ist ein hehres Ziel und ich kann das nachvollziehen. Aber die Anbindung an einen wirklichen Terrorakt ist viel zu schwach.

Zum Paragraphen vom Reisen zu strafbaren Zwecken: Ich kann Sie verstehen, ich weiß was gemeint ist. Aber wir bewegen uns wirklich auf dünnem Eis, weil der Unterschied zwischen strafbarer und erlaubter Handlung allein in der Terrorabsicht liegt, und das ist schwer zu ermitteln.

Natürlich, Terror muss bekämpft werden. Auch wir sehen das so. Wir brauchen einen komplexen Umgang damit. Das fängt bei vernünftiger Ausbildung für Polizei und Justiz an. Bessere Koordinierung der Behörden, ernst zu nehmende Aussteiger- und Opferschutzprogrammatik, Prävention und Aufklärung von der Schule an. Denn weder die Probleme noch die Lösungen liegen allein im Strafrecht.

(Die Rednerin ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Csaba Sógor (PPE), blue-card question. – Do you know how many passports this Ahmed had? Seven.

  Cornelia Ernst (GUE/NGL), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Das ist nicht die Frage. Man muss jemanden, der beispielsweise Steine wirft, sehr wohl auch für das, was er macht, verurteilen. Das ist gar nicht mal die Frage, da kann man gerne darüber sprechen. Meine Frage war eine andere, die es zu beantworten gilt.

Ist dieser Mann ein Terrorist? Und da sage ich: Nein. Aber die ungarischen Gesetze erlauben das, weil die Definition von Terrorismus unglaublich breit ist. Das hat, wie gesagt, der Gerichtshof auch schon mehrfach kritisiert.

  Eva Joly, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, Ahmed, dont le cas vient d’être évoqué par ma collègue, a donc été poursuivi pour des motifs prétendument terroristes. Pourquoi? Parce qu’il essayait simplement d’apaiser les tensions entre policiers et migrants à la frontière en disant à chacun de reculer à l’aide d’un mégaphone. A-t-il cherché à contraindre indûment le gouvernement hongrois? Est-ce cela le terrorisme?

En France, un internaute qui a eu le mauvais goût de baptiser son accès wifi «Daech 21» a été condamné à trois mois de prison pour apologie du terrorisme. Est-ce vraiment cela l’apologie du terrorisme?

Ne soyons pas dupes. Les lois antiterroristes sont régulièrement utilisées de manière abusive ou à d’autres fins, en violation de nos droits et libertés. Les exemples sont déjà trop nombreux. Nous ne souhaitons pas voir la liste s’allonger encore.

L’harmonisation pénale des lois antiterroristes au niveau européen est évidemment un objectif louable et nécessaire, mais l’harmonisation doit être précise afin de limiter les interprétations pouvant porter atteinte à nos droits et libertés.

Malheureusement, cette directive contient un trop grand nombre de notions aux contours flous. Dans le climat actuel, l’Europe ne peut pas se permettre de laisser des failles dont les gouvernements pourront si facilement abuser. Cette directive criminalise la provocation indirecte au terrorisme alors que nul ne sait ce que recouvre cette notion vague et que les risques pour la liberté d’expression et d’information sont réels.

La définition d’«infraction terroriste» est également problématique car elle inclut, par exemple, les actes susceptibles de causer une perte économique majeure. Les gouvernements n’auront aucun scrupule, nous le savons bien, pour utiliser cette large définition dans le but de museler les actes de désobéissance civile et environnementale allant contre leurs intérêts.

Enfin, la valeur ajoutée de la criminalisation du voyage n’a pas été démontrée. Un individu suspecté de terrorisme peut déjà être arrêté en raison de cette suspicion. Nul besoin de criminaliser les voyages en tant que tels. Le risque que cette disposition soit détournée et abusivement utilisée de manière discriminatoire est, lui, réel.

Plutôt que de multiplier les motifs d’incriminations aux contours flous et dangereux, il faut se concentrer sur l’essentiel: l’échange d’informations automatique et obligatoire et une plus grande coopération entre États membres. Tous les récents attentats ont révélé des failles béantes dans ce domaine. Qu’attend-on pour prendre des mesures qui ont une réelle valeur ajoutée dans la lutte contre le terrorisme?

L’hypocrisie des États membres en matière de lutte antiterroriste est criante.

  Laura Ferrara, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il terrorismo che oggi combattiamo agisce con modalità operative, comunicative e di finanziamento inedite. Esso rappresenta una minaccia interna che si manifesta attraverso attori singoli o anche attraverso gruppi che con facilità si muovono tra i confini degli Stati membri. Pensare di poterlo sconfiggere con le sole politiche nazionali è illusorio.

Nell'intento di dare allora una risposta europea ad un fenomeno transnazionale e a un pericolo imminente, abbiamo cercato di conciliare l'esigenza di rafforzare le misure di contrasto al terrorismo con la tutela dei diritti e delle libertà fondamentali. Da un lato, abbiamo chiesto dunque maggiore collaborazione tra gli Stati membri, certi che un migliore scambio di informazioni e una cooperazione obbligatoria tra le autorità giudiziarie rappresentino un'efficace misura di contrasto all'attività dei gruppi terroristici.

Dall'altro lato, come Movimento 5 Stelle abbiamo presentato degli emendamenti volti a definire meglio le fattispecie di reato, tenendo fermo ad esempio il basilare principio di materialità e rispettando la locuzione latina cogitationis poenam nemo patitur. Abbiamo difeso la libertà di espressione su Internet e sui social media, chiedendo che ogni intervento repressivo sulla rete debba essere soggetto al controllo dell'autorità giudiziaria. L'equilibrio tra libertà e sicurezza di eterna discussione è dunque basilare per lo Stato di diritto. La lotta al terrorismo e in generale la tutela della sicurezza non devono rappresentare il grimaldello per limitare o peggio ancora reprimere diritti fondamentali, ma devono essere sempre funzionali alla tutela dei diritti e delle libertà individuali.

Come evidenziato poi nella relazione sulla lotta alla criminalità organizzata, di cui sono stata relatrice, è necessario infine il completamento del quadro giuridico europeo con un approccio globale, affrontando dunque anche la stretta e preoccupante interconnessione tra terrorismo e criminalità organizzata, che spesso collaborano e si fondono per trarre reciproci vantaggi, spesso di natura economica.

  Janice Atkinson, on behalf of the ENF Group. – Mr President, I am not going to pretend to Sir Julian that it is easy, but the EU does not actually help itself. There are some simple steps that we can take. First, we close our borders and we have to abandon Schengen. Unpalatable as it is in here, that is the only way to stop the spread of terrorism. The nation states have to pay their fair share into NATO, as you have been told by Mr Trump. Nation states have to take responsibility for their own borders, not Guy Verhofstadt’s idiotic idea of a barmy EU army. Let us join Trump in banning travel from those states which are exporting hate and terrorism. We have got to build our own walls. Let us tear up the passports of those who are travelling to train as terrorists. They will not be stateless. It is not against international law. They will be citizens of ISIS. That is what they want. At home what we can do – and I suggest you do it in your own states as well – is to increase the recruitment of the police force, the armed services, prison officers; border control is essential, as are our intelligence services. Let us protect our citizens, because the EU’s policies put us in danger.

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

  Hilde Vautmans (ALDE), "blauwe kaart"-vraag. – Ik wil de collega toch even op iets wijzen. U zegt hier: “We kunnen niet omgaan met het krankzinnig idee van Guy Verhofstadt voor een Europees leger.” Ik wil u toch zeggen dat de eurobarometer een bevraging is bij de Europarlementsleden, bij alle burgers van Europa, en dat daar heel duidelijk uit blijkt dat 80 procent van onze onderdanen willen dat Europa werk maakt van een Europese defensie. Dus zo krankzinnig is dat idee niet.

Ik wil u er ook op wijzen dat als u de uitgaven voor defensie van de 28 lidstaten bekijkt, u zal constateren dat wij de helft uitgeven van Amerika met een rendement van slechts 15 procent. Mag ik u vragen: bent u niet voor een besparing, zodat we al die middelen bundelen en de output beter is en zo onze Europese burgers beter kunnen beschermen?

  Janice Atkinson (ENF), blue-card answer. – Well actually, as a Thatcherite and Reaganite conservative, yes, I do want to conserve money – but money is being spent, wrongly, especially the waste that goes on in this place. We should be reinforcing our borders. That is the only way we can do it, and actually investing in our own border-force people and across that. And there was a survey by the Chatham House institute back in the UK that said that 80% of your citizens do not want Muslim migration. So you’re not listening, are you? And who is it who is causing all the terrorism? It is the basis of ISIS, it is Muslim terrorism. It is Islam.

  Diane Dodds (NI). – Mr President, my constituency has long been plagued by the scourge of terrorism. Successful attacks are now thankfully irregular and generally isolated. Nevertheless, we must maintain vigilance and remember the victims. The murderous campaign of the IRA left much hurt and devastation, many empty chairs. The people of Northern Ireland know and understand the need to stand firmly with our European neighbours against the scourge of terrorism. We must never allow terrorists to control the narrative, indulge their revisionism or glorify their deeds to radicalise a new generation. We have some in Northern Ireland who propagate such revisionism. They seek to revise history to justify their evil deeds. Instead, we must give victims a voice. They require protection, specialist support to respond to their specific needs. And as we assist victims, so too experience has taught us to guard against complacency.

  Ελισσάβετ Βόζεμπεργκ-Βρυωνίδη (PPE). – Κύριε πρόεδρε, η νέα ευρωπαϊκή νομοθεσία είναι πιο αναγκαία από ποτέ, όχι γιατί η τρομοκρατία ήρθε στην Ευρώπη για να μείνει αλλά γιατί η τρομοκρατία εξελίσσεται σε βάρος της ευρωπαϊκής ιδέας και των Ευρωπαίων πολιτών και κυρίως των επόμενων γενεών. Αξίζουν συγχαρητήρια στη Monika Hohlmeier και τους συνεργάτες της που εκπόνησαν ένα επικαιροποιημένο και ισορροπημένο νομοθετικό κείμενο που ποινικοποιεί τη συμμετοχική δράση, τον τρόπο οργάνωσης, τον τρόπο εκπαίδευσης, τα ταξίδια για σκοπούς τρομοκρατίας και την χρηματοδότηση των τρομοκρατών. Κυρίως πρέπει να αντιληφθούμε ότι είναι το πρώτο κείμενο στο οποίο οι δράσεις των τρομοκρατών επικαιροποιούνται ως προς την ποινική απαξία από τη μια πλευρά και από την άλλη προστατεύονται τα θύματα και οι οικογένειες των θυμάτων που μέχρι σήμερα δεν είχαν τύχει της ευρωπαϊκής ομπρέλας προστασίας. Επιπλέον, η διεθνής δικαιοδοσία, ειδικά για το αδίκημα της εκπαίδευσης έχει μεγάλη σημασία. Έχει σημασία να προωθηθεί και να διαφημιστεί αυτή η Ευρωπαϊκή νομοθεσία διότι η τρομοκρατία δεν κάνει διακρίσεις ανάμεσα στα κράτη μέλη και αφορά όλους μας.

  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Der internationale Terrorismus ist eine der größten Bedrohungen der Gegenwart, er bringt unendliches Leid über die Betroffenen. Wir konnten uns vor wenigen Wochen selbst hier in diesem Haus davon überzeugen, als wir die testimonials der jesidischen Sacharow-Preisträgerin hören konnten. Der internationale Terrorismus versucht vor allem, die Fundamente unserer freien Gesellschaft zu zerstören. Ich fürchte, dass dieses bedrohliche Szenario uns noch lange begleiten wird.

Dem internationalen Terrorismus ist mit nationalstaatlichen Methoden alleine nicht beizukommen. Etwas, was seinem Charakter nach nicht nationalstaatlich ist – der IS – versteht sich selbst als stateless actor – etwas, das er nicht ist. Er muss daher in erster Linie von der internationalen Gemeinschaft bekämpft werden

Die Resolution 2178 des Sicherheitsrates bietet einen sehr guten definitorischen Rahmen und verpflichtet die Staaten, die tatsächliche oder beabsichtigte Reise in andere Länder im Kontext terroristischer Aktivitäten zu kriminalisieren, ebenso die Propaganda und die Ausbildung. Es ist daher sehr wichtig, dass wir, die Union, mit dieser Richtlinie über Terrorismusbekämpfung endlich über einen entsprechenden Rechtsrahmen verfügt. Der bisherige Rahmenbeschluss war dazu nicht ausreichend und die Rechtslage in einzelnen Mitgliedstaaten sehr unterschiedlich.

Die Richtlinie ist ein sehr wichtiger Schritt. Sie erlaubt koordiniertes und systematisches Handeln der Polizei- und Justizbehörden. Wir sollten uns aber nicht in Sicherheit wiegen und glauben, dass damit das Problem bereits gelöst wäre. Es bedarf der zügigen Implementierung, es bedarf einer Verbesserung der begleitenden Maßnahmen, der Deradikalisierungsarbeit und der Arbeit in den Gefängnissen, und es muss vor allem auch die Strafverfolgung intensiviert werden, nicht nur unter den Zurückkehrenden. Vor allem bedarf es auch in den Herkunftsregionen, wo die Straftaten begangen werden, der Mitwirkung unabhängiger Rechtsprechung.

  Helga Stevens (ECR). – Morgen zal het Europees Parlement normaal gezien een nieuwe anti-terrorismerichtlijn goedkeuren. De bedoeling is te komen tot gemeenschappelijke definities voor terroristische misdrijven, waaraan ook meteen minimumstraffen worden gekoppeld. Het terroristisch motief geldt voortaan als een verzwarende omstandigheid. Online haatberichten van de IS-sympathisanten bijvoorbeeld zullen nu overal in de EU moeten worden vervolgd en verplicht offline gehaald. Ook is hacking van kritische infrastructuur, reizen en rekrutering met terroristische motieven verboden.

Tegelijk is er aandacht voor de slachtoffers. De richtlijn bepaalt dat lidstaten concrete maatregelen moeten nemen om terreurslachtoffers en/of hun families beter te helpen op medisch, psychisch en juridisch vlak. Efficiënte hulp, een snelle juridische afhandeling van schadeclaims en het uit de wereld helpen van de administratieve lijdensweg om erkend worden als terreurslachtoffer, dat is het doel. Na de aanslagen in Brussel van 22 maart vorig jaar bleek dat er op dat vlak ook in mijn land nog veel ruimte voor verbetering was. Daarom is N-VA tevreden met het voorstel.

  Angelika Mlinar (ALDE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Wir erleben zurzeit, wie auf nationaler Ebene Bürgerrechte angegriffen und teilweise auch demontiert werden, in dem panischen Versuch, die Bedrohung durch Terroristen in den Griff zu bekommen.

Mir scheint fast, dass genau dasselbe nun auch auf EU-Ebene passiert. Wir sind dabei, ein Gesetz zu verabschieden, ohne dessen langfristige Auswirkungen auf die Grundrechte zu berücksichtigen. Ein Gesetz, das Handlungen, die meist überhaupt keinen direkten Zusammenhang mit dem Terrorismus haben, bereits im Vorhinein kriminalisiert. Damit schaffen wir die Grundlage für präventive Gesetzgebung im Strafrecht und die Gefährdung der Unschuldsvermutung.

Das Beispiel von Ahmed H. vom November 2016, eines Bewohners Zyperns, der aufgrund eines angeblichen Terroraktes zu zehn Jahren Gefängnis in Ungarn verurteilt wurde, ist schon erwähnt worden. Es beweist, dass der Begriff Terror hier definitiv falsch und viel zu weit ausgelegt wird. Unser Ziel muss es sein, ein Gleichgewicht zu schaffen zwischen dem berechtigten Wunsch nach Sicherheit und dem Wunsch, Grundrechte und Freiheit zu schützen. Im Zweifel für die Sicherheit kann sicher nicht die Lösung sein.

Als Gesetzgeberinnen haben wir die moralische Verpflichtung, Gesetze nicht auf Basis von Panikmache zu verabschieden, denn das schafft sicher kein Vertrauen.

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL). – Mr President, as someone who has spent decades involved in conflict resolution, I am disappointed at the security-driven approach that is contained in this directive. In order to deal with conflict we have to address the causes of conflict. What is the political context? What is the social and economic context? What avenues exist to address grievances and pursue legitimate political objectives? Not all situations are the same and the right to assist is valid in certain circumstances. But let us be clear. IS murder indiscriminately. They oppress and abuse people of all faiths and none. So processes of conflict resolution will not apply in all situations. However, increased repression is more likely to fuel further acts of violence than to reduce them. And limiting civil rights and freedom of expression will not make society safer. According to the European Parliament’s research services, all of the stakeholders that followed this legislative file have expressed serious concerns about this directive, and they should be listened to.

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

  Diane Dodds (NI), blue-card question. – Thank you for accepting the blue card. You talk about IS murdering indiscriminately. Would you agree with me that the IRA also murdered indiscriminately? To the families of those who died at Kingsmill and the family of Edgar Graham, who is today in the news in a controversy because the law lecturer in Queens University refused to condemn that murder, would you also agree that those were indiscriminate acts?

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL), blue-card answer. – Thank you, Diane, for that question. I think what is important for all of us who have come from a situation where we are emerging from conflict is to show and demonstrate in a parliament like this that building peace is more important than fighting a war.

We, you and I, could trade statistics of incidents and tragedies, and that, of course, would keep us all looking backwards. There are lots of families, and you have mentioned some here today, who, without doubt, deserve the kind of justice that they are seeking. This week I had three families over here in this Parliament – the brother of Pat Finucane and the daughter of a woman who was murdered by the British state, by British soldiers, and a son whose father had been killed, respectively 42 and 46 years ago. These people are just looking for a basic inquest. They are looking for the Stormont House agreement to be taken forward.

I know the Commissioner is very aware of the work that we have done thus far, and we would hope that he and others would support the kind of conflict resolution that we are involved in.

  Jan Philipp Albrecht (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, sehr geehrte Damen und Herren Kollegen! Was gut ist an dieser Richtlinie, das liegt auf der Hand.

Wir harmonisieren die Straftatbestände im Bereich der Terrorismusbekämpfung, wir schaffen einen besseren Schutz für die Opfer von Anschlägen und wir sorgen dafür, dass der Informationsaustausch – und auch vor allen Dingen die Bekämpfung der Finanzierung des Terrorismus – verbessert werden. Aber diese Richtlinie schießt im Ergebnis über das Ziel hinaus. Problematisch wird es da, wo wir neue Straftatbestände schaffen, die es so in vielen EU-Ländern bisher nicht gibt. Die unklar sind, etwa, wenn es um Reisen innerhalb der Europäischen Union geht oder wenn es darum geht, dass die Möglichkeit eines erheblichen wirtschaftlichen Schadens bereits die Definition des Terrorismus eröffnet.

Das eigentliche Problem ist doch, dass wir die schon bestehenden terroristischen Straftaten nicht wirklich verfolgen. Statt also neue Tatbestände zu schaffen, sollten wir uns darauf konzentrieren, die bessere Zusammenarbeit in Europa, zum Beispiel durch Ermittlungsteams bei Europol und durch eine bessere Ausstattung von Polizisten zur Verfolgung dieser Straftaten zu verbessern.

(Der Redner ist damit einverstanden, eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“ gemäß Artikel 162 Absatz 8 der Geschäftsordnung zu beantworten.)

  Monika Hohlmeier (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Ich wollte den Kollegen schlicht und einfach fragen: Was heißt hier neue Straftatbestände?

Möchtest du in der Tat, dass sich jemand in Syrien in einem Terrorcamp ausbilden lassen kann, dort Straftaten begehen kann, hierher zurückkehren kann und eine Attacke vorbereiten kann, ohne dass wir vor dem Attentat die Person festnehmen, entsprechend vor Gericht bringen und die Richter dann darüber richten können, wie diese Person zu verurteilen ist?

  Jan Philipp Albrecht (Verts/ALE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Vielen Dank für die Frage, Monika! Das Problem liegt ja nicht darin, dass wir nicht heute schon Straftaten im Bereich der Vorbereitung terroristischer Anschläge verfolgen, etwa wenn jemand in ein Terrorcamp reist und wieder zurückkehrt mit der Intention, einen Anschlag zu begehen. Das wird heute schon unter Strafe gestellt. Das Problem hier ist, dass selbst Reisen innerhalb der Europäischen Union unter Strafe gestellt werden, und meiner Kenntnis nach gibt es innerhalb der Europäischen Union solche Terrorcamps noch nicht. Ich finde, da muss man einfach entsprechend der Verhältnismäßigkeit sagen: Die Reisefreiheit innerhalb der Europäischen Union sollte nicht derart hinterfragt werden.

  Kristina Winberg (EFDD). – Herr talman! Terrorattackerna har blivit så många att vi knappt reflekterar över dem längre och media har köpt bilden av att varje dåd är helt fristående och har inget med det andra att göra. Man tror att det är ensamma galningar som utför dessa dåd.

Det förslag vi debatterar idag är bra på det sättet att det sätter press på länder att angripa problem med jihadresor och delar av samhället som blir radikaliserade med mera. Detta är bra i en tid där vi kommer att få se mer attacker på europeisk mark, särskilt nu när Islamiska staten tappar mark i Syrien och Irak.

Ett annat förslag som påstår sig bekämpa terrorism men som i själva verket bara berör laglydiga medborgare är de föreslagna ändringarna av EU:s vapendirektiv. På ett desperat sätt angriper EU hederliga jägare, sportskyttar och vapensamlare. Hela civilförsvaret sätts i gungning eftersom möjligheten att äga och transportera vissa vapen blir indirekt olagligt.

Förslaget är dessutom så idiotiskt skrivet att även de främsta experterna på området inte kan förklara hur EU-kommissionen har tänkt i det här fallet. Kommissionen inför nya termer och visar att de inte ens har en basal förståelse kring hur dessa vapen fungerar och vad ett magasin är och så vidare.

Kommissionen visar tydligt här att man avser att bekämpa lagliga vapen, som nästan aldrig används i masskjutningar, istället för att angripa ett problem kring smuggling av illegala vapen, särskilt från Slovakien, som har varit källan till flera av dessa. Ska svenska laglydiga medborgare få lida bara för att EU till varje pris vill ha öppna gränser? Vad har Anders Ygeman egentligen sagt i rådet när detta förslag har diskuterats? Frågorna är många och jag börjar söka svaren.

Jag kommer från och med nästa vecka att besöka berörda jägare och vapensamlare för att ta reda på hur det ligger till.

  Gilles Lebreton (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, le terrorisme islamiste est une barbarie qu’il faut combattre sans faiblesse. C’est pourquoi j’approuve le rapport Hohlmeier, qui s’efforce de lutter contre celui-ci, malgré toutes ses insuffisances rappelées à l’instant par Mme Winberg. J’exprime toutefois deux regrets.

Le premier, c’est que le terrorisme islamiste a profité de la porosité des frontières extérieures de l’Union européenne, c’est-à-dire de l’échec terrible du système Schengen. Les Français sont bien placés pour le savoir, car les terroristes du Bataclan sont presque tous venus de l’étranger. Or, le rapport refuse de reconnaître cette évidence.

Le second regret, c’est que le rapport n’utilise jamais le mot «islamiste». Il parle du terrorisme en général, alors que c’est bel et bien du terrorisme islamiste dont il est question. Je condamne cette lâcheté car, comme le disait Albert Camus, «mal nommer les choses, c’est ajouter au malheur du monde».

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κύριε πρόεδρε, οι διάφορες μορφές τρομοκρατίας, γενικότερα και η ισλαμική τρομοκρατία, ειδικότερα, αποτελούν αυτή τη στιγμή την μεγαλύτερη πραγματική απειλή εναντίον της ασφάλειας των λαών των χωρών της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως. Αν και η ευθύνη για την αντιμετώπιση της τρομοκρατίας ανήκει στα κράτη, η αποτελεσματική καταπολέμηση της επιτυγχάνεται εντούτοις με μία ολοκληρωμένη συνεργασία όλων των χωρών του κόσμου και της Ευρώπης σε όλους τους τομείς αλλά ιδίως στο νομικό, στο κοινωνικό και στο διωκτικό πεδίο. Όμως όση συνεργασία κι αν επιτευχθεί μεταξύ των αστυνομικών και των υπηρεσιών πληροφοριών των χωρών, όσες πληροφορίες κι αν ανταλλαγούν μεταξύ τους, όση νομική κάλυψη και αν παρασχεθεί στις κατασταλτικές τους δραστηριότητες, αυτά είναι μεταγενέστερα βήματα. Πρέπει να προηγηθούν η σωστή διαπαιδαγώγηση των νέων, ούτως ώστε να μην είναι ευάλωτοι στην προπαγάνδα της τρομοκρατίας και κυρίως της ισλαμικής, πρέπει να εκλείψουν από τα κράτη της Ευρώπης οι περιπτώσεις αποκλεισμού και περιθωριοποιήσεως κοινωνικών ομάδων που ενισχύουν την τρομοκρατία και, τέλος, πρέπει να γίνεται σωστός έλεγχος των εξωτερικών συνόρων. Αυτή η αποστολή πρέπει να ανατεθεί στις δυνάμεις ασφαλείας και τις ένοπλες δυνάμεις κάθε χώρας ...

(Ο Πρόεδρος διακόπτει τον ομιλητή)

  Frank Engel (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, je voulais commencer par exprimer mon doute qu’Albert Camus se réjouirait de l’appropriation qui est abusivement faite de lui par le Front national dans cette enceinte.

J’aurais tout de même envie de dire au représentant du Front national et à la collègue de je ne sais quel parti britannique, sans doute un peu à côté de la plaque, vers la droite, qui a parlé avant, que ce ne sont pas les frontières le problème car ceux qui commettent des attentats en plein milieu de l’Europe sont nés ici, ont été radicalisés ici, ont peut-être fait un voyage en dehors de l’Europe et en sont revenus. En fin de compte, ce sont nos citoyens qui ont fait une erreur dans leur parcours. Je ne les en excuse pas et je voudrais qu’ils soient condamnés pour cela, une fois appréhendés. Mais je refuse et je dénonce cette attitude bête, foncièrement bête, qui consiste à dire aux Européens que la misère vient de l’extérieur. La misère, c’est dans nos banlieues mal gouvernées qu’elle est produite, que ce soit en France, en Belgique, aux Pays-Bas ou au Royaume-Uni. La misère, la radicalisation en Europe, c’est une réalité. La radicalisation dans nos prisons, c’est une réalité. La radicalisation dans nos structures sociales défaillantes est une réalité.

Notre problème, c’est que nous prêchons souvent les bonnes choses mais nous peinons à les appliquer. Dès lors, je salue tous les nouveaux éléments contenus dans la législation présentée par Mme Hohlmeier, mais je souhaiterais également que nous insistions beaucoup plus encore sur le renforcement rigoureux de ce qui existe déjà.

(L’orateur refuse une question «carton bleu» de Georgios Epitideios)

  Péter Niedermüller (S&D). – Elnök Úr! Az elmúlt évek terrortámadásai nyomán a polgárok Európában – azt gondolom mindenütt – joggal féltik a biztonságukat és joggal várják el a kormányaiktól, hogy megvédjék őket a terroristáktól. Ezt azonban csak akkor tudjuk megtenni, akkor lehetséges, ha hajlandók vagyunk szembenézni a tényekkel. Éppen ezért egyértelműen el kell határolódnunk az európai szélsőjobboldal aljas politikai kampányától, amely közvetlen összefüggéseket tételez fel a menekültek, a migráció és a terrorizmus között. Félelmet keltenek és gyűlöletet keltenek. Tudjuk, hogy az elmúlt évek borzalmas merényleteit – erre utalt éppen Engel úr előttem – itt Európában született, itt szocializálódott fiatalok követték el, akik a társadalom peremére szorultak, akik nem találták meg a boldogulásukat az európai társadalomban. A mi feladatunk az, hogy megtaláljuk a radikalizációnak az ellenszerét.

És ebben az egyre súlyosabb büntetések, az értelmetlen szigor, mindenki megfigyelése és lehallgatása, be- és elzárkózás nem fog segíteni! Sokkal inkább arra van szükség, hogy határozott lépéseket tegyünk a titkosszolgálatok együttműködése tekintetében. Hogy világos és célzott megfigyelésekkel próbáljuk megzavarni és megszüntetni a radikális iszlám köröknek a szervezkedéseit. De ami mindennél fontosabb: határozott és egyértelmű lépéseket kell tennünk a társadalmi integráció és a befogadó társadalom irányában, hogy a második és harmadik generációs bevándorlók itt, ezekben a liberális demokráciákban találják meg a jövőjüket, ne pedig a radikális iszlámban.

  James Nicholson (ECR). – Mr President, when we are talking about combating terrorism, we must pay tribute to the men and women of the armed forces and the police, who have given service and made sacrifices in tackling the terrorist threats. During the decades of terrorism in Northern Ireland, the police and the army sought to prevent terrorists from plunging my region into anarchy and civil war, and now we have a witch—hunt against elderly former soldiers who are being questioned and brought before the courts in connection with events that happened more than 40 years ago. Meanwhile, the 200 IRA terrorist suspects have been getting letters of comfort and others have received royal pardons. There are some people, including in this Parliament, who are trying to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland’s past. I sincerely hope we do not let them do it. We have had many atrocities and I could go on and deliver them at great length from Warrenpoint to Tullyvallen to Harrods to Warrington and all over the United Kingdom.

Let me make it very clear: all terrorism is wrong and cannot be condoned, nor can it ever be justified by anyone. We must keep a sense of proportion and ensure that, in investigating the past, we do not focus disproportionately on the actions of those who sought to keep our community safe and who suffered grievously in the process. I would urge all Members not to be taken in by the cynical self-serving attempts to whitewash the crimes of history. And yes, Mrs Hohlmeier, you are so right. The victims are the most important, not the victim—makers.

  Maite Pagazaurtundúa Ruiz (ALDE). – Señor presidente, en efecto, las víctimas son lo más importante, y Albert Camus dijo: «Ante el mal, ante la muerte, el hombre pide justicia desde lo más profundo de sí mismo.». De eso va también esta Directiva.

La actualización de la Directiva era necesaria porque el terrorismo globalizado exige una armonización, al menos europea, de los tipos penales, con justicia, sin excesos. No hay otra manera de evitar la impunidad, y no todos los países estaban preparados.

Hay dos «pero», sin embargo, al resultado tras el diálogo tripartito —aunque debo agradecer a la ponente y a los colaboradores el esfuerzo que han hecho—: uno, el intercambio de información, que ha quedado limitado al intercambio judicial, y no policial; y dos, los inocentes, las víctimas del terrorismo, que seguirán teniendo derechos y tratamientos muy dispares —en muchos casos, muy deficientes— según su nacionalidad, incluso ante el mismo atentado.

Hay quien considera que las víctimas no necesitan una directiva propia y específica; yo creo que sí. No porque sean más graves los delitos, sino porque los terroristas utilizan nuestra vida para condicionar a la sociedad entera, y cada nuevo atentado abre las heridas de las víctimas anteriores. Las dos cosas tendrán que modificarse en algún momento.

  Nathan Gill (EFDD). – Mr President, I believe it is important that we stress the importance of education, and engagement with those vulnerable to radicalisation, in combating terrorism. Nothing can justify extremism, but we must acknowledge that it does not arise in a vacuum. Narratives of grievances, actual or perceived injustice, promised empowerment and sweeping change become attractive where human rights are being violated, good governance is being ignored and aspirations are being crushed.

Violent extremists have been able to recruit over 30 000 foreign fighters from over 100 nations to travel to Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Afghanistan, according to the UN Secretary-General. Some of them will no doubt be horrified by what they see and will be anxious to put those experiences behind them, but others have already returned to their home countries to spread hatred, intolerance and violence in their own communities.

We will not be successful in combating terrorism unless we can harness the idealism, creativity and energy of young people and others who feel disenfranchised. Young people must be viewed as an asset and must be empowered to make a constructive contribution to the political and economic development of their societies and nations. We must offer them a positive vision in their future, together with a genuine chance to realise their aspirations and their potential.

The same applies to those states we have neglected, whether economically or politically.

Our security services can only do so much to protect us, and as we are constantly told, the terrorists only have to get lucky once. We need to change hearts and minds, and while strengthening legal definitions and formalising cooperation might help, ultimately we need to successfully challenge the whole ideology behind the extremist narrative.

  Mario Borghezio (ENF). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, questa direttiva scopre l'acqua calda, ci parla di terrorismo e non osa chiamarlo col suo nome: terrorismo islamista! Che coraggio ci vuole? Manco quello avete! Qualcuno dice che non bisogna parlare di frontiere e attacca il collega, che ne ha parlato molto bene, giustamente. È vero, vengono dalle banlieue, ma poi scappano in Italia dalla Germania o dopo il Bataclan, tranquilli come turisti tranquilli che nessuno controlla visto che non ci sono più le frontiere. Ha ragione Lebreton allora!

Libera circolazione per tutti, anche per quelli che fanno propaganda, come i signori Fratelli musulmani che si infiltrano addirittura nei governi e fanno i consulenti dei nostri governi. Volete libera circolazione per tutti, ma non per i cacciatori. Le armi dei cacciatori sono pericolosissime, non quelle dei lupi solitari, non quelle dei jihadisti. Non ci sono misure concrete contro i jihadisti. Come li si cerca? Non c'è la proposta di sezioni specializzate di magistratura che siano in rapporto diretto con le polizie e coi servizi per fare delle sentenze efficaci.

Mi lasci concludere, caro Presidente, bisogna avere il coraggio di prendere misure serie. Ricordiamoci delle vittime, alle quali voi non pensate, che oggi soffrono negli ospedali e nei centri di rieducazione. Nessuno li aiuta. Anche le vittime italiane di Nizza, abbandonate dall’Europa e dall’Italia, una vergona!

  Janusz Korwin-Mikke (NI). – Mr President, your methods of fighting terrorism are like putting oil on fire. Listen: first, we must introduce the death penalty. We cannot win when they can kill us and we cannot kill them. Some terrorists are not ready to die, for example those who killed at Charlie Hebdo. Second, every man should have a gun. It will not help in most cases, but in some it will.

Three, no social benefits to immigrants. They must work, and work hard, like the American immigrants in the nineteenth century, for small money. They must not have strange thoughts in their minds: they must work and not think about something. Four, no wall will stop terrorists: we must agree that there will be terrorism and live with it. Far more people die in car accidents than through terrorism and we do not care, or we do not get hysterical about it.

And the last thing: stop the journalists. What the terrorists want is to be famous and to spread hysteria in society. The journalists should cut off the terrorists: no photographs; no interviews with terrorists. The terrorists should be hanged the next day, there should be no names and they should be buried under the pigsty. This will minimise terrorism.

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

  Beatriz Becerra Basterrechea (ALDE), pregunta de «tarjeta azul». – No sé si darle más tiempo al señor Korwin-Mikke, pero yo sí le quiero recordar una cosa. Para combatir el terrorismo, como para combatir cualquier tipo de crimen, hay que basarse en cuatro acciones, en cuatro «P»: hay que prevenir, hay que perseguir, hay que proteger y hay que penalizar —no a los periodistas, por cierto, no a los periodistas—.

Hay que prevenir a través de la inteligencia, de la cooperación, y tenemos un Centro Europeo de Lucha contra el Terrorismo que es clave, es una plataforma esencial para desarrollar una inteligencia europea.

¿No cree usted que para perseguir hace falta una fuerza policial y judicial conjunta? ¿No cree que para proteger a las víctimas, a las personas vulnerables, hace falta la cooperación de las instituciones? ¿Y que, para penalizar, hacen falta directivas que verdaderamente castiguen a los que cometen crímenes?

  Janusz Korwin-Mikke (NI), blue-card answer. – One justice and one hangman is enough.

  Alessandra Mussolini (PPE). – Signor Presidente, mi scusi, ma noi qui stiamo discutendo di diritti umani e di una direttiva ottima che li tutela. È possibile che lei non blocchi un oratore che sta parlando in continua violazione dei diritti umani? Almeno una parola la dica!

  President. – As I understand it, this was a blue card to me, not to Mr Korwin—Mikke. Mr Korwin-Mikke, do you consider that you answered Ms Becerra Basterrechea?

  Janusz Korwin-Mikke (NI). – I have one right: to be protected by the state and not by the inefficient bureaucracy that cannot help.

  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Pane předsedající, nejdříve mi dovolte, abych poděkoval paní Hohlmeierové a jejímu týmu za výbornou práci. Ta směrnice opravdu nepokrývá všechno, ale myslím si, že je stále více aktuální a že hodně témat, která jsme chtěli ve směrnici mít, je v ní zmíněno. I když směrnice svým způsobem reaguje na útoky v Paříži, tak si myslím, že se stala po útocích v Berlíně stále více aktuální. A proto jsem rád, že i řada z vás, milí kolegové, zde zmiňujete práva obětí trestných činů. Protože na oběti trestných činů a oběti terorismu se často zapomínalo.

Minulý rok se potvrdila obava Europolu, který došel k závěru, že je velmi opodstatněné očekávat, že náboženstvím inspirovaná teroristická skupina opět podnikne teroristický útok někde v Evropě. A tato obava trvá i nadále. Je tedy nutné, abychom intenzivně bojovali proti terorismu a předcházeli podobným útokům. V Evropě je nyní několik tisíc občanů Evropské unie, neříkám mimo Evropskou unii, kteří jsou podezřelí ze zapojení do bojů v Iráku a Sýrii. Nikdo však není schopen určit přesný počet. Ať už se jedná o zahraniční vracející se bojovníky nebo o osamělé vlky, Evropská unie musí být schopna se s těmito lidmi adekvátně vypořádat. A vypořádá se s nimi pouze tak, když budeme mít sjednocené trestní právo v těchto věcech.

  Sylvie Guillaume (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, les attentats que nous avons connus ces dernières années ont apporté l’horreur, mais ils ont aussi permis de réaffirmer la fermeté de nos condamnations. Avec cette nouvelle directive, nous montrons une nouvelle fois notre détermination à lutter contre le terrorisme. Ce texte définit les actes qui doivent être criminalisés, améliore la protection des victimes et renforce l’échange d’informations sur les enquêtes pénales. Ces trois axes sont fondamentaux et – je l’espère – partagés.

Au sein du Parlement européen, la commission des libertés civiles, de la justice et des affaires intérieures (LIBE) prend une part active à la lutte contre le terrorisme. Dans son action, on notera le renforcement de la protection de nos frontières extérieures, l’harmonisation de la criminalisation entre les États membres, la lutte contre le financement du terrorisme et la criminalité organisée, ou encore la coopération entre les États et avec les agences européennes. Le Parlement européen fournit ce travail avec le souci de garantir l’équilibre entre la sécurité et la protection des libertés fondamentales.

Si je tiens, aujourd’hui, à souligner la réalité de ce travail, c’est parce que j’ai été surprise d’apprendre que nous aurions besoin d’une nouvelle commission spécifique à la lutte contre le terrorisme. Ses objectifs sont, certes, encore flous: il s’agirait de mettre en lumière des manquements des autorités nationales dont les pays ont été touchés par les attentats. Soit! Mais que cherchons-nous à faire? Que voulons-nous prouver? Pointer les responsables? Évaluer si c’est la faute de l’Europe, celle de Schengen ou celle du voisin? S’agit-il de faire le même travail d’enquête que les députés nationaux en France, en Belgique, voire en Allemagne? S’agit-il de prendre d’autres positions que celles dégagées par LIBE, qui est une commission parlementaire compétente et expérimentée, ou bien de laisser prospérer l’exploitation des attentats à des fins politiques en cette année électorale dans plusieurs États européens?

Vous l’aurez compris, cette hypothèse de commission spéciale ou de commission d’enquête m’apparaît comme une polémique dans un champ qui mérite surtout qu’on les évite.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Proponuję debatę poważną – powaga sytuacji jest naprawdę rzeczą istotną. Nasi wyborcy oczekują od nas poważnych debat, poważnych rozwiązań, a nie dyskusji, które myślę, że wręcz urągają powadze naszego Parlamentu. Te proponowane rozwiązania są krokiem naprzód. Ale to też nie jest tak, że nie podlegają krytyce. Myślę, że w tej chwili z punktu widzenia przeciętnego Polaka, Niemca, Francuza, Brytyjczyka, Czecha czy Duńczyka kwestia bezpieczeństwa w kontekście terroryzmu jest kwestią absolutnie podstawową i wyborca, którego tutaj reprezentuję, jest gotów na zwiększenie uprawnień różnych instytucji, które się bezpieczeństwem zajmują, kosztem jego właśnie bezpieczeństwa. Musimy o tym pamiętać. Starajmy się wychodzić naprzeciw tym oczekiwaniom.

  Nathalie Griesbeck (ALDE). – Monsieur le Président, je me réjouis que demain, après le vote, nous puissions avoir un arsenal consolidé pour lutter ensemble et de façon aussi harmonisée que possible contre le terrorisme.

À travers ce texte, les États membres vont enfin adapter leur législation nationale relative aux infractions terroristes puisqu’en la matière, comme chacun l’a dit plus ou moins positivement, il n’y a pas de frontières alors qu’il existe des freins entre les différents codes de droit pénal des États membres.

Ce texte est un vrai progrès qui prend en compte les nouvelles formes de terrorisme, les nouveaux modus operandi, le phénomène des combattants étrangers, les voyages à but terroriste, la propagande, la provocation, le recrutement sur internet, ainsi que les familles des victimes.

C’est un progrès qui va permettre à toutes les autorités judiciaires d’appréhender avec plus d’efficacité ce fléau et de livrer à la justice les auteurs.

Je salue aussi le renforcement du dispositif d’échange d’informations entre les autorités judiciaires, même si je regrette, pour conclure, que les États membres n’aient pas suffisamment soutenu notre proposition d’échange obligatoire entre les autorités. Quand les États vont-ils comprendre que ce n’est pas en gardant précieusement ce type de données que nous réussirons demain à répondre, ensemble, aux défis mondiaux et colossaux auxquels nous sommes confrontés?

  Nicolas Bay (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, chers collègues, vous abattez les digues et vous vous étonnez qu’il y ait des inondations. Comment être surpris par la multiplication des actes terroristes lorsque vous encouragez sans cesse la libre circulation des biens et des personnes, et donc des armes et des terroristes? Vous ne cessez en fait d’illustrer le fameux proverbe chinois: «lorsque le sage désigne la lune, l’idiot regarde le doigt».

Non seulement vous restez focalisés sur les conséquences mais, de surcroît, vous vous acharnez contre ceux qui, comme nous, désignent les vraies causes du terrorisme en Europe. Vous ne les voyez pas parce que vous ne voulez pas les voir, sinon il vous faudrait reconnaître les terribles erreurs que vos amis, vos prédécesseurs et vous-mêmes avez commises en ouvrant grand les vannes de l’immigration.

Les bien-pensants s’entêtent, en effet, à nier le lien évident entre immigration et terrorisme. Pourtant, je l’ai dit il y a quelques jours, et je le répète aujourd’hui, dans cet hémicycle: tous les terroristes qui ont frappé la France ces vingt dernières années sont immigrés ou issus de l’immigration. Il y a bien sûr d’autres facteurs, mais si vous continuez à refuser de considérer cette cause première fondamentale qu’est l’immigration massive et incontrôlée, alors vous condamnez nos peuples à subir toujours plus d’attentats islamistes sur notre sol.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Elnök Úr! Személyes biztonságuk a legfontosabb. Amennyiben kétségek merülnek fel azzal kapcsolatban, hogy a legitim erőszak birtokosa – az állam – képtelen fenntartani a rendet és a biztonságot, akkor az az élet egyéb területein is bizonytalanságot és káoszt szül. A terrorizmus és a szervezett bűnözés egyre fokozódó összefonódása azt jelenti, hogy rendszerszintű fenyegetésekkel nézünk szembe: régi igazság, hogy a bűnüldözésnek tartania kell a lépést a bűnözéssel. Ezért minden lehetséges eszközzel, ugyanolyan szervezettséggel kell fellépnünk a terrorizmus ellen, amilyen eszközökkel a terroristák és az őket támogató hálózatok a polgáraink életére törnek. Nem tűrhetjük el, hogy területünkön kiképzik ezeket az embereket, radikalizálják, majd konfliktusos területre utaztatják őket, ahonnan könnyedén visszatérhetnek.

A bűnsegédletről és felbujtásról szóló fogalmainkat újra kell gondolnunk és a kibertérben elkövetett cselekményeket kiemelt figyelemmel kell követnünk. A hírszerzési értesülések széleskörű megosztása nagyfokú bizalmat feltételez a tagállamok között, ám mindenképpen szükséges lépés. Egyazon fenyegetésekkel nézünk szembe, ezért a fellépésünk is csak összehangolt lehet. A mai Európában az az egyik legjobb dolog, hogy tulajdonképpen akadályok nélkül utazhatunk a tagállamok között. Ezt persze a terroristák kihasználják, de a helyes reakció a hatékony megelőzés és a kemény fellépés, nem pedig a határok visszaállítása és a bezárkózás. Ha ezt választjuk, akkor máris nyertek.

  Ana Gomes (S&D). – Esta diretiva, suscitada pelos ataques terroristas de novembro de 2015, em Paris, visa harmonizar a legislação penal, melhorar a troca de informação e impedir mais ataques terroristas. O Parlamento conseguiu melhorar várias disposições, alertando para o perigo de respostas a quente, desenquadradas de uma estratégia global de combate à radicalização.

A diretiva tem três principais problemas. Primeiro: ofensas criminais não adequadamente definidas, deixando a porta aberta a interpretações que podem restringir, desproporcionadamente, direitos fundamentais. O combate ao terrorismo em plataformas como a Internet tem de se fazer de forma inteligente e tecnicamente eficaz, o que é muito diferente de criminalizar o próprio uso da Internet. Grave é também a Comissão, que promete melhor legislação, ter mais uma vez dispensado a avaliação de impacto. Terceiro: a terminologia foreign fighters está errada. A esmagadora maioria dos terroristas que atacaram na Europa são europeus, desintegrados mas aqui nascidos e criados; não precisaram de viajar para o estrangeiro.

Fundamental para combater o terrorismo não está nesta nem em nenhuma diretiva. Exige que os governos, os nossos governos, abandonem políticas autoritárias neoliberais, que sonegam fontes para equipar e treinar polícias e forças da lei, que criam guetos e segregação nas nossas cidades, que transformam as prisões em centros de radicalização em vez de reabilitação. E é preciso que esses mesmos governos parem a importação para mesquitas europeias de propagandistas do fundamentalismo wahabita.

(A oradora aceita responder a uma pergunta segundo o procedimento “cartão azul”, nos termos do artigo 162.°, n.º 8, do Regimento)

  Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE), blue-card question. – Nobody doubts the necessity to fight terrorism. Terrorism is like a disease, it spreads around, but it overcomes and oversteps the boundaries of the European Union. The European Union is bound to cooperate with neighbouring countries, but the diverse descriptions of terrorism sometimes from third countries is used as a pretext for political prosecution. Colleague, would you agree that the European Union as such and Member States have to be very vigorous, even selective, in cooperating with some neighbouring countries when it comes to the fight against terrorism in order to protect the political freedoms of citizens and respect freedoms as such?

  Ana Gomes (S&D), blue-card answer. – I know that several anti-democratic, autocratic governments are using the excuse of terrorism, and the obsession with the fight against terrorism, to actually suppress basic freedoms and suppress legitimate criticism and dissent. We cannot align ourselves with that and that is also why we need to be very critical about what is happening inside the EU and that is why I am also critical about some of the solutions that are in this Directive that, in my view, put in question disproportionately, or may put in question disproportionately, the fundamental rights of the European citizens themselves.

  Mirosław Piotrowski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! W proponowanym przez Komisję tekście w sprawie zwalczania terroryzmu znajduje się zapis, że zagrożenie terrorystyczne w ostatnich latach narasta i szybko się zmienia, a w jednej z poprawek dodaje się, że walka z terroryzmem pozostaje głównie w gestii państw członkowskich. Proponuje się też, aby w obliczu ataków terrorystycznych, które odnotowano w Europie w roku 2015 i 2016, koordynować działania przeciw terrorystom na płaszczyźnie unijnej. Przypomnę, że do tej pory Unia Europejska pozostawała bierna, a piętnowała współpracę państw członkowskich ze Stanami Zjednoczonymi w obszarze zwalczania terroryzmu. Przykładem jest chociażby kuriozalna komisja do spraw więzień CIA, która funkcjonowała w szóstej kadencji Parlamentu Europejskiego. Jak widać, dopiero bezpośrednie zagrożenie życia naszych obywateli atakami terrorystycznymi skłania do zmiany. Lepiej późno niż wcale. Zgadzam się z koordynatorem Unii Europejskiej do spraw zwalczania terroryzmu, który stwierdza, że skuteczna reakcja wymaga całościowego podejścia i długofalowych starań.

  Heinz K. Becker (PPE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Ich werde hier mit Stolz darüber sprechen, was hier jetzt zur Beschlusslage vorliegt. Ich erkenne, dass die Antiterrorrichtlinie ein Herzstück dessen ist, was die Sicherheit Europas in Zukunft gestalten kann. Ich bin froh, dass Kommission und Parlament hier auch eindeutig an einem Strang ziehen. Ich gratuliere allen Mitgliedern im LIBE-Ausschuss, allen voran der Berichterstatterin Monika Hohlmeier und den Schattenberichterstattern, zu dieser Leistung.

Wir können Terrorvorbereitungen und Propaganda über das Internet den Stecker herausziehen. Wir können der Terrorfinanzierung den Hahn abdrehen. Wir können effektiv gegen foreign fighters – ja, das sind europäische Staatsbürger – und islamistische Radikalisten vorgehen, auch wenn die Terrorakte gar nicht stattgefunden haben. Wir haben neue strafrechtliche Rahmen zu einer wirksamen Verfolgung, und erstmals werden die Mitgliedstaaten zu einem Datenaustausch verpflichtet – eine längst fällige Maßnahme, denn kein Mitgliedstaat in der EU kann nur eine der Herausforderungen alleine meistern.

Bei terroristischen Straftaten inkludiert sind Cyber-Angriffe, Attacken gegen Wasser- und Stromversorgung. Wir gehen sehr weit. Und ich erkenne, dass die Internetplattformanbieter von uns noch mehr verpflichtet werden müssen, Inhalte zu löschen. Bei Gewinnen von Milliarden Dollar ist kein Aufwand zu hoch.

  Christine Revault D’Allonnes Bonnefoy (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, face à la menace terroriste, les États membres ne peuvent pas agir seuls. Nous avons besoin d’une Europe unie, forte et cohérente pour répondre à cette menace globale.

Ce rapport affirme l’exigence de coopération pour permettre à l’Union européenne de renforcer son arsenal de lutte contre le terrorisme. C’est grâce à une meilleure coopération et à une mutualisation de nos capacités que nous pourrons mieux nous prémunir face aux attaques.

Je me félicite des dispositions sur l’obligation d’échanger les informations pertinentes sur les enquêtes pénales entre les États membres, ainsi que sur la confiscation des actifs et des fonds utilisés dans le cadre d’activités terroristes. Les sociaux-démocrates ont toujours exigé un meilleur partage des informations et une politique offensive contre le financement du terrorisme.

Je salue aussi les propositions pour l’amélioration des droits des victimes du terrorisme, mais la bataille est loin d’être terminée, car l’expérience nous a appris que le texte n’aura de réelle portée que si tous les États membres se conforment aux engagements de transposition.

Nous, députés européens, avons encore un rôle à jouer. Je serai très attentive à l’évaluation de la Commission sur la mise en œuvre du texte afin de vérifier sa valeur ajoutée. Elle me permettra également de m’assurer du respect total des droits fondamentaux, des libertés et de l’état de droit. Les politiques de sécurité mises en œuvre par les États ne peuvent en aucun cas déroger à ces valeurs fondamentales.

  Teresa Jiménez-Becerril Barrio (PPE). – Señor presidente, comisario, gracias Mónica por tu compromiso con las víctimas. A ellas les dedico este informe.

Señorías, cuando hablo de terrorismo, de cómo combatirlo y prevenirlo, puedo decir que me va la vida, porque la vida es lo que arrebataron unos terroristas de ETA a mi hermano y a su mujer.

No importa de dónde venga el terrorismo —si es nacionalista, si es islamista—, el objetivo es el mismo: el exterminio de quienes no piensan como ellos.

He oído en esta Cámara que no hay que tener prisa, que no hay que exagerar. Con todos mis respetos: contra el terrorismo, la buena voluntad no basta. Lo que nos sirve contra el terrorismo es la inteligencia, la firmeza y la unidad, y este informe responde a lo que nos piden los ciudadanos: poder vivir en paz sin que una bomba o un tiro en la nuca viole el más sagrado de sus derechos, el derecho a la vida.

Celebro que se haya dado un paso de gigante en la asistencia a las víctimas europeas, pero necesitamos una directiva específica para víctimas del terrorismo, porque los crímenes del terrorismo son crímenes de lesa humanidad y es la sociedad al completo, señoras y señores, la verdadera y última víctima del terrorismo.

  Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). – De afgelopen maanden en jaren is de wereld getuige geweest van de barbaarsheid van terrorisme en de weerzinwekkende daden van terroristen. Het is dan ook terecht dat veiligheid en het bestrijden van terreur de allereerste prioriteit van de Europese Unie is. Er is al veel gebeurd. We hebben de PNR-richtlijn aangenomen. We hebben een nieuw mandaat van Europol met meer ruimte om online radicalisering tegen te gaan. We stemmen morgen ook over betere controle aan de buitengrenzen. We hebben ingezet op betere bescherming van de buitengrenzen.

Dit verslag is een andere belangrijke stap en ik feliciteer collega Hohlmeier en de schaduwrapporteurs met het goede resultaat, want het is belangrijk. De mensen die kwaad in de zin hadden wisten de afgelopen tijd de zwakke plekken in Europa maar al te goed te vinden. 28 verschillende landen met 28 verschillende aanpakken, dat was te versnipperd om effectief te zijn. Deze richtlijn zet een hele goede stap in de juiste richting door één lijn te trekken waar het gaat om het strafbaar stellen van het uitreizen voor terreur, het deelnemen aan een terroristische organisatie, het ronselen van terroristen, het financieren van terroristen en ook het verheerlijken van terroristen - want daar is vandaag al veel over gezegd.

En ja, wij koesteren de vrijheid van meningsuiting. Wij koesteren dat als één van de belangrijkste fundamenten onder onze samenleving. Maar er bestaat ook zoiets als een collectieve verantwoordelijkheid, een niveau van minimale beschaving dat wij van iedereen in de Europese Unie mogen verwachten. En het verheerlijken van terreur hoort daar niet bij en moet keihard aangepakt worden.

  Alessandra Mussolini (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io volevo iniziare diversamente, ma devo fare una precisazione, perché alcuni colleghi volevano, in modo colpevole, trasformare questa direttiva che, come ha detto bene la collega Hohlmeier, è una direttiva contro il terrorismo, in una direttiva contro la comunità musulmana. È esattamente l'opposto. Noi dobbiamo invece collaborare con la comunità musulmana e trarre vantaggio dall'integrazione, non dobbiamo isolare la comunità musulmana.

Quindi, sentendo delle affermazioni che parlano di terrorismo islamista, mi chiedo cosa significa. Significa che esiste un terrorismo islamista e che poi ci sono altre forme di atti terroristici di serie B e di serie A? Questa è una cosa molto grave, è un principio molto grave. Quindi ottima è la direttiva, ottimo è lo scambio di informazioni, perché non solo armonizza e serve proprio per coordinare all'interno degli Stati membri, ma perché lo scambio di informazioni propedeutiche è fondamentale perché cambiano purtroppo le modalità degli atti del terrore. Una volta l'autobus che si va a schiantare a Berlino, un'altra volta quello che è accaduto negli aeroporti. Quindi, molto bene le nuove fattispecie di reato, che non vengono inventate dal Parlamento, ma che si attagliano alle nuove forme di atti criminali di Internet. Ho finito, signor Presidente. Ottima la direttiva, bisogna votarla.

  Arnaud Danjean (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, le terrorisme, nous le savons bien, est une guerre asymétrique qui cherche non seulement à détruire des vies, à faire des victimes, mais plus encore, à fracturer nos sociétés, à jouer sur les ressorts émotionnels, parfois les plus sinistres, et à faire sa propre publicité idéologique.

Alors, face à ce défi extrêmement complexe, qui est mutant, plastique, tout autant sécuritaire que sociologique, éducatif ou politique, nous devons avoir une réponse adaptée. Celle-ci ne peut pas passer uniquement par l’émotion, qui est légitime, mais qui souvent nous conduit à prendre des mesures spectaculaires mais pas forcément efficaces.

De ce point de vue, je me réjouis que la directive qui est discutée aujourd’hui, enrichie par le travail de Monika Hohlmeier, apporte des réponses concrètes, professionnelles et concourt véritablement à l’amélioration de ce qui est fondamental, c’est-à-dire notre arsenal législatif, harmonisé à travers toute l’Europe. Il est tout à fait essentiel d’avoir ce socle commun.

Il faut aussi articuler beaucoup mieux les dimensions de renseignement, de police et de justice, et ne pas les confondre. J’entends beaucoup trop de collègues, ici, faire une confusion entre l’échange d’informations et de renseignements de différentes natures. Je ne sais que trop bien que, avant de se coordonner et de partager l’information, il faut la collecter, et quand on regarde ce qui s’est passé dans nos différents pays, on voit que bien souvent, les dysfonctionnements touchent d’abord la collecte d’informations avant même l’échange d’informations.

Oui, donc, à des plateformes européennes améliorées, renforcées aux niveaux judiciaire et policier, mais attention à ne pas créer de confusion ni de superstructure inutile qui vienne compliquer le travail opérationnel plus qu’elle ne l’améliore.

  Axel Voss (PPE). – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrter Herr Kommissar! Die Sicherheitslage hat sich in den letzten Jahren extrem verschlechtert und deshalb dürfen wir auch nicht bei Straftatbeständen stehen bleiben.

Die permanente Bedrohung zwingt uns eigentlich dazu, zu überlegen, wie wir das besser machen können, auch die Polizei und die Sicherheitsdienste besser ins Zentrum zu rücken. Die innere Sicherheit wird sonst aus dem inneren Gleichgewicht der Europäischen Union verdrängt. Deshalb muss Terrorbekämpfung eine der Prioritäten sein. Deshalb ist auch der Bericht, den Monika Hohlmeier hier ausgehandelt hat, ein wichtiges Instrument dazu.

Unser Anspruch sollte doch sein, hier die Anschläge von Paris, Brüssel, Nizza und Berlin entsprechend auch zu verhindern. Deshalb sollten wir die terroristischen Netzwerke – foreigndFighters, Einzeltäter besser herausfiltern können. Die Datenanalysen bieten hier auch immer bessere Lösungen, ohne immer gleich den Abbau der Grundrechte durch den bösen Staat zu beschwören. Aber Datenschutz muss eben auch über den Lebensschutz gehen.

Was wir meines Erachtens brauchen, ist einmal – wir haben das schon auf den Weg gebracht –, Frontex personell und sachlich zu stärken und auszustatten. Wir brauchen die intelligenten Grenzen, um die Ein- und Ausreise zu regulieren, wir müssen PNR umsetzen, wir brauchen die Vernetzung der nachrichtendienstlichen polizeilichen Datenbanken aller EU-Staaten, den Zugriff auf Eurodac, das Umsetzen von Prüm hinsichtlich auch der Datenbanken zu DNA, Fingerabdruck etc., Kraftfahrzeug, Registerabgleich, ECRIS und die Stärkung des Antiterrorsystems, sowie auch hohe Standards für Waffenschutz.

  Agnieszka Kozłowska-Rajewicz (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Przede wszystkim gratuluję Monice Hohlmeier tego wyważonego sprawozdania. Terroryzm jest jednym z najważniejszych zagrożeń europejskiej jedności, jednym z argumentów w dyskusji o kształcie Europy, ale tak naprawdę argumentem przeciwko Europie otwartej i wspólnej, i dlatego bardzo ważne jest, byśmy go skutecznie zwalczali. Nie ma żadnych wątpliwości, że bezpieczeństwo jest teraz naszym priorytetem, że potrzebujemy w tym celu zacieśnienia współpracy, wymiany informacji, wzmocnienia kontroli, szczególnie w obrębie granic zewnętrznych. Potrzebujemy bardziej efektywnych służb wywiadowczych i zdecydowanych działań wobec osób i grup, które stanowią zagrożenie, ale również potrzebujemy skutecznych mechanizmów społecznej i ekonomicznej integracji w Europie, bowiem rozwarstwienie społeczne, izolacja kulturowa, społeczne getta to wylęgarnie radykalizmów. Tego powinniśmy unikać i dlatego bardzo popieram zaproponowane rozwiązania, które przedstawiają całościowe i wyważone propozycje.

PRÉSIDENCE: Sylvie GUILLAUME
Vice-présidente

Interventions à la demande

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, comisario, los socialistas españoles en el Parlamento Europeo tenemos las mejores razones para apostar por una actualización de la Directiva relativa a la lucha contra el terrorismo, y aportar toda la experiencia dolorosa de muchos años de combate contra el terrorismo. Para empezar, contra el terrorismo de ETA, ciertamente no islamista, pero que sí nos enseñó la importancia de la cooperación europea y de la lucha de alcance europeo.

En primer lugar, la tipificación de la glorificación, lo que llamamos en España la apología y el enaltecimiento del delito. En segundo lugar, el refuerzo de la agravante del reclutamiento de menores, personas especialmente vulnerables. Tercero, el reforzamiento del bloqueo de webs, de la prevención de ataques informáticos a los sistemas de inteligencia antiterrorista y del decomiso de bienes procedentes de la actividad terrorista, pero, muy importante, seguramente lo más importante, el refuerzo de la protección de las víctimas con apoyo psicológico, emocional, jurídico especializado y económico y financiero, porque esta es una clara enseñanza de la lucha española contra el terrorismo.

Queda perfeccionar el viaje de ida y de vuelta del reclutamiento de terroristas y, también, la protección de las víctimas.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjednice, Europska se unija svakodnevno suočava s rastućom terorističkom prijetnjom, a tome je kumovao prvenstveno ekstremno liberalan pristup migracijskoj politici i politici azila.

Kada otvorite granice milijunima ljudi iz drugog kulturno-civilizacijskog kruga koji ne pokazuju želju integrirati se, a pritom ni vi sami ne činite previše da ih integrirate već pokušavate svoju kulturu prilagoditi njima, onda ne čudi da u tom trenju između dva strana tijela dođe do iskrenja i nastane požar. Sada taj požar moramo gasiti, a prvi korak je kvalitetno definiranje kaznenih djela terorizma i djela povezanih s terorizmom na europskoj razini.

Očekujem i da se razmjena informacija među nadležnim tijelima država članica učini još bržom i učinkovitijom, a reforma NATO-a, koju možemo iščitati između redova od pobjede Donalda Trumpa na predsjedničkim izborima u Americi, također otvara mogućnost da se NATO konkretnije pozabavi borbom protiv terorizma.

  Izaskun Bilbao Barandica (ALDE). – Señora presidenta, en la lucha antiterrorista es urgente pasar de las palabras a los hechos, y la clave es el intercambio leal, inmediato y con todas las garantías legales de los datos relevantes para poder detectar y prevenir posibles actos terroristas y aprovechar en este empeño todos los recursos disponibles.

Tipificar nuevos delitos para castigar la instrucción y reclutamiento de terroristas es interesante, pero sin datos compartidos no sirve para nada.

En varios Estados, algunos cuerpos compiten; en otros, por razones exclusivamente políticas, se prescinde de experiencia, conocimiento y presencia en el territorio como los que tienen, por ejemplo, las policías de Euskadi o Cataluña, a las que se sigue discutiendo si deben o no integrarse en esta dinámica europea de intercambio, mientras los diez millones de europeos a los que protegen asisten atónitos al ninguneo.

Mejorar es tan fácil en esta cuestión como querer hacerlo.

  Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου (GUE/NGL). – Κυρία πρόεδρε, καταρχάς θέλω να καταδικάσω με τον πιο έντονο τρόπο όλες τις τρομοκρατικές επιθέσεις που έλαβαν χώρα στην Ευρώπη αλλά και στην Τουρκία. Καμιά δικαιολογία δεν μπορεί να υπάρξει για αυτές. Ταυτόχρονα όμως πιστεύω πως πρέπει να δούμε, εδώ στο Κοινοβούλιο, και τις αιτίες που προκαλούν αυτές τις τρομοκρατικές επιθέσεις, αιτίες που δεν είναι άλλες από τους πολέμους και τη φτώχεια. Μέσα σε αυτό το Κοινοβούλιο υπάρχουν ευρωβουλευτές που εκπροσωπούν κράτη που συνέβαλαν στους πολέμους, που γέννησαν αυτό το πνεύμα του κακού. Αναφέρομαι, αν θέλετε, και στον κύριο Tony Blair, ο οποίος έσπευσε στο Ιράκ προς αναζήτηση μίας μπουκάλας χημικών, από την οποία μπουκάλα χημικών έβγαλε προς τα έξω αυτό το μεγάλο πνεύμα του κακού. Οι παρεμβάσεις σε άλλα κράτη πρέπει να σχετίζονται με την παιδεία και να μην εκλαμβάνονται από τους πολίτες αυτών των κρατών ως επεμβάσεις στην πολιτική τους. Κλείνω με το εξής: μπορούμε να συμβάλουμε στην ανάπτυξη των κρατών που μας περιβάλλουν αλλά όχι με τρόπο που να εκλαμβάνεται ως επέμβαση στην πολιτική των κρατών αυτών, γιατί η Αραβική Άνοιξη στο τέλος κατάντησε Αραβικός Χειμώνας.

  Igor Šoltes (Verts/ALE). – Vsi smo lahko žrtve terorizma in tudi predvsem žrtve strahu pred terorizmom. In naša dolžnost, kot odgovornih ljudi in posameznikov, je, da ne širimo strahu pred terorizmom na način, ki seveda lahko zbudi kontrareakcije.

Pozdravljam seveda direktivo, ki bo povečala izmenjavo podatkov in sodelovanje, tudi varnostnih služb. Imam pa seveda določene pomisleke pri definiciji novih kaznivih dejanj, ker gre za občutljivo temo, ki dejansko posega na človekove pravice, in je dostikrat v zgodovini različna in nejasna interpretacija kaznivih dejanj povrzočila tudi zlorabe. Zato moramo biti tukaj izrecno jasni in pa seveda izjemno precizni.

Krepijo se tudi pristojnosti različnih represivnih organov in opozarjam samo na to, da varnost in človekove pravice ne stojita en nasproti drugemu, ampak sta zaveznika, zato pa moramo poskrbeti z zakonskim okvirjem.

  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κυρία πρόεδρε, είναι παράλογο το γεγονός ότι κάνουμε περισσότερες συζητήσεις και εκδηλώσεις στο Κοινοβούλιο για την ισλαμοφοβία, την ξενοφοβία και τα ανθρώπινα δικαιώματα των λαθρομεταναστών, παρά για τον αυξανόμενο κίνδυνο και τα θύματα της ισλαμικής τρομοκρατίας. Οι εθνικιστές, ασκώντας το θεμελιώδες δικαίωμα της έκφρασης της άποψης τους, αποτελούν τις μόνες φωνές λογικής και αντίστασης αλλά κατηγορούνται συστηματικά ως λαϊκιστές. Ας σταματήσει επιτέλους η ρητορική μίσους και το πογκρόμ πολιτικών και μη διώξεων κατά των εθνικιστών. Εμείς πιστεύουμε στις παραδόσεις των πατέρων μας και απαιτούμε την εδραίωση της τάξης, της ασφάλειας και της κοινωνικής ειρήνης. Κάποιοι έχουν επιβάλει μια ρητορική κατά των χριστιανών και υπέρ των ισλαμιστών, στο όνομα της πολυπολιτισμικότητος, της ανεκτικότητος και του σεβασμού των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων. Η ισλαμική τρομοκρατία δεν αντιμετωπίζεται με εκθέσεις του Κοινοβουλίου και ευχολόγια. Πολεμάται με κάθε διαθέσιμο μέσο στη ρίζα του, δηλαδή στις ισλαμικές χώρες που την παράγουν, όπως είναι η Τουρκία, η Σαουδική Αραβία και το Κατάρ. Σε αντίθετη περίπτωση, η Ευρώπη θα αντιμετωπίσει μελλοντικά τα αποτελέσματα των αποφάσεών της.

  Marlene Mizzi (S&D). – Illum id-dinja qed tiffaċċja organizzazzjonijiet terroristiċi aggressivi ħafna li l-mira tagħhom hija li joqtlu, idgħajfu s-soċjetajiet moderni u demokratiċi, jheddu l-ħajja, il-libertà, l-ugwaljanza u l-fraternità, imma fuq kollox li jxerrdu il-biża’. L-organizzazzjonijiet terroristiċi qed isiru transnazzjonali, organizzati tajjeb loġistikament, bl-iskop li jfixklu l-funzjoni normali tas-soċjetà tagħna. Ikolli ngħid li, sa ċertu punt, irnexxielhom!

Wara l-attakki terroristiċi tas-sena li għaddiet, f’għadd ta’ pajjiżi Ewropej, in-nies huma mwerwrin u m’għadhomx iħossuhom żguri f’pajjiżhom. Għaldaqstant, ma ħadthiex b’sorpriża li aktar minn 80% taċ-ċittadini Ewropej iħossu li l-ġlieda kontra t-terroriżmu u r-radikalizzazzjoni għandhom ikunu l-ewwel prijorità għall-Ewropa, u jemmnu li hemm bżonn azzjoni komuni mill-Unjoni Ewropea fil-ġlieda kontra t-terroriżmu. Wasal iż-żmien li nintebħu li għandna wisq x’nitilfu – u n-nuqqas ta’ azzjoni mhix għażla!

Għalhekk irridu nsaħħu mill-ġdid l-azzjonijiet biex inkopru kull aspett ta’ terroriżmu, minn prevenzjoni għal protezzjoni u għal prosekuzzjoni.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η καταπολέμηση της τρομοκρατίας απαιτεί μια συνολική προσέγγιση, μια προσέγγιση η οποία άπτεται διαφόρων τομέων, της πολιτικής, της οικονομίας, της κοινωνίας και της εκπαίδευσης. Καταρχάς πρέπει να υπάρξει πρόληψη και καταπολέμηση της ριζοσπαστικοποίησης, η οποία επιτυγχάνει ακριβώς διότι διάφορες μουσουλμανικές χώρες ασκούν σημαντική επιρροή και στους δικούς τους πληθυσμούς αλλά και στους πληθυσμούς της ίδιας της Ευρώπης. Δεύτερον, υπάρχει ένα πολιτικό πεδίο που πυροδοτεί τη ριζοσπαστικοποίηση των μουσουλμανικών πληθυσμών και αυτό είναι οι επεμβάσεις της Δύσης στον αραβικό κόσμο. Ένα επόμενο θέμα που πρέπει να κοιτάξουμε, είναι η τεράστια αποτυχία των πολιτικών που άσκησαν διάφορες χώρες της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης στην προσπάθεια να εντάξουν τους διάφορους μουσουλμανικούς πληθυσμούς. Αν απέτυχαν, ήταν ακριβώς διότι τους περιθωριοποίησαν σε επίπεδο κοινωνίας και οικονομίας. Το συμπέρασμα είναι ότι χρειάζονται συνολικές προσεγγίσεις για να αντιμετωπίσουμε την τρομοκρατία.

  Илхан Кючюк (ALDE). – Уважаеми г-н Комисар, уважаеми колеги, безспорно тероризмът се явява най-голямата глобална заплаха за 21-ви век. Под варварските терористични атаки попадат невинни жертви по цял свят без значение на тяхната етническа и религиозна принадлежност. Европейският съюз не прави изключение, а проблемът с т.н. „чуждестранни бойци“ и евентуалното им връщане в Европейския съюз е съвсем реален. Ето защо ние се нуждаем от всеобхватен подход и дългосрочен ангажимент, за да гарантираме сигурността и мира на нашите демократични и свободни общества.

В тази връзка напълно подкрепям предложението за директива относно борбата с тероризма. Тя има добавена стойност за Европейския съюз, тъй като с нея се създава хармонизирана основа за наказателното право. Държавите членки следва да продължават да полагат усилия за предотвратяване на тероризма чрез координиране на своите стратегии и обмен на информация. Необходимо е да прилагат добри практики както на равнището на Съюза, така и на национално равнище. Но и да актуализират националните си политики за превенция в съответствие със стратегията на Съюза за борба с радикализацията и набирането на терористи.

(Fin des interventions à la demande)

  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you for this debate. I would like to say first that I agree with all of those who have underlined the importance of working on the causes of terrorism and, in particular, the need to tackle radicalisation in our communities.

Second, I agree that we need a range of measures to tackle terrorism, some of which fall outside the scope of this Directive. But I do hope, and I urge you, to support this directive because it transposes the provisions that were set out in the recently-passed UNSCR, provisions of the Council of Europe and the provisions of the Financial Action Task Force based at the OECD. It reinforces information exchange and it strengthens victim support.

Third, I think we have all agreed that terrorists do not just target one Member State or another, they target our way of life and our values, and the Commission stands second to no-one in its support for fundamental rights, including the freedom of expression, which is an essential foundation of our society. Those rights are enshrined in the Charter and the Charter will steer the implementation of this directive. We, the Commission, will report on the implementation of the directive and that report will in particular assess the directive’s impact on fundamental rights.

Lastly, our response, as many speakers have underlined, needs to be comprehensive and sustainable. It needs to build on trust and effective cooperation between these institutions and our Member States. From the Commission’s side we will continue to focus on strengthening the fight against terrorism by depriving terrorists of the means they use to commit their attacks and by enhancing our defences and building our resilience, and we shall continue to maintain the closest possible engagement with you, with this House, as we take that work forward.

  Monika Hohlmeier, Berichterstatterin. – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Zunächst einmal möchte ich mich sehr, sehr herzlich für die vielen sehr konstruktiven und hervorragenden Beiträge der Kolleginnen und Kollegen bedanken, die die Richtlinie unterstützen. An die Adresse der Kritikerinnen und Kritiker habe ich eine Bitte: Ich bitte wirklich, den Text genau durchzulesen. Denn manche Behauptung, die hier aufgestellt worden ist, lässt sich nicht mit dieser Richtlinie begründen. Die Richtlinie sieht ausdrücklich eine genaue Definition terroristischer Taten vor, wie zum Beispiel die Entführung eines Flugzeugs, wie zum Beispiel die Vergiftung von Wasseranlagen, wie zum Beispiel den Besitz von nuklearem oder radiologischem Material mit dem Ziel, ein terroristisches Attentat zu begehen. Also, die Definitionen sind ganz, ganz klar und nicht schwammig. Sie müssen entsprechend in nationales Recht umgesetzt werden.

Als Zweites: Bei den Reisen innerhalb der EU muss vonseiten der Ermittlungsbehörden der Beweis erbracht werden, dass jemand konkret eine terroristische Tat plant. Nur dann kann entsprechend gegen die Person ermittelt werden. Und es ist dann egal, ob er von Syrien kommt oder ob er von Brüssel nach Paris oder von Düsseldorf nach Paris reist. Wir müssen die Täter aufhalten, bevor sie ein Attentat begehen, und nicht anschließend die Toten und Verletzten beklagen. Wir müssen verhindern, dass es überhaupt erst entsteht.

Des Weiteren: Die Unschuldsvermutung und die Garantien für die Grundrechte sind in Artikel 23 ganz präzise ausgeführt. Die Unschuldsvermutung darf nicht eingeschränkt werden, Verfahrensrechte sind zu gewährleisten, Grundrechte sind einzuhalten, Meinungs- und Pressefreiheit ist ein Grundrecht und ist ausdrücklich erwähnt. Aus diesem Grund: Wir geben keine Grundrechte auf, sondern wir schützen diese Grundrechte auch vor Terroristen, die gar nicht wünschen, dass man solche Grundrechte hat. Sie kämpfen gegen unsere westlichen Werte, sie kämpfen gegen unsere europäischen Werte. Wir kämpfen dafür, dass wir diese europäischen Werte einhalten können und dass sie nicht durch Terroristen zerstört werden. Dafür dient diese Richtlinie als rechtmäßiges Instrument.

  La Présidente. – Le débat est clos.

Le vote aura lieu jeudi 16 février 2017.

Déclarations écrites (article 162)

  Ivo Belet (PPE), schriftelijk. – De versterking van de Europese samenwerking in de strijd tegen de terreur is een topprioriteit. Met deze nieuwe EU-richtlijn wordt de gezamenlijke aanpak van de terreur en de Syriëstrijders in de lidstaten opgevoerd. Met deze maatregelen zetten we een cruciale stap in de richting van een veel nauwere en efficiëntere samenwerking tussen de nationale inlichtingendiensten. Ze zullen onderling automatisch informatie uitwisselen bij het opsporen van terroristische activiteiten en informatie over verdachte en veroordeelde terroristen met Europol delen. Dat is de enige goede manier om terreuracties te voorkomen en de terreurdreiging te tackelen.

Voortaan moeten alle lidstaten ook systematisch controles uitvoeren aan de buitengrenzen van de Unie. Dat is uiteraard in het belang van alle Europeanen. Het is een cruciale ingreep om onze open binnengrenzen, om Schengen te beschermen. Het is een hoofdopdracht voor de EU, die we nu in de praktijk ook moeten en zullen waarmaken.

  Tamás Deutsch (PPE), írásban. – Párizs, Brüsszel, Nizza, Berlin – ártatlan polgári áldozatok százai haltak meg az ezen városokban a közelmúltban elkövetett terrorcselekményekben. Az európai polgárok biztonságának garantálása a nemzeti kormányok és az Európai Unió első számú prioritása kell hogy legyen. A veszély, hogy további terrorcselekmények történnek, valós. Több mint ötezer uniós állampolgár hagyta el Európát, hogy részt vegyen a Szíriában és Irakban folyó harcokban, és a visszatérők száma folyamatosan nő. A harcedzett, erősen radikalizálódott visszatérő állampolgárok hatalmas veszélyt jelentenek. Rendkívül fontos ezért a ma tárgyalt irányelv, hiszen büntethetővé teszi a toborzás és kiképzés kísérletét, a terrorista kiképzésben való részvételt, a terrorizmus céljából történő külföldre utazást, illetve ennek szervezését, elősegítését, a terrorista bűncselekmények finanszírozását. Az Europol 2016-ban figyelmeztetett, hogy nagy valószínűséggel újabb terrorcselekmény várható Európában. A magyar kormány elkötelezett Európa biztonságának növelése, az állampolgárok védelme mellett, Magyarország támogat minden olyan intézkedést, mely előmozdítja az európai polgárok biztonságának szavatolását.

  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR), в писмена форма. – Борба с тероризма не означава да се притаяваме и да се молим той да ни отмине, затваряйки си очите. Мултикултурната политика на Европа вкара тези терористи в нашите земи. Превърна квартали от иначе изконни европейски градове в ислямски анклави и територии, в които полицията не може дори да си помисли да влезе.

Това изключително отвратително явление, което се пренесе в рамките на нашия Съюз, може да се пребори само с общи усилия на всички страни членки и изобщо на всички държави на континента ни. Още повече че освен младите джихадисти от редиците на ИД, които се връщат в Европа и се превръщат в самотни вълци, вече наблюдаваме и сливане на организираната престъпност с терористични организации. Затова приканвам всички страни членки, в това число и България, да осъвременят законовите си рамки за борба с тероризма и организираната престъпност така, че да можем по-лесно да се борим с явлението „тероризъм“, което се е превърна в бич на днешна Европа!

  Kinga Gál (PPE), írásban. – A párizsi terrorcselekmények rámutattak arra, hogy a hatályos európai terrorellenes szabályozás számos hiányosságot hordoz magában. Az irányelv célja, hogy kiküszöbölje ezeket és naprakésszé tegye a terrorista bűncselekményekre adott büntetőjogi választ az Európai Unióban, integrálja az új nemzetközi jogi jogforrások releváns előírásait, biztosítsa az Unió területén a terrorista cselekmények egységes értelmezését. Az ún. „külföldi harcos” viszonylag új keletű jelenségére való válaszként új tényállásokat is tartalmaz az irányelv, mégpedig a toborzás és kiképzés kísérletét, a terrorista kiképzésben való részvételt, a terrorizmus céljából történő külföldre utazást, a terrorizmus céljából külföldre utazás szervezését vagy egyéb módon történő elősegítését és különböző terrorista bűncselekmények finanszírozását is.

Azáltal, hogy ezek a cselekmények büntethetőek lesznek, lehetővé válik a potenciális elkövetők kiszűrése és ezáltal újabb terrorcselekmények megelőzése. Üdvözlendő, hogy az új tényállások mellett az irányelv kiemelten foglalkozik a terrorizmus áldozatainak nyújtott védelem és segítségnyújtás kérdésével is. A magyar kormány a kezdetektől támogat minden olyan intézkedést, amely kézzelfoghatóan növeli Európa biztonságát, így az uniós terrorellenes keret korszerűsítését is. Az európai polgárok biztonságának garantálása első számú prioritás kell, hogy legyen mindnyájunk számára, hiszen nem létezik szabadság biztonság nélkül.

  João Pimenta Lopes (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – O argumentário não é novo. É necessário «responder» aos atentados em solo europeu e «dar combate» aos chamados «combatentes estrangeiros». Do terrorismo e destes ditos combatentes, das suas origens e causas, nem uma palavra de enquadramento e de responsabilização da UE no fenómeno. A proposta legislativa visa a criminalização de «atividades relacionadas com práticas terroristas». A ausência de uma definição de «terrorismo», e o âmbito lato e pouco enquadrado com que as medidas e pessoas jurídicas suscetíveis de serem acusadas são propostas, levarão à generalização da criminalização por «práticas ligadas ao terrorismo», com questionável causalidade. A simples prática de visitar um website, ou de viajar para determinadas regiões poderá constituir base legal para detenção e criminalização. Os EM passarão a dispor de livre arbítrio para o encerramento de websites, sem necessidade de autorização judicial. Num momento em que as instituições da UE tanto falam da pretensa «radicalização», contribuem para esticar a corda da marginalização e exclusão, acirrando estigmas e sentimentos de repulsa de parte a parte. Trata-se de uma perigosa iniciativa legislativa que prossegue a deriva securitária da UE, consolidando uma Europa Fortaleza que faz tábua rasa dos mais basilares direitos e liberdades, impondo o controlo, o registo, a criação de perfis, a censura.

  Janusz Zemke (S&D), na piśmie. – To dobrze, że Parlament Europejski po raz kolejny zajmuje się postępami w zwalczaniu terroryzmu. Niestety, w ostatnich latach wzrosły w Europie zagrożenia terrorystyczne, czego widomym przejawem były w ostatnim czasie zamachy w Nicei i Berlinie. Terroryści działają bez żadnych skrupułów, a ich celem jest sianie strachu i walka z zachodnią cywilizacją. Zaproponowana dyrektywa moim zdaniem słusznie rozszerza definicję przestępstw terrorystycznych. W myśl nowej propozycji, za przestępstwa terrorystyczne będzie się uważało nie tylko zamachy na ludzi i obiekty, ale także ataki na systemy informatyczne i bazy danych, infrastrukturę krytyczną, jak np. elektrownie, czy systemy bankowe. Za słuszny uważam obowiązek wprowadzenia przez państwa unijne karalności publicznego pochwalania terroryzmu, udziału w szkoleniu terrorystycznym oraz podróżowania w celach terrorystycznych.

Jeżeli wprowadzimy konsekwentnie w prawie europejskim proponowane zmiany, to bez wątpienia utrudni to działalność terrorystów.

12. Pārbaužu pastiprināšana attiecīgajās datubāzēs pie ārējām robežām (debates)

  La Présidente. – L’ordre du jour appelle le débat sur le rapport de Monica Macovei, au nom de la commission des libertés civiles, de la justice et des affaires intérieures, sur le renforcement des vérifications dans les bases de données pertinentes aux frontières extérieures (COM(2015)0670 - C8-0407/2015 - 2015/0307(COD)) (A8-0218/2016).

  Monica Macovei, Raportoare. – Doamnă președintă, dacă vrem siguranță înăuntrul Uniunii Europene, atunci trebuie să securizăm granițele externe ale Uniunii Europene și asta am făcut prin acest regulament, regulament comun al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului, prin care întărim granițele externe, întărim verificările la granițele externe ale Uniunii Europene.

Pe scurt, ce aduce nou această propunere de regulament: verificarea persoanelor care intră și ies în Uniunea Europeană, prin orice graniță externă a Uniunii Europene, în bazele de date – și mă voi referi la aceasta imediat: în bazele de date. Asta înseamnă o schimbare a situației de astăzi, în care cetățenii Uniunii Europene nu sunt verificați la intrarea și la ieșirea din zona Schengen, iar cetățenii care nu aparțin Uniunii Europene, ci sunt din state terțe, sunt verificați numai la intrare, și nu și la ieșire.

Deci, ceea ce schimbăm este că toată lumea, și cetățeni UE, și cetățeni non-UE, va fi verificată atât la intrare, cât și la ieșire și nu vorbim numai de spațiul Schengen, ci de întreaga Uniune Europeană, deci de granița externă a Uniunii Europene.

Vor fi verificați cum? Vor fi verificați în bazele de date. Bazele de date obligatorii de verificat, de folosit de către statele membre sunt, potrivit acestei propuneri de regulament, Sistemul de Informații Schengen și baza de date privind documentele pierdute sau furate a Interpolului.

De asemenea, regulamentul prevede verificarea în orice altă bază de date europeană relevantă. Ar putea fi: baza de date Visa sau, pe viitor, pentru că încă nu s-a adoptat, baza de date Exit a persoanelor care intră sau ies din Uniunea Europeană.

Sigur că aceste baze de date trebuie să fie pline de informații complete, corecte și transmise imediat de statele membre. Aici fac din nou un apel către statele membre, că toată această cooperare și toată această construcție pe care noi o facem depinde de rapiditatea și de acuratețea datelor pe care le trimit în bazele de date, pentru că statele membre sunt cele care alimentează bazele de date, deci au o mare răspundere să trimită rapid, complet și corect informațiile.

Verificarea fiecărei persoane are și câteva excepții, tocmai pentru a nu îngreuna traficul la frontieră. Pentru frontierele terestră și maritimă există posibilitatea ca, oricând, atunci când este un trafic foarte mare de călători, de cei care trec frontiera, să se ceară să se facă controale țintite, pe bază de informații, deci să fie controlate doar anumite persoane, verificate în bazele de date doar anumite persoane pentru care există informații. Evident, acest lucru poate fi făcut cu acordul Comisiei și după o evaluare a riscurilor.

Pentru granițele aeriene există o perioadă de tranziție de șase luni de zile, în care statele membre sunt obligate să-și achiziționeze toate echipamentele necesare pentru aceste verificări, echipamente și pentru trainingul persoanelor care lucrează în aeroporturi. Această perioadă de șase luni poate fi mărită până la 18 luni de către Comisie, atunci când se cere acest lucru de un stat membru pentru anumite aeroporturi. Nu e necesar, de exemplu, să ceri pentru toate aeroporturile dintr-o țară. Aici trebuie să dovedești că încă mai ai probleme structurale și probleme de tehnică.

Aș vrea să dau un exemplu despre cum va fi făcut acest control, ca să înțeleagă toată lumea. Este, practic, o scanare a documentului de călătorie, a pașaportului și, dacă într—una din aceste baze de date apare o informație despre persoana respectivă, atunci pe ecranul celui care controlează apare informația și persoana respectivă trece în alte verificări. Deci nu e vorba de o verificare rând de rând în bazele de date. Este o singură interfață unde îți apare un steguleț roșu dacă găsești acel nume într-una din bazele de date menționate, ceea ce înseamnă că nu ar trebui să dureze mult această verificare în bazele de date.

Vreau să mai precizez că pentru toate aceste echipamente și pentru tot acest training există un fond european pentru securitate internă, care se află la Comisie, la Directoratul General pentru Migrație și Afaceri Interne, DG HOME, și din care statele membre vor primi bani pentru a cumpăra aceste echipamente și pentru training.

De asemenea, aș mai vrea să precizez că acest regulament, această propunere de regulament – sper ca mâine să fie votată și să fie regulament – se completează cu alte prevederi, pe lângă cele din directiva privind combaterea terorismului despre care am discutat mai devreme și pe care o votăm mâine. Avem și alte prevederi care, de exemplu, prevăd echipe mobile, care să poată să vină în ajutor, dacă este nevoie, la o graniță externă, imediat să prevăd ca, din statele membre care se află în interiorul Uniunii și nu au graniță externă de apărat, să se trimită personal corespunzător să ajute statele membre care sunt la granița Uniunii. Adică să fie un efort comun de apărare a granițelor noastre.

În final, aș vrea să mulțumesc tuturor colegilor pentru colaborare, pentru cum am lucrat. Nu a fost un drum scurt, nu a fost un drum ușor, dar am ajuns să ne înțelegem, cu înțelepciune și să facem un regulament, spun eu, bun, pentru cetățenii Uniunii Europene. Iarăși, e foarte important cum va fi aplicat de statele membre și cum va fi pus de oamenii de la frontieră în practică.

  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris, the Commission proposed the amendment to the Schengen Borders Code introducing systematic checks for all citizens at our external borders. As we have just heard, these checks are vital to stopping, amongst others, potential terrorists, not just from coming into the EU, but also to prevent them from travelling to conflict zones.

On behalf of my colleague, Commissioner Avramopoulos, as well as myself, I would like to say how grateful we are to the Parliament, and in particular to the rapporteur, Mrs Macovei, for the work that they have done on this important dossier. The amendment will oblige Member States to carry out systematic checks on all persons crossing an external border. They will be checked – as Mrs Macovei has just set out – against law enforcement databases, notably the Schengen Information System, to verify that they do not pose a threat to public order or internal security. This obligation will apply at all external borders – air, sea and land – both at entry and exit.

However, if a systematic consultation of databases leads to a disproportionate impact on the flow of border traffic, then Member States will have the option of carrying out targeted checks against the databases, provided that they first carry out an appropriate risk assessment. In the case of airports – again, as we have just heard – this option is generally only available for a transition arrangement of six months unless an airport has specific infrastructure problems, in which case an exception can be made to extend that transition period up to 18 months.

The EU will provide financial assistance to Member States to help them implement the new rules and in turn – like others here – I trust that the Member States will do their utmost to be ready on time and that the new measures will translate into immediate and tangible results.

The amended Schengen Borders Code, together with the European border and coast guards, are crucial in our bid to preserve freedom of movement within the Schengen Area and to ensure the security of our citizens. We now need to press ahead with work on reinforcing the management and security of the EU’s external borders, including the work on the entry—exit and ETIAS proposals. This is all part of returning to a fully functioning Schengen Area from which all our citizens benefit.

  Marielle de Sarnez, rapporteure pour avis de la commission des affaires étrangères. – Madame la Présidente, désormais, le contrôle à toutes les frontières extérieures de l’Union européenne – terrestres, maritimes et aériennes – sera obligatoire pour tous les citoyens de l’Union et pour tous les ressortissants des pays tiers. Cette révision du code frontières Schengen est une réponse directe aux attaques terroristes commises sur le sol européen et, en particulier, je ne peux l’oublier, à Paris.

Cette modification permettra d’instaurer un contrôle systématique des personnes à l’entrée et à la sortie du territoire européen, ainsi qu’une vérification systématique dans les bases de données.

Cette décision est de nature à redonner de la crédibilité à Schengen, à condition qu’elle soit appliquée rapidement et réellement à toutes nos frontières et qu’elle soit assortie de la mise en place effective de corps de garde-côtes et de garde-frontières européens.

Tous les grands ensembles du monde ont des contrôles effectifs à leurs frontières extérieures, il est temps que l’Union européenne se dote des mêmes moyens au service de la sécurité et de la protection de nos concitoyens.

  Barbara Kudrycka, w imieniu grupy PPE. – Jak zapewnić większe bezpieczeństwo Europejczykom? Między innymi wzmacniając ochronę zewnętrznych granic Unii Europejskiej. Dlatego ogromnie ważne jest, że po roku niełatwych negocjacji osiągnęliśmy porozumienie z Radą oraz Komisją. Uzgodniliśmy wspólnie, jak poprawić nasze bezpieczeństwo. Dziękujemy pani Macovei, naszej sprawozdawczyni, oraz wszystkim kolegom, którzy pracowali nad osiągnięciem wspólnego konsensusu. Zgodziliśmy się, że zewnętrzne granice Unii muszą być trudniejsze do sforsowania dla tych, którzy chcą do niej wjechać nielegalnie i ze złymi zamiarami. Muszą być bardziej nieprzeniknione dla siatek terrorystycznych i muszą być lepiej zarządzane. Zwiększona kontrola na granicach zewnętrznych pozwoli na to, by sukces integracji, jakim jest strefa Schengen, umożliwiły nieskrępowane podróże Europejczyków wewnątrz Wspólnoty. To jeden z ważnych naszych symboli Europy. Nie wyrzekajmy się jej. Nowe wyzwanie to, jak sobie poradzić z terrorystami, którzy mają obywatelstwo Unii Europejskiej i powracają do Europy odpowiednio przeszkoleni. Tylko zwiększona kontrola na granicach zewnętrznych, również na lotniskach, może w tym pomóc. I od państw członkowskich zależeć będzie, jak to zorganizują, by nie zwiększać kolejek do kontroli paszportowej korzystając z karencji przewidzianej w rozporządzeniu. Teraz najważniejsze jest, aby państwa członkowskie zgodnie wymieniały się danymi, regularnie aktualizowały swoje bazy oraz wymieniały się najlepszymi praktykami. Jeśli istniejące systemy informacyjne będą w pełni wykorzystywane, wówczas można będzie zapewnić ich interoperacyjność. To z pewnością ułatwi szybkie i jednocześne przeszukiwanie i weryfikację baz danych i na zasadzie „hit or no hit” i nie powinno powodować specjalnych utrudnień. Unijne prawo do swobodnego przemieszczania się nie może być wykorzystywane przez przestępców, zwłaszcza po powrocie z terenów objętych konfliktami zbrojnymi. Skuteczne i systematyczne kontrole zewnętrznej granicy Unii mogą w tym pomóc.

  Tanja Fajon, v imenu skupine S&D. – Pred sabo imamo poročilo o spremembah mejnih pravil, ki uvajajo močno poostren nadzor nad vsem potniki, ki prehajajo zunanje meje Unije. Poleg sistematičnega preverjanja identitete, uvajamo tudi obvezno preverjanje za vse potnike zoper morebitne grožnje v bazah podatkov.

Z rezultatom v moji politični skupini nismo zadovoljni. Nova pravila na mejah imajo namreč tudi pomanjkljivosti in neuravnoteženo naslavljajo varnostne grožnje. Od pravil sistematičnega pregleda bo namreč moč odstopiti v zelo omejenih primerih – želeli smo več prožnosti. Ob tem se sprašujem, kako učinkovito bomo po novem nadzor v praksi mejni policisti sploh lahko izvajali, še zlasti na letališčih.

V Sloveniji bomo verjetno že to poletje priča dolgim kolonam na meji s Hrvaško, preko katere številni prehajajo za dopustovanje. V zgolj nekaj mesecih število prehodov doseže več milijonov.

Kaj hitro se lahko tako majhna država znajde v zelo težki situaciji. Na eni strani sprejemamo nove in nove ukrepe za strožji nadzor zaradi varnostnih groženj. Na drugi strani podaljšujete nadzore na notranjih mejah, denimo med Avstrijo in Slovenijo. In Slovenija je zaradi tega že protestirala pri Evropski komisiji.

Kako naj torej razložim svojim državljanom, da lahko država postane žep, pri čemer bo za prehod države potrebno večurno čakanje zaradi novih sprememb pravil tako na severni kot južni meji?

Vsekakor podpiram, gospod komisar, ukrepe za večjo varnost. Ampak želim, da so ti bolj uravnoteženi v nadaljevanju, ne le da meje postanejo zgolj le bolj odporne, ampak da ostanejo ali postanejo še bolj prijazne za vse potnike.

  Helga Stevens, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Met dit akkoord dat we met de Raad hebben bereikt, is voortaan een uitgebreide screening mogelijk van alle EU-burgers, waaronder terugkerende Syriëstrijders met een Belgisch paspoort. Dit komt geen dag te vroeg. Vandaag is er wettelijk slechts een minimale controle mogelijk van reizigers met een EU-paspoort die van buiten Schengen op een Europese luchthaven landen. Dit is binnenkort verleden tijd want mede dankzij de N-VA worden de regels nu verstrengd. Binnenkort zullen alle reizigers onderworpen worden aan een systematische controle. Een uitstekende zaak voor de veiligheid van onze burgers.

Concreet wordt de Schengengrenscontrole aangepast die de praktische invulling van controles aan de Europese buitengrenzen bepaalt. Zo zal sneller vastgesteld worden of reizigers die Europa willen binnenkomen door een politie- of inlichtingendienst gezocht worden en of hun paspoort vals of gestolen is. In plaats van verder te reizen, worden criminelen dankzij de nieuwe regels meteen gearresteerd. Zo zetten we in op de verdere versterking van onze buitengrenzen.

  Sophia in 't Veld, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, ALDE will support this report but not with great enthusiasm. First of all, as so often, there was no impact assessment. It seems the Commission does not consider that necessary when it is about security and fundamental rights. I also think that the justification used, namely the Paris attacks, is a very strange one, because what turned out to be the case was that Member States were not sharing information and terrorists were able to cross internal borders without problems; so this does not seem to me to be a coherent vision on security and external border control but the usual Pavlov reflexes and salami tactics.

We are, however, pleased that we got at least one thing, namely that compulsory checks will be limited to well-defined databases, rather than the rather general reference that was included initially, namely checks against ‘all relevant databases’, which might be anything. Because what has also become clear is that the Member States actually fail to make full use of the Schengen Information System (SIS). We have a system in place and Member States are not using it, they are not feeding information into it, and they are not checking it. So again we are finding solutions to the wrong problem. I wish that the Member States would finally do their duty and accept that there is an obligation to use the existing systems rather than, every time it turns out they failed to share information, coming up with something new.

We also wanted a risk-based system, proportional and necessary, rather than the default setting of systematic checks. We wanted risk assessment at the European level, based on common European criteria, but that was impossible.

Finally, and this was also one of the priorities of Parliament, we wanted equal treatment of land, air and sea borders, and we did not get it. I think this is crazy, because if everybody is submitted to systematic checks at airports, but there can be exceptions for land and sea borders, then you do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that, next time, you take the car. I am not really sure what this is going to add, but because we made some minimal progress here, ALDE will nevertheless support it.

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

  Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski (ECR), pytanie zadane przez podniesienie niebieskiej kartki. – Bardzo dziwię się tym wątpliwościom, ale chciałbym być precyzyjny. Jakie to prawo podstawowe zostanie naruszone w wyniku obiektywnej i intensywnej kontroli granicznej? Czy pani może wskazać takie prawo podstawowe, które będzie naruszone?

  Sophia in 't Veld (ALDE), blue-card answer. – Well, the whole idea in a democracy is that the powers of public authorities are limited to what is necessary and proportionate, and that also applies to things like privacy, for example, or other fundamental rights. So why would you allow authorities to do more than is necessary if you know that it is excessive? Besides, this is not only about fundamental rights. This is also about effectiveness. If we are all talking about the need for more security, then why don’t we tackle the real problem, namely the insufficient sharing of information between Member States – in some cases, the actual refusal of Member States to share information – rather than creating new IT systems the whole time (paid for by public money, incidentally), if we know that it is not going to solve the problem?

  Marie-Christine Vergiat, au nom du groupe GUE/NGL. – Madame la Présidente, mon groupe est résolument opposé à cette modification du règlement de Schengen visant soi—disant à établir des contrôles des frontières systématiques et obligatoires.

C’est un nouvel étage dans la construction d’une Europe-forteresse sécuritaire, qui prend une nouvelle tournure depuis 2015 au nom de la lutte contre le terrorisme et de la soi—disant crise migratoire, en confondant sans état d’âme l’un et l’autre et en alimentant, de fait, le racisme et la xénophobie. Les États membres adhèrent à cette construction qui leur permet de se décharger de leurs responsabilités sur le dos de l’Union européenne.

Ce règlement ne peut être vu indépendamment des autres textes, qui nous sont actuellement soumis, et notamment des mal nommées «frontières intelligentes». Ce texte va permettre de contrôler les ressortissants des pays tiers à leur entrée et, désormais, à leur sortie et, pour faire bonne mesure, on y ajoute les citoyens européens.

Mais en pratique, les contrôles seront aléatoires, on ne consultera les bases de données pertinentes qu’en cas de doute sur la validité des documents de voyage. Les États membres pourront suspendre les contrôles obligatoires pour fluidifier le trafic. Surprenant! Et certaines catégories de personnes pourront également en être exonérées.

Au final, donc, ce dispositif est vraiment à géométrie variable. J’y vois en réalité beaucoup d’hypocrisie, pour ne pas dire de cynisme, au détriment des droits fondamentaux, sans que le droit à la sécurité et, surtout, le droit à la sûreté de nos concitoyens en soient pour autant renforcés.

  Ulrike Lunacek, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, Commissioner, colleagues, people watching in the galleries, for me this revision of border checks is a very telling example of ad hoc legislation and of symbolic politics, because we haven’t had an impact assessment by the Commission. I know you weren’t there, Commissioner, when we started debating that, but this is something which the Commission hasn’t proven, it hasn’t given us any proof that this will really make us more secure. No impact assessment was carried out. Indeed, it might be [questioned] whether it’s really suitable for catching terrorists. It is already possible now to have non-systematic checks of EU citizens coming in and out, and what is done now is done without any [grounds for] suspicion. For me and for us as Greens this revision is not necessary and it is not proportionate, as others have already said.

Let me give you one example, because the problem is that Member States don’t feed all the information they have into the Schengen Information System. I can give you a very concrete example. One of the Brussels attackers, Salah Abdeslam, passed through my home country, Austria, from Budapest with some people he took up in Budapest at the train station there. He passed from there to Austria, and there was a police patrol controlling him; they had an alert, but they didn’t say it was because of terrorism. So the Austrian Police a couple of days later informed the Belgians. Well, that was too late and the problem is that the Belgian authorities didn’t [give any] inform[ation]. So we have to solve that first before we control each and every EU citizen coming in and out. This simply will not make Europe more secure.

  Laura Ferrara, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la modifica del codice frontiere Schengen dovrebbe essere finalizzata ad agevolare l'individuazione di chi rappresenta una minaccia per l'ordine pubblico e la sicurezza interna dell'Unione europea. Una di quelle più difficili da identificare è rappresentata dai flussi dei foreign fighters. A tal fine, alle frontiere esterne dell'Unione europea tutti, compresi i cittadini europei, saranno sottoposti a controlli sistematici tramite verifiche delle informazioni documentali e biometriche contenute nelle pertinenti banche dati esistenti.

Solo nel caso in cui i controlli sistematici abbiano un impatto sproporzionato sul flusso del traffico dei viaggiatori, gli Stati membri interessati avranno la possibilità di effettuarli in modo mirato, a condizione che una valutazione dei rischi dimostri che tale deroga non danneggi la sicurezza interna dell'Unione. Ci siamo chiesti se non fosse più efficace prevedere come regola, e non come eccezione, i controlli mirati, eseguiti su segnalazioni condivise tra gli Stati a seguito di attività di intelligence, ma purtroppo poi in commissione ha prevalso l'opinione contraria. Un punto focale è rappresentato dalla necessità di migliorare il dialogo tra le banche dati e l'interconnettività tra queste e le infrastrutture preposte alla gestione delle frontiere esterne, nel pieno rispetto delle norme in materia di protezione dei dati e dei diritti fondamentali.

  Laurențiu Rebega, în numele grupului ENF. – Doamnă președintă, stimați colegi, pe linia politică a grupului nostru, în fața amenințărilor majore pe care le prezintă migrația ilegală și terorismul, apreciez ideea de a se întări controalele la frontieră. Am de făcut însă trei observații.

Prima se referă la hipertrofierea documentelor și legislației comunitare în domeniu. Pe măsură ce terorismul este mai rapid, mai direct și mai eficace, birocrația europeană despică firul de păr în patru. Față de rapiditatea amenințărilor, reacțiile Uniunii sunt de dinozaur – și știm cu toții ce s-a întâmplat cu dinozaurii.

A doua observație se referă la golirea de conținut a noțiunii de libertate de mișcare. Sub justificarea securității se construiesc uriașe baze de date care scapă oricărui control democratic. Încet-încet, libertatea de mișcare a cetățenilor este transformată în libertatea de suspectare a cetățenilor de către instituțiile supranaționale.

În fine, a treia observație, mai punctuală de data aceasta, se referă la statele Uniunii care nu sunt în Schengen. Acestea, conform raportului, nu au drepturile statelor Schengen, dar au aceleași obligații ca statele Schengen. Cu alte cuvinte, discriminare pe față. Este incorect și umilitor.

  Steven Woolfe (NI). – Madam President, last year the leader of the German country, Mrs Merkel, entered a monumental madness by opening the borders to millions of people who fled into that country. Since then, we have seen the impact of that across her nation. We have even now seen her making apologies for the mistakes that she said she made. On this side of the house, you heard people say that you needed to have border controls – checks to ensure that the people coming into the country, were not terrorists, could not commit crimes. Well, we were ridiculed, name-called: xenophobes, racists, casually thrown out. And yet here, in this paper today, and I quote from its own line, says that border controls are in the interests of Member States. Those of us on this side of the House who have been saying that for years are now vindicated. Only the people of Europe are saying ‘why did it take you so long to come to the same conclusion?’

  Roberta Metsola (PPE). – Madam President, we are facing security challenges that are unprecedented. We must have modern legislation in place to respond to new and evolving threats. Controls at external borders are key to ensuring proper freedom of movement and security within the Schengen Area because, in our opinion, one simply cannot exist without the other.

Having systematic checks for persons enjoying the right of free movement across external land, sea and air borders is necessary and it is being required. In recent years, Europe has learned some very difficult lessons. As we have seen, the phenomenon of foreign fighters continues to plague our communities. We cannot allow terrorists to hide behind the protection afforded to them by their European passports. The reinforcement of checks will make it easier for our law enforcement agencies to identify those people at the border.

With Islamic State losing ground in its traditional strongholds, it is becoming more likely that more of the approximately 5 000 foreign fighters in conflict zones will attempt to return to Europe. The measures being proposed are a clear and important response in terms of keeping our citizens safe. We simply must know whether people coming or going pose a threat to our internal security. We must have more security on our external borders while ensuring that our controls are efficient and secure.

I would like to thank the rapporteur and all the shadow rapporteurs who have worked so hard on this proposal and I hope that tomorrow’s vote will mean one more step, maybe a small step but an important step for our citizens’ security.

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

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), Kékkártyás kérdés. – Tisztelt Kolléga! Én azt szeretném megkérdezni, hogy amikor Ön azt mondja, hogy egy pici, de mégis előrelépés a polgárok biztonsága érdekében. Én azt gondolom, hogy egy erődítménnyel kapcsolatos hisztéria az sokkal inkább gondot okoz az emberek lelkében, mint egy hatékony és szakmailag is megalapozott munka. Én úgy gondolom, a határvédelem az szakembereknek a kérdése és nem pedig az, hogy itt a politikusok hogyan hergelik a különböző népeket. Ez lenne tehát a kérdésem.

  Roberta Metsola (PPE), blue-card answer. – Thank you for the question. Well, I agree with your last point, that we should not be spreading fear, and I think that having necessary and proportionate responses to the very threats that are creating insecurity amongst our citizens would be one way of doing that.

And I really believe, yes, that politicians, who would like to send a very strong message in order for our citizens – who vote for us to be in these positions – to feel safer, that we should be the ones to respond. Not with hysteria, not with far and extreme populism, but in order to send a very necessary and proportionate response. I believe that, if done properly, without hysteria, then with this proposal and this assertion we can actually send the message that our citizens would like to receive.

  Tonino Picula (S&D). – Gospođo predsjednice, tragične posljedice nedavnih terorističkih napada u Francuskoj, Belgiji i Njemačkoj ukazale su na mnoge slabosti postojećeg sustava kontrole na granicama Europske unije. Nema ni prakse razmjene podataka među članicama. Ali predložena kombinacija sustavnih kontrola dokumenata i osoba u relevantnim bazama podataka konačno će omogućiti sinergiju u strukturi sustava. Trebamo podržati prijedloge koji omogućavaju veću sigurnost građana, no moramo naglasiti da će ovaj prijedlog imati implikacije na tehničke, tehnološke, administrativne i kadrovske aspekte granične kontrole. Osobito na najfrekventnijim graničnim prijelazima u vrijeme godišnjih odmora.

Valja voditi računa o jačanju kapaciteta za ovakve provjere, jer je postojeća tehnologija potkapacitirana i ne omogućava dovoljno brzo izuzimanje biometrijskih podataka, njihovu provjeru u postojećim i pohranu u novim sustavima. Također, neke članice i dalje imaju granične kontrole unutar Schengena. Kada tome dodamo prijetnje određenih članica Schengena blokadom granica u turističkoj sezoni članicama koje to još nisu, a pod izlikom provedbe ovog prijedloga, naziru se nepotrebni problemi u njegovoj implementaciji.

Šteta što završna verzija ne sadržava neke kvalitetne prijedloge Parlamenta usvojene na odborima. Politička realnost, međutim, zahtijeva jačanje sigurnosti Unije i zato ću podržati ovaj prijedlog. No, trebamo paziti da ne otežamo prelazak granica onima koji na to imaju pravo. Ovaj sigurnosni instrument ne smije se zloupotrebljavati u političke svrhe.

  Daniel Dalton (ECR). – Madam President, as we all know, Europe is facing huge security concerns from the current terrorist threat, and the introduction of systematic checks at the EU’s external borders is a tool that can contribute to dealing with the increase in foreign terrorist fighters. So I support this targeted response in order to increase the security in Europe, and I welcome this report from my colleague Ms Macovei. However, this approach can only work if there is access to reliable data in EU databases, such as the Schengen Information System, and national and international databases. So, strengthening information systems and working towards interoperability is vital to the success of these checks.

I also welcome the flexibility in the regulation that will allow targeted checks. Overall, this is not a silver bullet, but if implemented properly it can play a useful part in shoring up Europe’s security at the point of entry in order to detect threats from terrorism and serious organised crime. I support this approach, but I also look forward to the Commission ensuring that Member States live up to their obligations.

  Gérard Deprez (ALDE). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, en tant que démocrate du groupe ALDE, je suis tout à fait favorable à l’adoption de ce règlement, qui va obliger les États membres à des vérifications systématiques de toutes les personnes, citoyens ou ressortissants de pays tiers, qui franchissent la frontière extérieure. Pourquoi? Parce que nous savons que bon nombre des auteurs des attentats qui ont ensanglanté nos pays ont été formés à l’étranger et sont rentrés en traversant la frontière extérieure. Parce que nous savons qu’il y a encore en Syrie, en Iraq et en Libye quelque 2 500 combattants européens et qu’au fur et à mesure du recul de Daech, beaucoup d’entre eux reviendront en traversant forcément la frontière extérieure.

Dans ces conditions, c’est une nécessité impérieuse de procéder à des contrôles systématiques pour diminuer les risques d’attentats. Cela dit, je veux souligner que le corollaire obligatoire de ces contrôles systématiques est que les États membres communiquent les informations qu’ils détiennent sur les personnes suspectées de terrorisme afin que ces informations soient disponibles pour les gardes-frontières. Si ce n’est pas le cas, les contrôles renforcés seront un épouvantail inutile et coûteux, et une vraie fable médiatique.

  Marina Albiol Guzmán (GUE/NGL). – Señora presidenta, las fronteras de la Unión Europea son, a día de hoy y según diferentes organizaciones, las más peligrosas del planeta para las personas migrantes y demandantes de asilo. Tenemos constancia de que numerosas fronteras de la Unión Europea, como el caso de las vallas de Ceuta y Melilla, son lugares sin ley, donde las fuerzas de seguridad actúan de espaldas al Derecho. Ahí, la violencia policial y las devoluciones en caliente son rutinarias y a las personas que llegan les es imposible pedir asilo. Con esta reforma, que habla de la gestión de flujos humanos como si de objetos se tratara, lo que ustedes pretenden es convertir la libertad de movimiento en un presunto delito.

Para sacar adelante su plan xenófobo, no les importa acabar con la Convención de Ginebra, devolver a la gente a las bombas o tratar como delincuentes a quienes pretenden entrar en nuestro continente. El refuerzo de fronteras es directamente responsable de las más de cinco mil muertes en el Mediterráneo y, también, de las muertes en la frontera terrestre entre Turquía y Bulgaria. El problema es que ustedes tratan como delincuentes a las personas refugiadas y migrantes cuando los peligrosos son ustedes, que pretenden aprobar legislaciones que van en contra de los derechos humanos.

  Agustín Díaz de Mera García Consuegra (PPE). – Señora presidenta, los controles de nuestras fronteras exteriores son, junto a otras herramientas de inteligencia criminal, una de las principales salvaguardas que tenemos para mantener la seguridad del espacio Schengen. La amenaza de los combatientes retornados es real y debemos hacerle frente.

El terrorismo viene también de ciudadanos europeos radicalizados. Los últimos datos indican que en torno a cinco mil ciudadanos europeos podrían haber viajado a zonas de conflicto para unirse a grupos terroristas. Muchos de ellos pueden haber vuelto ya o podrían hacerlo en breve. La amenaza es evidente.

Mucho se ha discutido sobre la proporcionalidad y la necesidad de esos controles. Respeto y defiendo la necesidad de este debate, que a su vez estamos reproduciendo en otros muchos proyectos legislativos.

Yo, como ponente del paquete sobre fronteras inteligentes, he abordado la cuestión y, por ello, creo sinceramente que es compatible velar por nuestra seguridad con la defensa de los derechos individuales. Este acuerdo lo logra y, por ello, felicito a la ponente.

Hablamos de seguridad envuelta en derechos y en garantías. El ámbito territorial de este informe abarca controles fronterizos en tierra, en mar y en aire, miles de puntos con especificidades propias que hacen de esta tarea un reto aún mayor, y es a mi juicio aceptable el periodo transitorio fijado para las infraestructuras aeroportuarias.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señora presidenta, comisario, hace un momento debatíamos aquí, en el Parlamento Europeo, la modificación de la Directiva relativa a la lucha contra el terrorismo y la importancia de poner en común toda la información disponible, con todas las bases de datos y toda la tecnología a disposición de la Unión Europea, que no es poca.

Es importante prevenir los ataques informáticos a los sistemas de inteligencia, es importante transmitir información bajo control judicial y con todas las garantías; pero si es importante reforzar las bases de datos en las fronteras exteriores de la Unión, más importante es todavía que esto no convierta las fronteras exteriores de la Unión en un infierno que sea impenetrable, incluso, para los ciudadanos europeos.

Por eso llamamos la atención sobre la necesidad de que los controles y su refuerzo no sean sistemáticos, sino que lo sean exclusivamente cuando estén racionalmente subordinados a la seguridad, y exista la flexibilidad suficiente como para que esos controles puedan relajarse tanto en su intensidad como en su dimensión temporal, en su alcance temporal, siempre que sea posible atendiendo a la seguridad y, sobre todo, en aras del libre tránsito y circulación de los ciudadanos europeos dentro de las fronteras interiores de la Unión, porque eso es Schengen, el acervo más preciado de la construcción europea.

  Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Chcę zdecydowanie poprzeć to rozporządzenie. To jest właśnie to, co Unia Europejska powinna czynić, i to wzmocni i uczyni bardziej efektywną kontrolę na granicach zewnętrznych, będzie także inspirować państwa do lepszej kontroli. Wraz z innymi instrumentami, takimi jak dyrektywa o ochronie danych pasażerskich i dyrektywa antyterrorystyczna, składa się ono na efektywną politykę bezpieczeństwa i, prawdę powiedziawszy, nie rozumiem tych głosów, nie rozumiem, dlaczego część lewicy powiada, że jest to rozwiązanie antydemokratyczne. ALDE jest obojętne. Ktoś powiedział, iż zajmujemy się tym tylko dlatego, że były zamachy w Paryżu, ale przecież przed zamachami w Paryżu blokowaliście dyrektywę o PNR. Nie można co do istoty interpretować wolności w kategoriach zupełnie nieograniczonych, przeciw bezpieczeństwu. Ład jest podstawą wolności. Jeśli Europa nie będzie bezpieczna, trudno będzie promować wolność, dlatego warto poprzeć to rozporządzenie.

  Martina Anderson (GUE/NGL). – Madam President, it is delusional to think that collecting more data on ordinary citizens will make Europe a safer place. Everybody wants European citizens to be safe, but this regulation would not have prevented the attacks that took place across Europe. It will not work because the massive collection of data is not targeted. It is an infringement of the civil liberties of EU citizens and residents. It is invasive and unnecessary. The Commission has not even made an impact assessment to justify the regulation before pushing it through.

If Europe wants to prevent terrorism, it needs better use of existing data, better cooperation between Member States, police and public prosecutors, and it needs to promote conflict resolution instead of fanning foreign conflicts and wars. The European institutions should concern themselves more with the protection of citizens’ civil liberties and less with treating ordinary citizens as subjects.

  Мария Габриел (PPE). – Г-н Комисар, скъпи колеги, нашият основен приоритет е сигурността на европейските граждани. Явлението „чуждестранни бойци – терористи“ изисква отговори и повече конкретни действия. Днешният доклад е стъпка в правилната посока. Ето защо аз също приветствам въвеждането на задължителни проверки при влизане и излизане в рамките на Европейския съюз на граждани на трети страни, както и системни проверки на лицата, ползващи се с право на свободно движение в Европейския съюз.

Разкриването, както и предотвратяването на пътувания с цел подкрепа на терористични актове е ключов приоритет за нас. В същото време искам да обърна специално внимание, че гарантирането на сигурността в Европейския съюз няма как да бъде ефективно, ако предвидените мерки изключват държавите членки извън шенгенското пространство, но имащи външни граници в Съюза.

В тази връзка не трябва да губим от поглед нуждата за приобщаване към Шенген и предоставянето на пълен достъп до базата данни на шенгенската информационна система на страни като България. Липсата на обмен на информация е пречка за укрепването на сигурността на външните ни граници. За да продължава България да се справя успешно с пазенето на външната граница на Съюза, страната има нужда от пълния набор от инструменти.

Нека не забравяме: гарантирането на сигурността в Европа зависи от гарантирането на сигурността и в България. Страната очаква този положителен знак.

  Christine Revault D’Allonnes Bonnefoy (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, au regard de l’état actuel des menaces, je ne peux qu’insister sur la nécessité de mieux gérer nos frontières extérieures communes et d’assurer la liberté de circulation à tous au sein de l’espace Schengen. C’est à cette condition qu’il fonctionnera à nouveau normalement, et tel est bien notre but, car le retour aux frontières nationales n’est pas une option.

Cependant, deux remarques sont ici nécessaires. Premièrement, le groupe des sociaux-démocrates restera vigilant quant à une accumulation des contrôles, des vérifications et des bases de données. Nos efforts pour la sécurité de nos concitoyens pourraient en devenir contre-productifs. Deuxièmement, je serai attentive sur la mise en œuvre pratique de ces mesures par les États membres, notamment la nécessité, pour les aéroports, d’adapter leurs infrastructures pour l’application des contrôles systématiques.

Je ne souhaite pas que la situation de la directive «PNR» se reproduise. Le Conseil avait également fait pression sur le Parlement pour l’adoption rapide du texte, alors que l’on constate aujourd’hui que seulement quatre États membres sont sur le point d’avoir un PNR opérationnel.

La sécurité est l’affaire de tous. C’est par une meilleure coopération de l’ensemble des acteurs tant européens que nationaux que nous pourrons agir efficacement contre les menaces actuelles.

  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Gospođo predsjednice, pojačani priljev ljudi u Europsku uniju izravna je posljedica ratova i lošeg ekonomskog stanja u susjednim regijama, a s tom ćemo realnošću nažalost biti suočeni i u narednim godinama. Svi vjerujemo u skori završetak rata u Siriji, ali njegove ćemo posljedice sigurno osjećati dugo nakon što sami rat bude okončan.

Znajući koliki je pritisak na vanjske granice Unije i kolika je nestabilnost stvorena u pojedinim državama članicama, neodgovornim politikama prema migrantima i povratkom dijela ISIL-ovih boraca u Europu, bojim se da smo malo zakasnili s pooštravanjem kontrola na vanjskim granicama.

No, bolje ikad nego nikad! Nadam se da je ovo samo početak jedne pametnije politike, kojom ćemo svim svojim građanima zajamčiti višu razinu sigurnosti. Ne budemo li to u stanju učiniti, doći će do dodatnog zatvaranja svake države u sebe, a time će brojni pozitivni učinci europskih integracija preko noći biti poništeni.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE). – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Presidente do Conselho, Senhor Comissário King, Cara Colega Monica Macovei, a introdução de controlos mais estritos através da consulta sistemática das bases de dados existentes – europeias e nacionais – é um bom exemplo de como podemos dar mais segurança, no imediato, aos cidadãos europeus.

Para garantir que o Espaço Schengen permanece um espaço de liberdade, segurança e justiça, temos de atuar nas fronteiras externas e assegurar a melhor cooperação possível internamente.

É, por isso, crucial que possamos garantir o pleno controlo devido de quem atravessa a nossa fronteira externa, como estas alterações pretendem – não apenas de quem entra, mas também de quem sai, não apenas a nacionais de países terceiros, mas também europeus.

Queremos otimizar a utilização dos sistemas de informação, como o SIS, o Sistema de Informação de Schengen, de forma a potenciar a partilha da informação e a cooperação entre os Estados-Membros para dar a máxima eficácia a estas alterações ao Código de Fronteiras Schengen.

É, por isso, que a proposta apresentada pela Comissão, no passado mês de dezembro, para alterar o SIS não pode ser desligada destas medidas. E, com isto, termino, Sra. Presidente. A segurança dos europeus não se garante por camadas isoladas; a segurança dos europeus faz-se de forma planeada, garantindo uma atuação equilibrada, porque é nossa obrigação zelar pela segurança, mas também pela liberdade, incluindo a liberdade de circulação de todos os europeus.

  Cécile Kashetu Kyenge (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, le verifiche alle frontiere esterne dell’Unione restano una delle principali misure di salvaguardia dello spazio senza controllo alle frontiere interne. Si tratta di verifiche che sono effettuate nell’interesse di tutti gli Stati membri, dirette a prevenire qualsiasi minaccia, anche nel caso in cui, e l’abbiamo visto nei recenti attentati di Parigi e Bruxelles, tale minaccia provenga da cittadini dell’Unione. Grazie alle nuove tecnologie disponibili e alle banche dati nazionali ed europee a loro disposizione, le guardie di frontiera situate nelle frontiere esterne dell’Unione potranno effettuare delle verifiche sistematiche e mirate a tutti i cittadini europei.

Il rispetto del diritto resta tuttavia per noi il principio prioritario a base di questo regolamento. L’accertamento dell’identità e della validità del documento di viaggio va sempre eseguito nella piena osservanza del diritto dell’Unione sancito nella Carta dei diritti fondamentali, in particolare per i diritti al rispetto della vita privata, alla protezione dei dati e alla libertà di circolazione e di soggiorno.

  Емил Радев (PPE). – Г-жо Председател, дами и господа, контролът по външните европейски граници винаги е бил и ще продължава да бъде една от най-важните гаранции за сигурността в рамките на Съюза и за защита на правото на свободно движение на европейските граждани. Вярвам, че въвеждането на систематични проверки по външните граници на Европейския съюз не само за граждани на трети държави, но и за всички европейски граждани, ще подпомогне работата на службите за сигурност в залавянето на хора, представляващи терористична заплаха.

Това досие е изключително важно за моята страна България, която защитава една от най-трудните европейски външни граници, тази с Турция. България многократно е доказвала, че когато разполага с необходимата информация от европейските партньори, тя успешно се справя с противодействие на тероризма.

Опитът на България доказва обаче, че за да бъде успешна новата политика на систематични проверки, съответните бази данни трябва да бъдат редовно запълвани с информация от различните служби и всички държави членки трябва да имат пълен достъп до тези системи, най-вече ШИС. С други думи, за да бъдат успешно засилени сътрудничеството и обменът на информация между европейските служби за сигурност, всички държави по външните граници на Европейския съюз трябва да се присъединят към Шенген.

  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Paní předsedající, při předcházející rozpravě jsem poukázal na to, že do Evropské unie přichází tak zvaní zahraniční bojovníci a další osoby, které prošly boji či výcvikem v oblastech konfliktů. Tito lidé se po zavedení schengenského systému mohou volně pohybovat po našem území a my nejsme schopni kontrolovat jejich pohyb ani nejsme schopni je sledovat.

Je proto tedy bezesporu zásadní, abychom se starali o to, že kdokoliv, kdo překračuje vnější hranice Evropské unie, nepředstavuje hrozbu ani pro vnitřní bezpečnost, ani pro veřejný pořádek. Musíme tedy zavést nejen systematické kontroly na hranicích, ale také efektivně využívat systém SIS a databázi Interpolu, která eviduje ukradené či ztracené dokumenty. Takováto mezinárodní spolupráce je nutná, protože Evropská unie nemůže bojovat proti terorismu sama, natož tento boj vyhrát.

Interventions à la demande

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, che l'Europa sia nell'occhio del ciclone per la minaccia terroristica è un dato oggettivo. La proposta della relatrice Macovei è di rendere sistematici i controlli in uscita alle frontiere esterne dell'Unione con l'ausilio di banche dati e dispositivi biometrici. Credo che questa ipotesi vada valutata nel quadro complessivo della riorganizzazione dei sistemi di difesa europei, coordinandola con altre azioni intraprese ed in programma.

Ritengo sia necessario chiarire il meccanismo di modulazione dei controlli sull'intensità del traffico in uscita che, oltre a non ostacolare la fluidità degli spostamenti, deve anche garantire la parità di trattamento tra i cittadini. È fondamentale che l'Europa rispetti il principio di proporzionalità e che ogni intervento mirato ad innalzare il livello di sicurezza non alimenti, come spesso accade, ingiustificate limitazioni delle libertà personali. In definitiva, l'opportunità dei controlli in uscita va valutata alla luce dei dati concreti, informazioni di intelligence e ricerche specifiche e non facendo leva sulle paure dei cittadini o sul ricordo ancora doloroso degli attentati in Europa.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, τον τελευταίο μήνα έχω επισκεφθεί δύο νησιά του Αιγαίου, τη Χίο και τη Σάμο, και το Σάββατο θα επισκεφτώ τη Λέσβο. Σε όλα αυτά τα νησιά υπάρχουν τουλάχιστον 16.500 πρόσφυγες και παράνομοι μετανάστες εγκλωβισμένοι. Επικρατεί αγανάκτηση μεταξύ των κατοίκων των νησιών, η οποία έχει γίνει ακόμη μεγαλύτερη διότι ένα επιτυχημένο σύστημα χορήγησης βίζας κατά την είσοδο στο λιμάνι έχει σταματήσει. Αυτό το σύστημα ονομάζεται «GATE VISA SCHENGEN» και συνίσταται στο να μπορεί κανείς να πάρει βίζα στο λιμάνι που θα προσεγγίσει το πλοίο, αφού κατέβει στο λιμάνι. Αυτή τη βίζα μπορούν να την πάρουν τουρίστες όπως είναι οι Κινέζοι, οι Ρώσοι και άλλοι υπήκοοι τρίτων χωρών και να περάσουν από απέναντι, από την Τουρκία, από το Κουσάντασι, εκεί όπου είναι η Έφεσος, και να επισκεφθούν τη Σάμο. Αυτό λοιπόν το σταματήσατε. Επιτρεπόταν επί τέσσερα χρόνια ως πιλοτικό πρόγραμμα και έχει σταματήσει με απόφαση της Επιτροπής. Σας υπέβαλα γραπτή ερώτηση και θέλω μία απάντηση, έστω και σήμερα, να μου πείτε τι θα γίνει. Θα συνεχιστεί αυτή η εξαίρεση; Διότι δεν είναι δυνατόν να απαγορεύουμε τους νόμιμους τουρίστες και να έχουμε χιλιάδες παράνομους να έρχονται στα νησιά.

  Igor Šoltes (Verts/ALE). – Vsi bi si želeli, da bi bili naši državljani varni, da torej bi obstajala učinkovita zaščita pred terorizmom.

Ta uredba je verjetno potreben, vprašanje pa je, ali je zadosten pogoj za to, s čimer naj bi seveda se obranili pred terorizmom. In pregled državljanov na vseh zunanjih mejah EU za preprečitev terorizma se mi zdi verjetno kar zapleten ukrep, zlasti glede njene realizacije in glede tehničnih priprav, izmenjave evidenc, vsega tistega, kar je potrebno za to.

Treba pa je seveda vedeti, da teroristi, ki so povzročili napade v Parizu in tudi drugje, niso prišli od zunaj, so tukaj pri nas. In ravno zato se mi zdi, da je potrebno tukaj imeti občutek za sorazmernost.

Predvsem bi pa rekel, če bi ta ukrep bil učinkovit, ali boste torej, spoštovana Komisija, zahtevali od držav članic, da porušijo zidove notranjih meja, poberejo žice in torej sprostijo prost pretok blaga, storitev in ljudi skladno z ustavo Evropske unije.

  Γεώργιος Επιτήδειος (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ο κανονισμός για την διεξαγωγή συστηματικών ελέγχων από τα κράτη όλων όσων ταξιδεύουν προς και από αυτά κινείται προς τη σωστή κατεύθυνση. Πριν όμως πραγματοποιηθούν αυτοί οι έλεγχοι, θα πρέπει να έχουν προηγηθεί έλεγχοι και καταγραφή των προσφύγων και των μεταναστών, παρανόμων και μη, στα εξωτερικά σύνορα της Ευρώπης, ούτως ώστε να μην επιτρέπεται η παρείσφρηση ή να καταβάλλονται τουλάχιστον προσπάθειες για τη μείωση της παρείσφρησης τρομοκρατών μέσα στα κράτη αυτά, όπως δυστυχώς έχει συμβεί ήδη. Αυτή η αποστολή πρέπει να ανατεθεί στις αρχές ασφαλείας του κάθε κράτους, οι οποίες και την εμπειρία διαθέτουν αλλά και τη θέληση να φέρουν εις πέρας αυτή την αποστολή. Στη συνέχεια διαβιβάζουν οι αρχές τις πληροφορίες που συγκέντρωσαν στις αντίστοιχες αρχές των άλλων κρατών και έτσι θα έχουμε μια σωστή αντιμετώπιση του φαινομένου της τρομοκρατίας και δεν θα αντιμετωπίζουν προβλήματα οι ταξιδιώτες που ταξιδεύουν στα κράτη της Ευρώπης.

(Fin des interventions à la demande)

  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you for this debate which I will give a full account of to my colleague Commissioner Avramopoulos, who regrets that he cannot be with us this afternoon. Thank you also for the work that has been done on this proposal, which I agree has been strengthened by those discussions.

As we heard in the previous discussion, security is one of the major concerns of our citizens and we believe that the reinforcement of checks against relevant databases will reinforce our external borders and strengthen our knowledge about who enters and leaves our shared space, and that can have an impact. I have seen myself at Charles de Gaulle Airport, where they already implement the systematic checks, the impact that that can have in terms of the increased knowledge about people who are arriving and, in a significant number of cases there, the controls that they were able to conduct as a result of that knowledge.

We are not, in these proposals, creating new databases. This is about checks against the relevant specified databases. But I do agree completely with those who have underlined how important it is that those databases are properly used and properly supplied by the Member States, in particular, the most important and significant of these databases, I believe, the Schengen Information System; which is precisely why, in the proposals that the Commission brought forward in December, which you are going to be discussing, we have made a number of suggestions for strengthening the Schengen Information System and, for the first time, we are proposing the introduction of an obligation on Member States to share information with that system regarding terrorism. I hope that you will support that.

I agree that we need borders that are not just resilient but also functioning and that is why, as a number of speakers have underlined, there are elements of flexibility that are included in these proposals and those depend on risk assessment. So I hope you will support those elements of the proposal as well.

We do need to be very careful about effective implementation; on this, as on all of the issues relating to this area of the security union. That is why I am glad that the Commission has undertaken to present an evaluation on the implementation of these proposals to Parliament within two years following the entry into force of the regulation.

  La Présidente. – Le débat est clos.

Le vote aura lieu demain.

Déclarations écrites (article 162)

  Valdemar Tomaševski (ECR), raštu. – Klausimas, dėl kurio šiandien diskutuojame, buvo ilgą laiką aptarinėjamas Piliečių laisvių komitete, kurio esu narys. Be abejonės, išorės sienų kontrolė ir jų apsauga vis dar yra veiksmingiausias būdas ilgalaikiam ES saugumui užtikrinti. Juk išorės sienų kontrolė yra vykdoma tam, kad būtų užtikrintas visos ES ir jos piliečių saugumas. Vienas iš tokios kontrolės tikslų yra prisidėti prie kovos su nereguliuojama migracija ir su prekyba žmonėmis, užkirsti kelią visoms vidaus saugumo grėsmėms. Tokiais atvejais yra patartina sustiprinti išorės sienų apsaugą tam, kad būtų veiksmingiau identifikuoti tie asmenys, kurie planuoja slėpti savo tikrą tapatybę. Bet ši sistema negali tapti draudimo sistema, reikia vadovautis sveiku protu siekiant išspręsti šitą klausimą. Be abejonės, pasieniečiai privalo turėti galimybę priimti sprendimą dėl tam tikrų duomenų bazių netikrinimo, jei kalba eina apie asmenį, besinaudojantį laisvo asmenų judėjimo ES teise, jeigu iš įvertinimo tampa aišku, kad šis asmuo nesudaro pavojaus bet kurios ES valstybės vidaus saugumui. Prie tokių asmenų turime priskirti visus vaikus iki 12 metų amžiaus ir nepilnamečius, keliaujančius su tėvais, moksleivius, keliaujančius su organizuotomis ekskursijomis, o taip pat asmenis, turinčius diplomatinius pasus. Turime neužmiršti, kad tarnybų, saugančių sienas, efektyvumas priklauso nuo jų finansavimo lygio, todėl ES privalo ženkliai paremti tas valstybes, kurios turi ES išorines sienas.

13. ES tiesībaizsardzības informācijas apmaiņa un pirms Lisabonas līguma pieņemšanas izveidotu instrumentu aizstāšana (debates)

  La Présidente. – L’ordre du jour appelle le débat sur la déclaration du Conseil et de la Commission sur l’échange d’informations en matière répressive dans l’Union et le remplacement des instruments antérieurs au traité de Lisbonne (2017/2504(RSP)).

  Ian Borg, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, strengthening the exchange of information is one of the measures which were agreed by the Council as a response to the terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels. Besides the enormous importance of collecting information, it is equally important to join up the dots and make the best use of the information.

Last June, the need to address the issue led the Council to endorse a roadmap on information exchange and information management in the Justice and Home Affairs area, including interoperability solutions. The roadmap contains no less than 50 practical short and medium—term actions and long—term orientations. The implementation of those actions is monitored by the Standing Committee on Operational Cooperation on Internal Security. The essence of the roadmap is to make sure that the practitioners have access to the information they need. It provides a coherent framework for a more integrated EU information architecture in the Justice and Home Affairs area. This must obviously happen in full respect of fundamental rights and data protection rules.

Improving information exchange and implementing the roadmap has been a priority of the previous Presidencies and it continues to be a priority for our Presidency. I believe that, based on available statistics, it is fair to say that there has been substantive progress in increasing the information exchange, both among the Member States and with Europol, over the past year. Let me give you some figures to demonstrate this point. For instance, in the third quarter of 2016, more than 200 000 messages were exchanged via the Secure Information Exchange Network Application amongst the Member States, and between the Member States and Europol. This is an increase of 16% compared to the same quarter of the year before, 2015. Regarding new cases, nearly 11 000 new cases were initiated via the same network application in the third quarter of 2016, which amounts to an increase of 6% compared to 2015.

As regards the use of Europol’s databases, both the input of data and the number of searches in the Europol information system substantially increased in 2016. The number of searches conducted in this database even set a new record in the third quarter of last year, reaching more than one million searches for the first time. I am aware of the fact that using the existing tools is only one part of the process. The implementation of many of the actions of the roadmap and achieving interoperability of information systems will require certain legislative changes. Important work in this direction is ongoing in the high—level expert group which the Commission set up last April and in which the European Parliament participates. Once the group’s report is presented to Parliament and the Council in April, our common role as co-legislators will be crucial when addressing some of the challenges ahead.

Regarding the various legal instruments, I would like to make the following points. Regarding the exchange of information on terrorism offences, the Council, throughout the negotiations last year on the Counter—Terrorism Directive, was actively engaged in seeking a compromise with Parliament on strengthening the exchange of information. I am glad that Parliament has just had a debate on the directive and will vote on it tomorrow. I would like once again to thank Ms Hohlmeier and her colleagues for their work on the directive.

The directive will strengthen the European Union’s legal framework to prevent terrorist attacks, notably by criminalising acts such as training or travelling for terrorist purposes, and it also reinforces the rights of the victims. This morning we had the opportunity to address the media, together with the rapporteur and Commissioner King, on the expectation that tomorrow’s vote on this directive would now pave the way to its adoption. The political agreement on the directive envisages that Member States will be obliged to exchange relevant information gathered in criminal proceedings wherever such information could be used in the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of terrorist offences, and irrespective of whether there has been a request to that effect.

To ensure better compliance by Member States, an explicit obligation for the receiving competent authorities to take active follow-up measures on such information is also introduced. At the same time Parliament, the Council and the Commission agreed that to ensure efficient and timely exchange of information on terrorism, measures in a broader policy context are necessary. In a joint statement the three institutions underlined the necessity of making full use of all the existing Union instruments, channels and agencies to exchange information. A swift implementation of all adopted Union legislation in this field is key.

Madam President, I will stop here – though I can see that in the time that I have been addressing the House, it is no longer Madam President but Mr President – and I now look forward to listening to your debate in the House and responding later.

PRZEWODNICTWO: BOGUSŁAW LIBERADZKI
Wiceprzewodniczący

  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, thank you for this opportunity to discuss this question of EU law enforcement information exchange. Forgive me in advance if some of this gets a bit technical. I know that there are many experts here who can match, indeed far exceed, my technical expertise.

EU Member States are in the front line for dealing with many of these issues to do with tackling terrorism, security, and law enforcement. But we can, and should, do all we can at the EU level to help and assist and support EU Member States and EU Member States’ agencies. Information sharing is a key part of that, as we all recognise, and indeed the Member States and their agencies recognise.

Unfortunately, and we have already talked about this in earlier discussions this afternoon, some of the recent attacks have shown some weaknesses in the way that information is currently being shared across the European Union and, more generally, in the way that some of these systems are operating currently, including how they operate with each other. The Commission has consistently called on Member States to exploit fully the potential of the existing information systems at EU level. And we work to support the Member States in doing this with funding, expertise and by getting them to share best practice.

As I have said on several occasions before this House, EU instruments can only bring added value on the ground, if and when they are fully implemented by the Member States and applied in practice. This is why a key aspect of our work towards an effective and sustainable security union is better application and implementation of existing EU instruments. It is one of the pillars of our work towards a stronger and smarter set of information systems and greater interoperability; it is a key part of the work of the high-level expert group to assess various options and make recommendations to that end.

The Commission assists Member States in every possible way to ensure the proper implementation of our agreements, but where necessary we do not shy away from enforcing the law, including the use of infringement procedures.

Let me turn to some of the key instruments and give you a brief update on where we stand in terms of their implementation and their use. The main instrument, we have already touched upon it earlier this afternoon, that I am going to address, is the Schengen Information System (SIS). It is the most widely used information-sharing system in Europe and I believe it is a real operational success, thanks in part to our collective – and I include very much the work of the Parliament here – support and work to raise awareness. There is a clear upward trend in the way Member States are using the SIS. To take just one example, there has been a significant increase in checks by, and involvement of Member State security services with this system. An 800% increase in the discreet and specific check alerts issued by those services over the last two years. So I believe we are moving in the right direction, but there is still a long way to go. We need to make technical and operational improvements to the SIS if it is to become more effective and efficient, as we all want.

That is why, as I have just said in finishing the last debate, in December, the Commission presented a set of proposals to improve the technical functioning of SIS, to streamline national processes and to strengthen data protection by introducing additional safeguards. In doing so, we propose to turn the current Council decisions on the SIS – which are pre-Lisbon instruments and part of the so-called former third pillar – into regulations to be adopted under the ordinary legislative procedures.

From the various improvements tabled I would highlight one in particular: for the first time, we propose to make it obligatory for Member States to issue alerts in SIS for persons related to terrorist offences. I hope you will support that and we stand ready to examine whether such mandatory obligations for information-sharing could/should be introduced for other EU databases. It is important that the co-legislators work together for the swift adoption of these proposed measures.

In parallel we are continuing to work with the Member States to ensure the full implementation and effective use of all of our information exchange tools. One well-known tool is the Prüm framework for exchanging data regarding DNA, fingerprints and vehicle registration, and for enhancing cross-border cooperation against crime and terrorism. We are focused on getting to full implementation of this system, which, as you know, was agreed some years ago. Despite all the efforts we have made collectively there are five Member States that still do not comply with the requirements of the Prüm Decision. That is why, for the first time in relation to a former third-pillar instrument, infringement proceedings were launched in September last year. All five Member States have responded; we are looking at their replies and, in the light of those, we will need to take a decision on next steps. We have also got the high-level expert working group looking into the challenge of strengthening and improving the functioning of Prüm cooperation.

Another instrument that I want to pause on is the Council framework decision referred to as ‘the Swedish initiative’, well known to you here. It provides a common legal framework for the effective and expeditious exchange of information and criminal intelligence between Member States’ law enforcement authorities. Now good progress has been made, and only one Member State has not notified transposition. But some Member States use the Swedish framework decision more extensively than others – to put it politely – and overall there remains room for improvement. That is why the Commission is currently looking at the Member States’ use of the Swedish initiative and why we plan to launch a compliance study to look into this in more detail. It will help us to determine what is needed to ensure a better use of this important instrument.

The last instrument I want to pause on is Council decision 2005/671 on the exchange of information on terrorist offences. This legislation, again well-known to you, requires Member States to designate contact points with responsibility for sending information on terrorist offences to Europol and Eurojust. It defines a minimum base for what types of information should be shared with the two agencies. It requires Member States to transmit information on terrorist offences to Eurojust, Europol and other Member States concerned, unless this would jeopardise ongoing investigations. Information sharing with Europol and Eurojust has increased significantly over the last year. For instance, the number of foreign terrorist fighters communicated to Europol and entered into its Europol information system increased from 3 740 entries in December 2015 to 7 884 entries in December 2016.

The volume of data concerning foreign terrorist fighters shared with Europol’s Focal Point Travellers – Europol’s specialist team of analysts and experts who work on analysing information around foreign terrorist fighters – increased almost threefold over the course of 2016. Now I take this progress to be encouraging, but the level of engagement still differs between different Member States. The obligations in the Council decision will be strengthened through the Directive on combating terrorism which you are voting on tomorrow. Thanks to the work of the Parliament, the Directive will make the exchange of information mandatory and include an obligation for the receiving Member State to take appropriate action when they get information.

Finally, let me say a few words about our work on information systems and interoperability and the preparatory work at senior officials level that is currently being done by the high-level expert group. President Juncker’s State of the Union address in September and the European Council conclusions of December, refer to the importance of overcoming the current shortcomings in information management and improving the interoperability and interconnection between existing information systems.

To accelerate the work of the high-level expert group, the chairman presented an interim report last December. We discussed the findings with some of you in the LIBE Committee in January and I look forward to continuing a discussion on this important subject.

Today I would just like briefly to refer to the interim report’s recommendations. First, the Group suggests ways to improve data quality in EU Information Systems. The Commission welcomes this, as information systems are really only as effective as the quality of the data they hold and we intend to pursue the proposals put forward by the Group.

Second, the Group proposes to look at a European portal capable of searching simultaneously all relevant EU databases to which the person conducting the search has access rights. Again this would seek to make better use of existing systems in full compliance with existing rules on access, the use of data and data protection rules. I think it is a good suggestion which I commend to you.

More generally the process we initiated last year with a strategy presented in April, the setting-up of the high-level expert group, allows us to address shortcomings in the EU information systems in an inclusive and transparent way. The high-level expert group will present its final report later this spring, and, on this basis, the Commission will consider if, and if so what, further measures might increase the effectiveness and help address the current security threats. Any proposals – I think it goes without saying – for amending the existing legal framework will of course need to be taken forward with you in the normal way. On that and indeed all of these issues to do with information exchange, I look forward to continuing the close dialogue that we have between the Commission and the Parliament because these subjects merit it.

  Monika Hohlmeier, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, liebe Ratspräsidentschaft! Ich bedanke mich erst einmal für die sehr ausführlichen Antworten.

Trotzdem will ich ein paar kritische Nachfragen stellen. Erst einmal empfinde ich es als sehr gut, dass wir uns über den Ersatz der pre-Lisbon instruments unterhalten, denn seit dem Lissabon-Vertrag haben wir Mitbestimmung im Europäischen Parlament in diesen Fragen. Es ist notwendig, der Terrorismusrichtlinie, die wir morgen verabschieden werden, weitere rechtliche Instrumente in der Umsetzung folgen zu lassen. Wir unterhalten uns derzeit sehr stark und berechtigt über das Thema Terrorismus. Wir haben jedoch auch andere Formen der internationalen Schwerkriminalität – im Besonderen der organisierten Kriminalität –, die sich zum Teil gemeinsam mit Terrornetzwerken fazilitieren, gegenseitig unterstützen und damit zum Teil auch staatsgefährdende Formen entwickeln.

Ich halte es für besonders wichtig, dass wir uns erstens beim Thema Informationsaustausch vergewissern, dass tatsächlich alle Mitgliedstaaten Informationen einspeisen, dass die Informationen analysiert werden – zunächst auf nationaler Ebene, dann zusammengeführt auf europäischer Ebene – und dass wir der Analyse von Informationen deutlich mehr manpower und auch technische Ausstattung zukommen lassen, denn der präzisen Analyse von Informationen ist es zu verdanken, wenn wir schwere Straftaten verhindern können, und nicht ausschließlich dem bloßen Ansammeln von Informationen.

Als Zweites halte ich es für sehr wesentlich, dass wir auch die Dateneinspeisung in das SIS gewährleisten. Es sind jetzt Jahre, dass wir darüber diskutieren, und es gibt immer noch welche, die nicht einspeisen – ich möchte es nicht glauben! Aber langsam sollte es der Letzte begriffen haben. Des Weiteren wäre eine gemeinsame Liste der Gefährder notwendig, und es wäre ganz wesentlich, die Joint Investigation Teams mit weniger Bürokratie und mehr Geld zu versorgen, damit wir grenzüberschreitend mehr Zusammenarbeit haben und weniger ineffektive bürokratische Strukturen.

  Claude Moraes, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank the Commissioner for his comprehensive assessment. Commissioner, you mention that colleagues here can match you for technical detail. Sadly, we cannot match you for speaking time, so I am only going to identify one or two of the issues that you spread over 12 to 14 minutes.

Ms Hohlmeier mentioned the pre-Lisbon instruments. Let me say first of all that we must be there; this is why Ms Hohlmeier mentioned the pre-Lisbon instruments. I want to say to Mr Borg: thank you to your JHA Council for keeping up the pressure, and we as a Parliament will want to see the Council face to face, because this is very much about the Member States.

The Commissioner mentioned the Prüm Convention. I only have two minutes, so let me mention the Prüm Convention. In terms of intelligence cooperation this, as the Commissioner mentioned, is the building blocks, the vehicle licensing, the DNA databases. All of the things he said were correct: evaluation, implementation, ensuring that there is cooperation, and ensuring at the bottom of this that there are fundamental rights, the Police Directive. But in the end, if the Member States are not willing to share the basic information, as we saw with the Prüm Convention and as we now see with continuing infringement procedures by the Commission, then we don’t have the genuine sharing of intelligence and police information, and that is the problem.

So, before we have any new legislation or any new avenues, we must have a proper structure in sharing of information which has all of these elements together, which takes the valuable private information of individuals to fight the crime or terrorism that invades our fundamental freedoms. This is the really important area when we see record numbers of searches on the SIS database, when we see records being made on the Europol searches, all of the things that the Commissioner mentioned. The High Level Working Group on Interoperability is now one of the key challenges for us.

I think Parliament is doing its work. There are experts here. In fact, the small number of Members here in the Chamber now are experts, as you as you rightly identified. We are doing our work to ensure that this balance is created, but the key, as the Commissioner said, is implementation and evaluation, and of course we will do our work in relation to fundamental rights. This is such an important area because as soon as there is a terrorist attack, everyone says: have we had the intelligence-sharing? We need to answer, intelligently and with practicality in this House, that we have also done our job.

  Helga Stevens, namens de ECR-Fractie. – Momenteel moet slechts in uitzonderlijke gevallen informatie worden gedeeld. Maar gezien de veranderde veiligheidssituatie is het de vraag of de uitwisseling van informatie tussen lidstaten aangaande terreur en zware criminaliteit vrijblijvend moet blijven. Mijn partij is voorstander van een doorgedreven informatie-uitwisseling omdat het de veiligheid bevordert. Daarnet hadden wij het over de grensbewakingsverordening, waarmee systematische checks worden ingevoerd voor iedereen die de Europese Unie binnenkomt of verlaat, onder meer via internationale luchthavens. De bedoeling is om zowel EU- als niet-EU-burgers te onderwerpen aan een screening door het raadplegen van de EU-databanken, zoals het SIS-systeem, en internationale databanken, zoals het SLTD-systeem. Het spreekt voor zich dat die databanken relevante data moeten bevatten.

Daarnaast verplicht de anti-terreurrichtlijn waarover morgen wordt gestemd de lidstaten om relevante inlichtingen inzake strafonderzoeken te delen met andere EU-landen. De uniforme definities voor terreurmisdrijven moeten dat ook vergemakkelijken.

Tegelijkertijd begrijpen wij dat inlichtingendiensten misschien net minder informatie zullen uitwisselen indien zij verplicht worden werkelijk alles te delen met de landen die zij niet volledig vertrouwen. Dat de Raad nu denkt aan een richtlijn voor een strikter rechtskader voor de uitwisseling van informatie en inlichtingen tussen rechtshandhavingsinstanties op het niveau van de Unie, is alvast een interessante optie. Het is echt van belang om tot een evenwichtige en breed gedragen oplossing te komen.

  Gérard Deprez, au nom du groupe ALDE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Ministre, Monsieur le Commissaire, nous convenons tous que l’échange d’informations est essentiel.

Monsieur le Commissaire, je ne vais pas parler technique aujourd’hui. Vous nous avez donné une leçon, je ne vais donc pas m’aventurer aussi loin.

Je ne conteste pas les progrès qui ont été enregistrés ces dernières années dans l’échange d’informations mais, Présidence du Conseil, c’est bien la moindre des choses après les événements que nous avons connus. L’augmentation qui est constatée montre bien à quel point c’était insuffisant antérieurement. Par conséquent, la nécessité reste la même et les quelques progrès accomplis ne sont pas suffisants.

Je prends bonne note, par ailleurs, de ce qu’a dit le commissaire – et je m’en réjouis – en ce qui concerne la création du groupe de haut niveau sur l’interopérabilité. Il est quand même extraordinaire, Monsieur le Commissaire, qu’il ait fallu attendre la création de dix à douze systèmes de collecte d’informations au niveau européen, dans des matières très différentes, avant qu’on ne se préoccupe véritablement, de manière systémique, de leur interopérabilité. Ce n’est pas une critique, vous n’en êtes pas responsable.

Par ailleurs, je veux saluer, avec insistance, la proposition de la Commission, qui vise à rendre obligatoire le signalement des personnes suspectées de terrorisme dans le système d’information Schengen. Mais ce n’est pas suffisant, tout le monde en convient. Cette obligation ne concerne qu’une seule banque de données, le SIS, et une seule catégorie de personnes suspectées, les terroristes. Est-ce que je me trompe, Monsieur le Commissaire?

D’autre part, la base à partir de laquelle fonctionnent toujours les services répressifs en matière d’information est antérieure à Lisbonne. Nous sommes toujours dans le pré-Lisbonne. Or, la période transitoire pour les actions dans le domaine de l’échange d’informations, telle qu’elle est énoncée dans le protocole 36 des traités de l’Union européenne, a expiré le 1er décembre 2014, Monsieur le Commissaire, et il est prévu, dans la déclaration 50 qui y est jointe, que le Parlement européen, le Conseil et la Commission vont chercher à adopter des actes juridiques modifiant ou remplaçant les actes de l’Union qui ont été adoptés avant l’entrée en vigueur du traité de Lisbonne.

Alors, Monsieur le Commissaire, à quand cette proposition?

  Cornelia Ernst, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Wenn wir über Terrorismusbekämpfung reden, dann müssen wir natürlich auch über den Datenaustausch sprechen und darüber, wie die beiden Council decisions aus 2005 und 2006 tatsächlich umgesetzt werden. Und siehe da: Bei den meisten Terroranschlägen der letzten Zeit zeigt sich, dass es genau daran mangelt. Irgendwelche Verdächtigen sind schon ganz lange verdächtig, werden dann inhaftiert, mangels Beweisen wieder rausgelassen, um irgendwann doch an Tatorten aufzutauchen. Der notwendige Datenaustausch – das wissen wir doch – funktioniert nicht vorne und nicht hinten.

Ich frage mich, wieso einer in einem Land der EU als Terrorverdächtiger bekannt ist und das andere Nachbarland das nicht weiß. Bleiben drei Möglichkeiten: Entweder – und das haben Sie ja gesagt, Mister King – die Mitgliedstaaten setzen EU-Recht nicht richtig um, oder die Informationen, die getauscht werden, sind die falschen, oder beides. Genau deshalb brauchen wir dazu eine umfassende qualitative Evaluierung der bestehenden Instrumente auch in den Mitgliedstaaten. Und es geht darum, nicht massenhaft noch mehr Datenbanken zu erstellen, noch mehr Daten anzusammeln, sondern einen gezielten Austausch hinzubekommen. Nur so kommen wir voran – und das ist das, was wir fordern.

  Jan Philipp Albrecht, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, Commissioner King, it is exactly what you have outlined here: the better use of the existing infrastructure that we have in place, especially when it comes to the Europol Information System, the Schengen Information System, and those databases which we already have in place for the exchange of information on risks and on suspects. That is what we have to improve and I really appreciate that you are taking this on your agenda and I would really see that Member States are supporting you in making better use of these systems.

Because what we have been talking about for years is very often the wrong way, to say that the systems are too few, that there should be more systems in place, that there should be more pots of data in place, because we have just been saying that more data would do the trick. But the point is that very often we have the data, as has been said often in this debate, and it is not being used. One case we saw recently was the Berlin attacker who was very well known to the intelligence services in Germany at least, and who, even after this attack in Berlin, was fleeing through some Member States, even France which is in a state of emergency, with a weapon in his hand, and I think that shows very much that we have to divert away from spending big money into new systems, rather than investing, and that should be our focus in the cooperation between the police authorities, for example in the field of joint investigation teams with Europol.

  Dubravka Šuica (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, ima li bolje teme od ove za dokazati kako nijedna država članica ne može sama, kako moramo surađivati, kako nas je problem migracija i terorizma pozvao na suradnju. Ne samo da države članice nisu razmjenjivale podatke, ne da pokrajine nisu razmjenjivale podatke, nego čak neke gradske četvrti nisu međusobno surađivale, ako se sjetimo posljednjih terorističkih napada. To je pitanje koje moramo svi samima sebi postaviti. Danas smo ovdje čuli da želimo manje birokracije, ali ipak više tehnike i da se ne smijemo opet svi zaplesti u novu birokraciju, nove sustave. Imamo puno različitih sustava, ali ne radimo na njihovoj interoperabilnosti. To je ono što želimo poručiti danas i Komisiji i Vijeću ‒ interoperabilnost je neophodna.

Mi, kao Europski parlament, nakon Lisabonskog sporazuma dobili smo pravo suodlučivanja i na nama je ta odgovornost, ali isto tako veća je odgovornost na državama članicama i danas se postavlja pitanje što je to schengenski sustav, što je to SIS, na koji način razmišljamo o onim zemljama koje jesu države članice, a koje nisu dijelom schengenskog sustava.

Konkretno, dolazim iz Hrvatske, radimo sve da ispunimo sve kriterije, čekamo evaluaciju i želimo biti dio tog sustava kako bismo ravnopravno surađivali i ravnopravno mijenjali podatke. To je tema koju danas možda treba otvoriti, kako pet zemalja još uvijek ne razmjenjuje podatke, ali tako i pet zemalja još uvijek nisu članice tog sustava, pozivam i Komisiju i Vijeće, a i članove određenih odbora u ovom Parlamentu, da nam pomognu da postanemo dijelom tog sustava kako bismo zajedno surađivali i razmjenjivali podatke koji su obveza. Pozdravljam novu Direktivu koju ćemo sutra usvojiti.

  Andrejs Mamikins (S&D). – Mr President, after the terrorist attacks in the United States of America, the European Council stated at its extraordinary meeting in September 2001 that terrorism is a real challenge to the world and to Europe, and that the fight against terrorism would be a priority objective of the European Union. The Council decided to increase cooperation between Europol, Eurojust, the EU intelligence services and police forces, and adopted some decisions.

Although the situation in the EU has changed since that time, the current legal framework at European Union level for the exchange of information and intelligence is still mostly subject to pre—Lisbon instruments. The EU Treaties enable the adoption of legal acts amending or replacing the acts of the Union in the fields of police cooperation and cooperation in criminal matters which were adopted before the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty.

After numerous terrorist attacks in Europe, the European Council promised to make some changes and to improve the exchange of information to address the current security challenges facing the EU. So we need change to strengthen the legal framework for the exchange of law enforcement and intelligence information at European Union level and we need Parliament’s participation in this process.

  Jeroen Lenaers (PPE). – Na iedere terroristische aanslag in Europa horen we achteraf dat de samenwerking en het delen van informatie tussen lidstaten, tussen veiligheidsdiensten van lidstaten, niet optimaal was. We hebben hier vanuit het Europees Parlement dan ook regelmatig een oproep gedaan aan de lidstaten om actie te ondernemen op dit gebied. Dat is heel terecht. Het gebrek aan samenwerking tussen lidstaten verslechtert het gevoel van veiligheid voor onze burgers en er is ook al heel wat gebeurd. De Commissaris wijst terecht ook op het Prüm-systeem en Claude Moraes, onze collega, noemde dat ook als een hoeksteen van die uitwisseling. Tegelijkertijd hoor ik van veel mensen uit de praktijk dat het Prüm-systeem verouderd en langzaam is en ik zou graag vragen aan de Commissaris of hij daar iets over kan zeggen.

Maar er is meer gebeurd. We hebben de artikelen over het delen van gegevens in de terrorismerichtlijn waarover we morgen stemmen. We hebben dezelfde artikelen in de PNR-richtlijn. We zien - dat merkte de Commissaris terecht op - een toename in het delen van gegevens via Europol. We werken aan de interoperabiliteit. Dat is allemaal heel goed maar het is niet genoeg en het feit dat wij nog steeds werken met Raadsbesluiten uit 2005, 11-12 jaar geleden, zegt eigenlijk alles. We kunnen niet de terreur van morgen bestrijden met de instrumenten van gisteren. We moeten actie ondernemen en we zullen daarbij moeten leren van onze fouten. En om te leren van onze fouten zullen we die fouten moeten onderzoeken.

Gezien het transnationale karakter van veel van de aanslagen die in de afgelopen jaren gepleegd zijn, zou zo'n onderzoek op Europees niveau moeten plaatsvinden. Ik ben dan ook een grote voorstander van het voorstel van Manfred Weber om vanuit het Europees Parlement zo'n onderzoekscommissie op te richten en ik vraag aan alle collega’s om dat ook van harte te ondersteunen.

  Daniel Buda (PPE). – Domnule președinte, adoptarea Tratatului de la Lisabona a însemnat cel mai important pas pentru reformarea și consolidarea Uniunii Europene de la înființarea acesteia.

În același timp, realitățile din zilele noastre ne demonstrează că există însă restanțe din partea statelor membre, care creează dificultăți majore în vederea îndeplinirii angajamentelor și obligațiilor asumate pentru asigurarea securității și stabilității la nivelul Uniunii Europene.

Recentele atacuri armate din diverse orașe și capitale din interiorul Uniunii ne arată că terorismul a devenit o reală amenințare pentru viața și securitatea cetățenilor Uniunii Europene.

Răspunsul la această problemă trebuie să cunoască o abordare transfrontalieră, iar, în acest sens, autoritățile din statele membre trebuie să aibă acces într-un termen cât mai scurt posibil la date relevante incluse în dosare, la documente, elemente de informare, obiecte sau alte mijloace de probă reținute în legătură cu infracțiunile de terorism comise în alt stat membru.

Instituțiile Uniunii Europene trebuie să depună toate eforturile în vederea creării unor instrumente actualizate și adoptării unui cadru juridic eficient, riguros și armonizat.

Acestea trebuie să responsabilizeze statele membre în vederea îndeplinirii obligațiilor instituite în sarcina lor și anume aceea de a furniza reciproc informații privind infracțiuni de terorism și nu numai și, subliniez, nu numai, care să permită luarea deciziilor în timp real.

Doar prin consolidarea cadrului juridic al Uniunii și a cooperării dintre statele membre se va putea combate terorismul în toate formele sale, asigurându-se, totodată, respectarea unui drept fundamental al unui cetățean și anume dreptul la viață.

Zgłoszenia z sali

  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Pane komisaři, já jsem velmi pozorně poslouchal Vaše vystoupení, které bylo opravdu rozsáhlé a kvalitní, a děkuji za něj, nicméně celá ta debata, která zde probíhala, jasně ukázala, že klíčovým problémem je neochota jednotlivých členských států sdílet informace. To si myslím, že je asi největší problém, a i když zítra přijmeme směrnici, která stanoví nové povinnosti pro členské státy, tak se domnívám, že je třeba, aby Komise a Rada permanentně tlačily na členské státy a upozorňovaly na to, že bez ochoty jednotlivých států žádný sebelepší systém fungovat nebude. To je zkrátka realita a jakéhokoliv přijetí nových předpisů tu situaci bez ochoty členských států nevyřeší.

Osobně jsem chtěl vyzdvihnout otázky Europolu a jeho nového protiteroristického centra, jak vnímám první výsledky, a Vy jste to také zmiňoval, toto centrum začíná dobře fungovat a narůstá množství informací, které jsou takto vyměňovány. Proto prosím o větší finanční podporu tohoto institutu.

  Cristian-Silviu Buşoi (PPE). – Mr President, Mr Borg, Commissioner King, the European Union’s area of freedom, security and justice was created to ensure free movement of persons and to provide its citizens with a high level of security. In recent years terrorism has become a real challenge to the world and to Europe. Therefore, to make the fight against terrorism a priority objective of the European Union, as the Council stated many times, requires better collaboration between Europol, Eurojust and Member States’ intelligence services.

I agree with Commissioner King that some of the recent terrorist attacks showed the weaknesses in the sharing of information between Member States. Information exchange needs to be improved at their level in order to facilitate the performance of EU bodies. In this matter, the role of the European Parliament as a co-legislator is more than necessary in improving the legal framework to ensure that certain information vital for law enforcement authorities is exchanged in good time within the Union, but of course, not forgetting data protection.

  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, il Consiglio europeo ha più volte ribadito il suo impegno a migliorare lo scambio di informazioni al fine di affrontare le attuali sfide in termini di sicurezza cui l'Unione europea deve far fronte.

Tuttavia, il quadro giuridico attualmente in vigore per tale scambio tra le autorità incaricate, compreso lo scambio di informazioni in materia di reati terroristici, è ancora in gran parte sottoposto a strumenti precedenti al trattato di Lisbona. La lentezza con cui l'Unione sta lavorando in materia di prevenzione non è ammissibile, specie in un momento storico in cui i cittadini europei avvertono maggiormente il bisogno di sicurezza.

Ritengo indispensabile che la Commissione agisca con risolutezza, avviando una procedura di infrazione nei confronti degli Stati membri reticenti nella condivisione delle informazioni a cui sono obbligati dall'attuale quadro giuridico, e nel frattempo avanzi un'ambiziosa proposta di direttiva volta a garantire un quadro giuridico conforme e più rigoroso per lo scambio di informazioni in materia di applicazione della legge e di intelligence a livello di Unione.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τα θέματα εσωτερικής ασφάλειας και δημόσιας τάξης, όπως είναι η αντιμετώπιση της τρομοκρατίας, ανήκουν στην αποκλειστική αρμοδιότητα των κρατών μελών της Ένωσης. Ταυτόχρονα, είναι δεδομένο ότι κατά τη συγκέντρωση στοιχείων πρέπει να τηρούνται οι συνταγματικές προϋποθέσεις που υπάρχουν σε κάθε κράτος και βεβαίως να διασφαλίζεται η προστασία των ιδιωτικών δικαιωμάτων. Φυσικά, η ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών μεταξύ των κρατών μελών είναι ιδιαίτερα χρήσιμη. Δεν θα πρέπει να ξεχνούμε ότι το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο έχει επανειλημμένα τονίσει την ανάγκη να βελτιωθεί η ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών, κυρίως στον τομέα της επιβολής του νόμου, ενώ προβλέπεται επίσης και η ενίσχυση του προϋπολογισμού της Ευρωπαϊκής Αστυνομικής Υπηρεσίας. Είναι δεδομένο ότι το ισχύον ενωσιακό δίκαιο για την ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών πρέπει να εκσυγχρονιστεί και σε αυτό το πλαίσιο γίνεται και η παρούσα συζήτηση, διότι μέχρι σήμερα συγκαταλέγεται στα μέσα που προϋπήρχαν της Συνθήκης της Λισαβόνας. Επομένως, είναι σημαντική η ανταλλαγή πληροφοριών, είναι σημαντική και η παρέμβαση της Ευρωπαϊκής Επιτροπής και της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, υπό τον όρο όμως της τήρησης των προϋποθέσεων που έχουν σχέση με τα θέματα της προστασίας των ιδιωτικών συμφερόντων.

  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente, comisario King, de reforzar el intercambio de información disponible entre agencias policiales y judiciales para combatir mejor la amenaza terrorista hemos hablado mucho esta tarde en el Parlamento Europeo, y quiero decir dos cosas con total concisión.

La primera: hay que reforzar la interoperabilidad, porque tenemos el SIE, el SIS (primera y segunda generación), tenemos PNR y ninguna inversión será bastante si no garantizamos la disponibilidad de toda la información y la voluntad política de las autoridades policiales y judiciales para compartirla.

Y la segunda, jurídica: hace tiempo que caducó el período de cinco años establecido por el propio Tratado de Lisboa para adaptar a Lisboa todo el instrumental de cooperación en materia de información previsto en las Decisiones de 2005 y la Decisión marco de 2006.

Por eso es imprescindible, primero, que la Comisión ofrezca una evaluación de incumplimiento y exija el cumplimiento de esos instrumentos previos a Lisboa.

Pero, en segundo lugar, que garantice la adecuación definitiva de esa Decisión de 2005 y de la de 2006 —la Decisión marco— al Tratado de Lisboa con plena garantía de los derechos fundamentales de los europeos.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule Borg, domnule comisar, eforturile de prevenire și combatere a terorismului trebuie să se intensifice, suntem cu toții de acord, având în vedere atacurile din ultimul an.

Prezentul raport este binevenit, dar este esențială implementarea măsurilor și colaborarea între statele membre. Așa cum se arată și în raport, lupta împotriva terorismului este o luptă la nivel mondial și Uniunea Europeană nu poate aborda și câștiga de una singură.

Comunicarea și transmiterea informațiilor este importantă, dar nu și suficientă. Rezoluția Consiliului de securitate ONU din 2014 le impune statelor membre obligația de a incrimina anumite infracțiuni legate de terorism și trebuie, domnule comisar, să urmăriți acest lucru dacă se aplică.

Ați vorbit de sistemul de informare Schengen, e foarte bine. Problema e că noi avem granițele Uniunii Europene și în afara spațiului Schengen și trebuie să faceți tot ce este posibil ca și statele care nu sunt în Schengen să intre în schimbul de informații, pentru că, până la urmă, trecerea teroriștilor e transfrontalieră și noi trebuie să ne preocupăm de granița Uniunii Europene.

Sper, totuși, că vom face pași pentru a combate terorismul și a asigura pacea în lume, pentru că pacea salvează vieți omenești.

  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Mr President, Council decisions on data exchange between Member States should take into account the provisions as agreed in the Lisbon Treaty. This should have been done years ago, but unfortunately nothing has been done yet. This matter is of utmost importance for the security of European citizens. There is an urgent need to improve information sharing among and between the Member States, and for instruments such as the new so-called Police Directive on data protection, providing a high level structure for information exchange. I believe it is important to ensure fundamental rights protection as well, the necessity and proportionality of what is exchanged, and the data protection and privacy issues on how the data is exchanged and between whom – speaking now about the respective institutions.

(Koniec zgłoszeń z sali)

  Julian King, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I shall follow the discipline of previous speakers. We are all agreed that it is absolutely crucial that we fully exploit the potential of existing information systems at EU level, and that means making sure that all Member States implement what they have agreed to do and that we also find ways of encouraging the effective use of these tools by frontline practitioners on the ground, with effective cooperation between police, border guards and immigration officers.

For me, implementation is absolutely the priority, and that applies whether the instrument in question is a pre-Lisbon instrument or one that has been adopted since by Parliament and the Council. To support that implementation, we have funding: we have the Internal Security Fund (ISF), which continues to fund national programmes in this area, and we have extra funding that has been dedicated to supporting the agencies, notably Europol to reinforce staffing for the new European Counter Terrorism Centre (ECTC). We have expertise and we have the sharing of best practice. We will continue to support all of those means.

We will also continue to look at what we need to do to plan for the future and to adapt the information tools we have to make them as effective as possible, and that applies to the Prüm Convention as well, although I have to say, in direct response to a direct question, that right now, as of today, we do not have a proposal on Lisbonisation. That question remains open, and if that can help effective implementation we will certainly examine it.

You, the European Parliament, continue to play an absolutely key role because, as today’s debate has shown, you rightly point the finger at areas where further improvement is needed, and that helps maintain pressure. It maintains pressure on the Member States, as we have been discussing, but, frankly, it also maintains pressure on the Commission to continue the important work on implementation that we have all agreed is at the heart of making progress.

  Przewodniczący. – Bardzo dziękuję, panie komisarzu za taki, jak pan się wyraził, zdyscyplinowany sposób, ale te wymogi dyscypliny pana nie dotyczą. Tym niemniej dziękuję, to było bardzo uprzejme z pana strony.

Panie ministrze, pana restrykcje czasowe też nie dotyczą.