Doslovný záznam ze zasedání

Středa, 14. června 2017 - Štrasburk

15. Obnova Evropy založené na hodnotách, opírající se o účinné demokratické instituce a podporující prosperující hospodářství ve spravedlivé a soudržné společnosti (rozprava na aktuální téma)

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über ein aktuelles Thema (Artikel 153a GO) mit dem Titel „Wiederaufbau eines Europas, das auf Werten beruht, in wirksamen demokratischen Institutionen verankert ist und eine blühende Wirtschaft in einer fairen und auf Zusammenhalt gegründeten Gesellschaft fördert“ (2017/2706(RSP)).

Ich will hier gleich alle vorab davon in Kenntnis setzen, dass es bei einer Aussprache unter Artikel 153a kein Catch-the-eye-Verfahren gibt und auch keine blauen Karten.

  Sophia in 't Veld, author. – Mr President, there is a wind of change sweeping through the European Union. 2016 and 2017 will go down in the history books as the years of unprecedented turmoil and renewal, with a steep rise of nationalist forces, but no breakthrough. Instead, we see the first signs of a European spring, not summer yet, but after years marked by tensions and discontent there is a breeze of optimism, expectation and hope in the air. Who did not feel the excitement when President Macron met with Trump and Putin and represented a self-confident and proud Europe? And colleagues, who did not feel proud when we voted today on our commitment to the Paris climate agreement, making Europe the world leader where others withdraw?

Values are the key to the refoundation of the European Union. Election campaigns in recent years focused not just on traditional material issues of jobs and social security, but very much on values, culture and identity. The world order is changing at a breath-taking speed, and people are worried and anxious about loss of identity and loss of community. Nationalist parties have responded by sowing distrust, hatred and fear, or by promising to go back to an imaginary past. We reject that, but we have to recognise that our own response to the clear questions on values, identity and culture have not been adequate. The European Union is a deeply political union, but most politicians are wary of explaining this to their voters. They prefer to present the European Union as a technocratic entity that can be summed up in terms of economic benefits or costs.

If people are worried about loss of identity, abolishing roaming charges will not reassure them. If they are afraid their culture is threatened, cutting red tape will not allay their fears. If they are unsure about the shared values of our community, they will not find comfort in trade agreements, but we should not leave the monopoly of defining our shared values and our identity to the nationalists. In these current times of great uncertainty, insecurity and societal turbulence, it is not easy to defend our shared values; but we have not defined our shared values for fair-weather conditions only. It is when conditions are rough that our convictions are put to test.

The European Union is not only an economic powerhouse, but it has great moral authority in the world. We can be proud. Our values have inspired many around the world, and many people dream of living in the kind of free, fair, stable and democratic society we have in Europe, so much so that others see our values as a threat, something they seek to destroy.

Populist parties worldwide have an agenda based on nationalism, xenophobia, homophobia and sexism. They agitate against secularism and parliamentary democracy and above all they reject pluralism. They claim there is one people, one voice, one truth only, but clearly recent elections have proved them wrong. Europeans will not be reduced to a one-dimensional caricature. If we wish to make Europe strong we must therefore promote the opposite and embrace European integration, diversity, equality, pluralism.

And against that backdrop, I think the tweet last week by Manfred Weber, who unfortunately is not here, was a bit misguided when he wrote that: ‘Europe’s identity is above all Christian. Anyone who denies this is denying reality’. But, dear colleague Weber, the reality is that the true soul of Europe lies in its diversity and the freedom to choose what to believe, and who you are.

Democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights are not just ideals: they are essential for the functioning of the European Union in all policy areas. Social justice is a precondition for a stable climate for investment and development. Respect for fundamental rights is vital for common migration policies and police cooperation, and the rule of law is absolutely essential for the internal market and investor confidence. In short, values are the key to a strong European Union, and that is why the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe puts values first.

  Helena Dalli, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today in this timely topical debate. This is indeed a time of deep reflection for all of us on the future of the EU. I am happy to be here today to listen to your views.

The title of this debate paints the picture of an EU which appeals to us all, one in which our values are placed at centre stage. One with effective and democratic institutions, one in which we pursue our genuine goal of improving the life and prosperity of our citizens, not just for the lucky few but across all of our society. This description is not such a far cry from the EU we have today and it certainly is in line with the EU’s clear ambitions. However, until only a few months ago, the EU’s efforts in this regard were largely ignored or discredited, either because the EU was perceived as doing too little or because it was seen as doing too much. But in recent months there seems to have been a shift in perception of the EU: rather than being considered as the source of many of our woes, the EU is seen as part of the solution.

We are seeing some positive signs of renewed trust and more support for the EU. This may be because as the world around us changes, the alternative options to the EU are slowly losing their shine. We may start realising that populist rhetoric oversimplifies very complex issues and is beginning to show its limitations. We may also be recognising that working together on global challenges like trade, climate and terrorism is preferable to going it alone.

Perhaps most importantly, the more we feel our values come under attack, the stronger our wish to uphold them. This should serve to fuel our prospects and indeed give us an impetus to work even more eagerly towards our goals.

However, only with a common vision of the EU’s future can we collectively pursue these common goals. In examining what future path to take, the EU cannot impose its vision on its citizens. It cannot come up with revolutionary designs if it does not have their support and backing. The EU needs to involve them in this debate. They need to feel that they are being heard and that their views matter.

That is why the Council very much welcomes the Commission’s White Paper process. It is a remarkable effort to steer an honest reflection and prompt a broad debate. I also commend you, the European Parliament, for your constant efforts to ensure that the views of citizens are safeguarded and upheld. I understand that, along with the Commission, you will be hosting a series of Future of Europe debates across Europe.

As for the Council and the European Council, as you know, leaders already began an honest reflection exercise after the UK referendum vote to leave the EU. At their informal meeting in Bratislava last September, leaders set out a concrete roadmap with specific measures to address the most pressing concerns for citizens. This included tackling as a matter of urgency issues relating to migration, terrorism and economic and social insecurity. As work progressed on that front, the 60th anniversary of the Rome Treaties in March this year was another occasion to reflect on our common future. The Rome Agenda that resulted from this is a clear pledge to pursue our most important objectives over the next ten years. The European Council has since then framed its work across these main priorities. It has focused largely on delivering tangible results and delivering on its promises.

Looking forward in relation to the White Paper process, the Council is taking careful note of the Commission’s follow-up papers and is ensuring that they provide a valuable contribution to our discussions. So for instance the white paper on globalisation provides perspectives for a debate on trade or on globalisation at the next European Council.

I would just like to say one word on the concrete result of this process. Reflecting on the future of Europe is a drawn-out process. It requires time and building trust, neither of which can be rapidly glossed over. We do not want to run the risk of having to offer results prematurely and thus falling short of expectations. The Council and the European Council will continue to focus on achieving concrete results, demonstrating that added value of the EU in very practical terms. In that spirit, the Future of Europe debates will provide further impetus for the Council to deliver on various key policies, rather than develop a new theoretical frame.

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, I would like to use the three minutes allotted to me to reflect on what Mrs in 't Veld said in her introduction because I believe she touched upon the issue of fundamental values in a very concise and precise way. She also dismissed the solutions offered by nationalists, extremists and xenophobes, but then the question remains: why do so many Europeans still feel attracted to these political movements? I maintain that these political movements have assured quite strong support in the European Union and will probably continue to get quite strong support unless we address the reasons why they feel attracted to these movements. I believe many of our citizens are worried because they fear a loss of position. This is the first generation that fears that their children might be in a worse position than they are. They are worried because of the threat of Jihadist terrorism and see that some people want to attack our freedoms and take away our identities. They are worried because they see global developments in terms of peace and security, where they do not feel empowered enough to stand up for their values and their way of life.

So I think that, if we want to rekindle the feeling for our fundamental values, we need to do something about these fears, and the Commission’s starting point is that we can only do something about these fears if we stand together as Europeans. So rekindling our values starts with advocating European approaches to European problems, European approaches to global problems, and with making clear to our citizens that we can only do this if we stick together. This is difficult at a time where identity politics roam across Europe. This is difficult at a time when the other is presented as an adversary, and as somebody who is out there to take away what you have. If we redefine the European Union only in terms of an internal market or a common currency and present these, or the cutting of red tape or whatever you want, as the goals of our cooperation – these are important instruments, but they only have meaning if they are based on our common values, and we do not talk enough about these values.

The interesting thing is that the people who Mrs in 't Veld was, rightly, attacking because of their lack of solutions and the, to say the least, wobbly morality of their propositions, do have a moral approach to it. They start from their values. We should mirror that by starting from our values, the values that have made Europe great: democracy, the rule of law and full respect for human rights. This is the tripod upon which our European cooperation is built, and modernising that in the fourth industrial revolution to show that we can create a society where diversity creates more ambition with people, creates more opportunity for people, and recreates the economy in the fourth industrial revolution, is the way forward for Europe. But it will only happen if it is done on the basis of our values.

That is the basis for the White Paper the Commission has written. That is the basis for all the analyses we have written, and we put them on the table as a starting point for debate with Parliament, but also with the Member States in the hope that the members of the Council will use the paper to have a debate in their Member States about where Europe needs to go in the future.

Let me end on this. We have seen a sort of moment of awakening of a new generation in Europe. We saw it in the British election the other day, we have seen it in the French election in many ways, and we see it in the women’s marches in the United States and across Europe. Why? Because we understand now that, although our values are clear and eternal and cannot be questioned, they can be destroyed. The fact that we have now discovered is that, although our values are clear and are the basis of our cooperation, we now see that across the world these values are not unbreakable but need maintenance and that, if you want these values to survive, you need to stand up for them. You need to speak out for them. That is what I saw in recent elections. This is no longer about left or right. This is about whether you choose an open society with room for everyone, where no one is left behind, or you fall into the trap of thinking that your brother is your enemy. Europe should be for an open society where everybody counts and no one is left behind.

  Rosa Estaràs Ferragut, en nombre del Grupo PPE. – Señor presidente, hace poco más de sesenta años, el 25 de marzo de 1957, los europeos firmaron el Tratado de Roma y plantaron la semilla de la Unión. Ha sido, sin duda, la etapa de mayor paz, prosperidad y estabilidad al eliminar todas las divisiones y violencia del pasado.

Quedan todavía y están en vigor las palabras de Robert Schuman, cuando decía que Europa no se haría de una sola vez ni con una obra de conjunto, sino que se haría poco a poco, con pequeñas realizaciones que fueran cultivando el valor de la solidaridad.

En aquel momento, los padres fundadores tenían claro cuál era el objetivo: no tenían planos para construir Europa, pero tenían un retrovisor muy potente con el que nos enseñaron quiénes eran los jinetes del apocalipsis europeo: el nacionalismo, el genocidio, el racismo, la xenofobia, las guerras, el totalitarismo.

Hoy, Europa ha cambiado; ha envejecido. Recibimos más gente, pero también despedimos a otros. El mercado laboral tiene la cara del paro, que preocupa muchísimo. Hay retos como la inmigración, la seguridad, la energía, la economía, la defensa...

Es una Europa compleja y una Europa llena de contrastes; tenemos el reto de lo que supone la riqueza de la diversidad al mismo tiempo que el desafío de la integración social.

Y hoy el reto es estar unidos y el reto es que dotemos a los valores de la democracia, la libertad y el progreso de verdadero contenido, ese contenido del que los dotaron los padres de Europa.

Pero para eso hay que creérselo, no solamente decirlo. Hay que hacerlo con palabras y con hechos.

  Tanja Fajon, v imenu skupine S&D. – Naslov današnje razprave je – ponovno utemeljiti Evropsko unijo. Kar pomeni, da se zavedamo, da nam razpada glavni in osnovni temelj naše hiše, to je demokracija, enakopravnost in spoštovanje.

Spoštovani podpredsednik Timmermans, opozorili ste na nevarno populistično retoriko, na vsesplošno jezo naših državljanov. In razpadajo nam torej duhovni gradniki in to pomeni, da v Uniji se zelo lepo kaže v primeru neupoštevanja kvote delitve beguncev. Odločitve, ki jih sprejemamo na ravni Evropske unije, nekatere države preprosto ne spoštujejo.

Zato močno pozdravljam tudi današnjo odločitev Komisije glede sprožitve pravnih postopkov zoper države članice, ki nočejo sodelovati pri porazdelitvi beguncev.

Včeraj smo obravnavali poročilo o Srbiji in Kosovu, državah v EU čakalnici. Strogo nadzorujemo, kaj se tam dogaja, kritiziramo spoštovanje kopenhagenskih kriterijev. Če državi ne bosta izpolnjevali, ne bosta nikoli članici. In to bo verjetno pravična kazen.

Vendar, ali je še prav in pravično, da o tem sodi Evropska unija, v kateri so države, ki same več ne izpolnjujejo številnih od teh kriterijev? In kakšna bo njihova kazen?

Omenjene in podobne anomalije, ki si jih nekateri mirno in celo ponosno privoščijo, niso ne demokracija ne spoštovanje ne solidarnost ne odgovornost ne svoboda, pa tudi ne red in pravičnost in še manj disciplina.

V socialistih in demokratih smo že pred časom podprli zasnovo o izgradnji t.i. scoreboarda o demokraciji, zaslona oziroma odseva naših indikatorjev vrednot. Strinjam se s predlogi. A sočasno jaz in mi vsi vemo, da stanje pravzaprav poznamo, saj je že merjeno, da pa se pravzaprav ne bo nič spremenilo, dokler kršitelji ne bodo redno in resno kaznovani. Ni res, da nimamo mehanizmov – samo uporabiti jih vse prepogosto nočemo.

  Roberts Zīle, ECR grupas vārdā. – Priekšsēdētāj! Ja es nolasītu šodienas debates nosaukumu, man laiks jau būtu beidzies, un pilsoņiem, redzot šādu nosaukumu, diez vai Eiropas Savienības vērtības kļūs tuvākas. Tas, ko grib redzēt pilsonis Polijā, Ungārijā, Latvijā, Grieķijā, ir tas, lai Eiropas institūciju darbība viņam būtu saprotama un izprotama, lai tās daudzās piesauktās Eiropas vērtības patiešām nebūtu pretrunā viņa izpratnei par savas valsts nacionālā patriota vērtībām, ko viņš sagaida. Jo mēs ikdienas dzīvē sastopamies ar cilvēka izpratnē pretrunīgas informācijas plūsmām, kas bieži vien rada neizpratni. Tā ka mums vajadzētu pārdomāt arī pašiem šo pārskatu par šīm vērtībām mazliet no šodienas izpratnes un daudz dziļāk, pirms mēs uzsākam reformēt Eiropu.

Par sociālo kohēziju runājot, cilvēki grib konkurēt. Nevar nākt katru brīdi likumdošana, kas kaunina daudzas mazāk attīstītas dalībvalstis par to, ka tās nodarbojas ar sociālo dempingu.

  Maite Pagazaurtundúa Ruiz, en nombre del Grupo ALDE. – Señor presidente, Señorías, colegas, señor Timmermans, yo soy ligeramente optimista como la señora in 't Veld, porque los nacionalistas y populistas ya no son una novedad y empezamos a entender sus vulnerabilidades y las fortalezas del faro de la utopía razonable que nosotros construimos después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial.

Ahora bien, en un mundo globalizado, en un mundo convulso, hay tanta niebla que, en algunos momentos, parece que ese faro europeo no termina de dar luz. Bien, es el momento de hacer verdad lo primero que usted ha dicho: esos valores. Y para eso los tenemos que aplicar con valentía, con integridad —para que nos crean los ciudadanos— y con coherencia entre lo que decimos y lo que hacemos.

De otra manera, no podremos incorporar a la pasión que necesitamos para Europa a todos esos jóvenes que nos están diciendo que quieren un futuro, que quieren oportunidades y a los que, en los últimos años, hemos fallado.

Les necesitamos, necesitamos especialmente a los jóvenes, necesitamos que tengan empleo, igualdad de oportunidades y pasión por Europa, igual que nosotros mismos. E integridad.

  Martina Anderson, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Mr President, Brexit was a wake-up call. The EU must reform to survive. We need a social EU based on democracy, human rights and national progressive sovereignty; but I have concerns that the powers that be are not listening. Instead we hear much talk of a multi-speed Europe, deeper integration, austerity and an EU army, and I believe that is a mistake. The last thing we need, I believe, is more integration with EU funds skewed towards military research. People do want more participation, more solidarity and more democracy, not guns and corporate bail-outs. The north of Ireland voted against Brexit, but our democratic vote has been ignored despite an international agreement, a Good Friday agreement that is lodged at the United Nations and which must be protected in all of its parts.

Sinn Féin believe that Ireland, north and south, belongs in Europe, but we want a Europe of equals, a Europe that will cherish all the children of the nation equally, and where no one will be ignored. You could do yourself a great service, if many people here have not already done so, by reading and perhaps adopting the Irish Proclamation.

  Raymond Finch, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, I would like to say to the Commissioner that you talk about a refoundation in Europe based on values anchored in effective democratic institutions which will promote a prosperous economy and a fair society. We, in the UK, will continue our journey to independence which will give us all of these. The vision of the EU is precisely the opposite. It is a vision based on opportunism, corporatism and neo-colonialism. It is anchored in institutions which are profoundly anti-democratic and which have delivered poverty, hopelessness and division in many of your constituent nations. One only has to look at the utter destruction wrought upon the economies of southern Europe. Do you think that the damage caused, such as 48% youth unemployment in Greece can be repaired by a Euro rail ticket? This is so blatantly insane. It is comparable to using a sticking plaster on a bullet wound. The only way the nations of the EU can achieve stability, growth and fairness is to follow the UK out of the European Union.

  Auke Zijlstra, namens de ENF-Fractie. – Wat Europese waarden zijn, daar denken de lidstaten en hun bevolking heel anders over dan Brussel. Van Brussel mag Polen geen kritische rechters benoemen, mag Hongarije geen invasie stoppen en mag Slowakije veiligheid niet verkiezen boven migratie.

De Europese Commissie ziet censuur als een goede manier om populisme te bestrijden en om de mening van het publiek te beïnvloeden. En Brussel lijkt positiever over het moordende Turkije dan over Groot-Brittannië nu dat laatste land uit de EU wil.

Dit kan zo niet doorgaan. Vanzelfsprekend hebben we een nieuwe grondslag nodig voor Europese samenwerking. Een samenwerking die alleen succesvol kan zijn als de lidstaten weer leidend worden door hun veto terug te krijgen en als de nationale parlementen daarmee weer de baas zijn.

Groot voordeel is dat het Europees Parlement dan kan worden opgeheven. Dat scheelt dan weer een half miljard aan nieuwbouwkosten voor een Brussels paleis.

  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, είναι πλέον απαραίτητη η σύγκληση συνεδρίου αναμόρφωσης και επαναθεμελίωσης με εντολή τη μεταρρύθμιση της Ένωσης και το κοινό μέλλον εθελοντικά συνεργαζόμενων κυρίαρχων κρατών, με στόχο την ανακατανομή και τον επαναπροσδιορισμό αρμοδιοτήτων. Έως τότε, ο τρόπος λήψεως αποφάσεων στο Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο, εάν δεν προβλέπεται ομοφωνία, πρέπει να ενισχυθεί σημαντικά στη βάση της διπλής ενισχυμένης πλειοψηφίας ως προς τον αριθμό κρατών μελών και του συνολικού πληθυσμού της Ένωσης. Επιπλέον, όσον αφορά στην Επιτροπή, πρέπει να αντιμετωπιστεί το εγγενές δημοκρατικό έλλειμμα υπό την ισχύουσα διαδικασία της «επιτροπολογίας» δια της συμμετοχής των αρμοδίων υπουργών και της δημοσιοποίησης των θέσεων και των ψήφων τους. Η μελλοντική Ένωση πρέπει να είναι λειτουργική, βιώσιμη και δημοκρατικά αποδεκτή και όχι ένα ξέπλυμα του σημερινού αναποτελεσματικού και αδιαφανούς μοντέλου. Με διακυβερνητικές διαδικασίες και λαμβάνοντας υπόψη τις εθνικές ανάγκες των κρατών μελών, να επικεντρωθεί σε ζητήματα με πραγματικά διευρωπαϊκό διασυνοριακό πρόσημο, όπως η κλιματική αλλαγή ή η αποτροπή μετακίνησης εκατομμυρίων λαθρομεταναστών από την Υποσαχάρια Αφρική και την Ασία προς την Ευρώπη.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, caros Colegas, Putin regressou à Guerra Fria: envenena as nossas opiniões públicas e militariza a fronteira. Trump torna imprevisível uma relação que devia ser indestrutível. Face às incertezas, os populismos ganharam apoios, mas foram sendo derrotados: da Holanda à Áustria, passando pela escolha firme dos franceses e até nas últimas eleições britânicas.

E porquê? Como dizia Robert Schuman, um dos nossos pais fundadores, citados por Rosa Esterás, a Europa faz-se de “realizações concretas”. E a nossa Europa é mais do que uma construção económica. É um projeto de cidadania.

A Europa é o programa Erasmus, cujos 30 anos assinalámos ontem aqui: uma geração inteira que reforçou a ideia da sua cidadania partilhada. A Europa é o Acordo de Paris, que é a prova do compromisso da União com o futuro comum da Humanidade. A Europa é Schengen: a liberdade de circulação transforma um retalho de países num mar de oportunidades com centenas de milhões de pessoas. A Europa é o Horizonte 2020: o maior programa de apoio à ciência e à inovação e também a utilização da tecnologia para salvar vidas, como faz com o E-call.

Esta é a Europa em que acredito: a Europa das pessoas, a Europa dos cidadãos. Para a defender não precisamos de refundação, mas de afirmação. A Europa não é uma escolha ou uma alternativa. A Europa é a nossa circunstância. A circunstância do nosso compromisso com os direitos fundamentais, com a paz e com a prosperidade. Um compromisso que é oportuno debater e que é importante afirmar, mas, sobretudo, que é urgente defender.

  Péter Niedermüller (S&D). – Elnök Úr! Európa ma tanácstalannak látszik, számos korábbról nem ismert kihívással, konfliktussal kell szembenéznie. Ma azt gondolom, Európa, mindannyiunk jövője a tét. Hiszen látnunk kell, fordulóponthoz érkezett Európa. Vége a többé-kevésbé homogén nemzetállamokra, ipari kapitalizmusra, jól tagolt társadalomi osztályokra épülő Európának. Az új ipari forradalom, a társadalmi osztályok fragmentálódása, a kulturális sokféleség, a globalizáció olyan új világot teremtett, amelyekben a régi válaszok, a megszokások már nem segítenek.

Újra kell terveznünk, újra kell alkotnunk Európát. Az új Európának meggyőződésem szerint a progresszióra és a szolidaritásra, a szabadságra és a biztonságra kell épülnie. Úgy kell alakítanunk Európát, hogy abban ne legyen helye a gyűlöletnek, a megbélyegzésnek, a diszkriminációnak. Befogadó, nyitott Európát akarunk, olyan Európát, ahol mindenki otthonra találhat, ahol a jövő nem félelmet, hanem reményt és esélyt jelent.

  Ryszard Czarnecki (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Jesteśmy politykami i powinniśmy mówić otwartym tekstem. Co było podstawą sukcesu Europejskiej Wspólnoty Węgla i Stali i EWG? A no to, że te państwa, najpierw sześć, potem dziewięć, dziesięć, dwanaście, piętnaście wypracowały pewien konsensus, one uzgadniały pewne minimum i uzgadniały i działały razem – właśnie solidarnie – ale tam nikt nikogo nie przegłosowywał na siłę. Ja przypomnę taki słynny spór Francja kontra pięciu innych założycieli w sprawie polityki rolnej, wtedy były to jeszcze początki EWG, i w końcu uznano to, że lepiej będzie dla wspólnego działania, aby żadne jedno państwo nie czuło się pokrzywdzone. W związku z tym myślę, że podstawą sukcesu naszego wspólnego europejskiego projektu będzie to, że będziemy działać solidarnie w tym sensie, że będzie to konsensu, a nie będziemy się przegłosowywać w kwestiach fundamentalnych, bo to jest droga donikąd, to jest równia pochyła.

  Cecilia Wikström (ALDE). – Herr talman! Senaste EU-barometern visar att det finns ett starkt stöd nu bland våra medborgare över EU-samarbetet. Jag gläds över att allt fler människor talar väl om EU och vill se ett fördjupat och förmerat samarbete. Medborgarnas framtidstro, hopp och inspiration är någonting som borde vara en ledstjärna nu för oss politiker i vårt arbete omkring detta. Efter många fina, positiva valframgångar, inte minst Macron i Frankrike, ser vi nu hur en positiv, framtidsorienterad mittenpolitik kan växa sig stark.

Arbetet med att utveckla, förbättra och förändra unionen måste fortsätta. Vi kan inte acceptera att vi står stilla. Nu måste vi ta nästa steg för gemensamma nutidsanpassade lösningar på de gränsöverskridande problem som vi ser på område efter område. Samma undersökning som jag hänvisade till visar att vi ska ta ett gemensamt ansvar i migrationsfrågan, ett gemensamt ansvar för klimatfrågan och för terroristbekämpning. Det handlar om att säkra framtiden för våra medborgare. Det kan vi bara göra tillsammans.

  Κώστας Χρυσόγονος (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, η ιδρυτική Συνθήκη προβλέπει ότι η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση βασίζεται στις αξίες της ελευθερίας, της δημοκρατίας, της ισότητας, του κράτους δικαίου και του σεβασμού των ανθρώπινων δικαιωμάτων, ενώ διακηρυγμένος σκοπός της είναι να προάγει την ειρήνη και την ευημερία των λαών της. Στην πραγματικότητα, όμως, η Ένωση ανέχεται την παραβίαση των αρχών του κράτους δικαίου στην Ουγγαρία και την Πολωνία. Παράλληλα, η πολιτική λιτότητας που έχουν επιβάλει οι ισχυροί της ευρωζώνης οδηγεί σε συρρίκνωση θεμελιωδών κοινωνικών δικαιωμάτων, όπως τα δικαιώματα στην υγεία, την κοινωνική ασφάλιση, τη συλλογική διαπραγμάτευση, τις δίκαιες συνθήκες εργασίας και τη δημιουργία οικογένειας, ιδίως στις χώρες του Νότου, όπως η Ελλάδα. Αν θέλουμε να αποκτήσει το εγχείρημα της ευρωπαϊκής ενοποίησης μακροπρόθεσμη προοπτική, πρέπει να αποδείξουμε στην πράξη τον σεβασμό μας στις αξίες και τους σκοπούς της Ένωσης, και πρέπει να το αποδείξουμε τώρα, αλλάζοντας πολιτικές πριν να είναι πολύ αργά.

  Peter Lundgren (EFDD). – Herr talman! Ett Europa byggt på värderingar är temat för dagens debatt. Ansvar för skattebetalarnas pengar borde vara en av grundstenarna när det gäller detta ämne. Vi har nu börjat få signaler från parlamentet om nödvändigheten av att renovera eller bygga helt nytt i Bryssel. Den byggnaden färdigställdes 1993 till en kostnad av 10 miljarder svenska kronor. Plenisalen i Paul-Henri Spaak-byggnaden genomgick dessutom en omfattande renovering som var klar så sent som 2014.

Detta är också en del, det ska man komma ihåg, av Klaus Welles vision, som han har uttalat sig om tidigare: Att göra Europaparlamentet mer likt USA:s kongress. Handlar det alltså om att tillståndet för byggnaden är så himla dåligt eller är det en vision om Europas förenta stater man vill uppfylla? Den uppskattade kostnaden för nybyggnationen beräknas internt att vara 4,3 miljarder svenska kronor. Uppgifter som samtidigt sipprar ut talar om att det råder mindre panik eftersom det kan sluta med att man signerar ett beslut som i slutändan kan visa sig vara tre gånger så dyrt. Drygt 13 miljarder svenska kronor.

Tror ni att detta är vad Europas medborgare önskar se sina skattepengar användas till? Att bygga ännu ett nytt palats i Bryssel? Det, kan jag lova, är det sista de vill se sina pengar gå till, så ta nu för en gångs skull en nypa verklighetskontroll. Hantera skattepengarna på ett ansvarsfullt sätt och sluta kasta ut pengar på dessa vansinniga visioner. En byggnad med 25 år på nacken, den är knappast klar för att rivas. Att löpande göra renoveringar och underhåll, det är en självklarhet, men att riva och bygga nytt är totalt vansinne och det kommer aldrig att tas väl emot av Europas medborgare.

  Georg Mayer (ENF). – Herr Präsident! Europäische Werte – was genau soll das denn eigentlich sein? Wer definiert denn, was europäische Werte sind? Glauben Sie, dass wir das hier definieren können? Das können nur die Menschen draußen in Europa für sich selbst definieren, und da gibt es schon riesige Unterschiede in ganz Europa. Und, geschätzte Kollegen, da gibt es Vielfalt. Schätzen Sie doch diese Vielfalt, statt sich vor ihr zu fürchten!

Effektive demokratische Institutionen – ja, das kann ich sofort unterschreiben. Aber zu einer effektiven demokratischen Institution gehört auch eine effektive Opposition. Und wenn man der Frau Kollegin in´t Veld vorher zugehört hat, dann fürchtet sie sich eher vor einer Opposition, als dass sie diese schätzt.

Manchmal habe ich hier wirklich den Eindruck, Sie würden sich gerne alle gegenseitig das Gleiche erzählen und sich für das auch noch gegenseitig beklatschen. So funktioniert das nicht. Fürchten Sie sich nicht, geschätzte Kollegen!

  Zoltán Balczó (NI). – Elnök Úr! In’t Veld asszony a bevezetőjében az általa nacionalistának nevezett pártokról beszélt, azt állítva, hogy számukra egy hang, egy igazság létezik. Nem önök azok, akik számára az európai országoknak csak egyetlen útja létezik? A még mélyebb integráció? És akik lazább együttműködést akarnak, azokat önök Európa-ellenesnek minősítik, és ez a legfinomabb jelző? Manfred Weber néppárti frakcióvezető üzenetében arra hivatkozott, hiszen értékekről vitatkozunk most, hivatkozott a keresztény gyökerekre, mint az értékrend alapjára. Ezzel szemben itt elhangzik, hogy itt is diverzitásra van szükség.

Önök annyiszor idézik itt az alapító atyákat, most én is idézek Robert Schumantól két kijelentést: „Európát nem lehet valamely közös szerkezet kialakításával integrálni”, amit önök akarnak, és a másik: „Európa vagy keresztény lesz, vagy nem lesz”. Ezt is alapító atya mondta, csak önök szelektálnak az ő kijelentéseik között.

  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Mr President, I am not among those who believe that we need to rebuild the European Union from the ground up. We do not need a revolution. Many of the ills attributed to the EU are either not its fault in the first place, or are exaggerated, as is the case of the famous democratic deficit issue. I can definitely say that the EU legislative process is considerably more transparent, accountable and inclusive than the one from my country. That said, there is room to be more effective, resilient and more capable of addressing citizens’ expectations. Already now, the current Treaties offer most responses to these issues, but these responses are often ignored. Considering the extent of its title, no one could call our debate unambitious.

Allow me to insist on the ‘value’ part, as they are set out in Article 2 of the Treaty. We all know that the European Union is supposed to be founded, among other things, on the value of equality, non-discrimination and respect for diversity. Still, we have a long way to go to ensure the effective protection of these values. In the particular area of national, autochthonous or language minorities, the EU has not been able to prevent discriminative practices having a negative impact on the language and culture of persons belonging to such groups and ultimately to the intra-EU diversity we are supposed to cherish. More than 60 million citizens expect acknowledgement of their existence by the EU institutions.

  Jo Leinen (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Die EU ist mehr als ein großer Markt. Sie ist eine politische Gemeinschaft, und die Grundlage sind die Werte Europas, die über Jahrhunderte erkämpft wurden. Es wäre an der Zeit, dass die EU das politische Profil sichtbarer und auch vorzeigbarer macht. Und deshalb, Herr Vizepräsident, ist es richtig, dass wir für diese Werte kämpfen und einschreiten, wenn Demokratie, Meinungsfreiheit oder Solidarität verweigert wird. Wir unterstützen Sie, wenn Sie Rechtsstaatsverfahren gegen Mitgliedsländer einleiten; das ist notwendig, und die Bürger unterstützen das auch, wenn einige sich verweigern, während andere ihre Arbeit machen.

Die EU muss natürlich nützen und schützen, und oft hatte man den Eindruck, sie ist kraftlos und hilflos. Das gilt beim Steuerdumping, das gilt bei unfairem Wettbewerb, das gilt bei grenzüberschreitender Kriminalität. Wir haben viele Politiken, die wir jetzt wirklich schärfen müssen, und ich hoffe, dass die fünf Szenarien im Weißbuch Ende des Jahres zu einem einheitlichen Programm für die nächsten Etappen der europäischen Einigung zusammenwachsen.

  Ulrike Trebesius (ECR). – Herr Präsident! Wiederaufbau eines Europas, das auf Werten beruht, in wirksamen demokratischen Institutionen verankert ist und eine blühende Wirtschaft in einer fairen und auf Zusammenhalt gegründeten Gesellschaft fördert – wenn ich das lese, denke ich an weidende Einhörner und an tanzende Elfen. Allein die Tatsache, dass wir heute hier darüber reden, dass erst ein Wiederaufbau zu diesen Ergebnissen führen soll, ist doch ein Eingeständnis des Scheiterns. Wichtige Elemente der EU und der Eurozone funktionieren nicht; unsere Gesellschaften sind am Limit beim Thema Euro, bei Migration und multikultureller Gesellschaft; Rechtsbrüche auf höchster EU-Ebene sind nicht die Ausnahme, sondern die Regel – etwa bei den Dublin-Verträgen oder beim Eurosystem.

Statt einmal innezuhalten, fordern viele der Vertreter dieser EU ,diesen Weg, der bisher eingeschlagen wurde, noch weiter zu vertiefen – mehr Zentralisierung, mehr staatliche Wirtschaftsplanung, mehr Vergemeinschaftung, mehr Behörden, mehr Bürokratie und Paternalismus; weniger Eigenverantwortung, weniger Leistungsorientierung, weniger gewachsene Tradition, weniger Vielfalt, weniger Kreativität. Ist das wirklich der Weg, den wir einschlagen sollten?

  Marina Albiol Guzmán (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente. Esta Unión Europea está basada en unos principios neoliberales, en el control del déficit, en la liberalización de servicios, con un banco europeo perverso, con instituciones antidemocráticas y, sobre todo, fue construida con un objetivo claro: el mercado común.

Esto no se cambia con cuatro reformas, con un poco de maquillaje o con un Libro Blanco y, menos aún, con los mismos que nos han llevado al brexit, al auge de la extrema derecha o que con sus políticas han hecho que aumente la desigualdad.

La Unión Europea del CETA, del TTIP, del euro, de las fronteras contra las personas migrantes, de Maastricht no puede dar respuesta a las necesidades de la mayoría.

Pero eso no significa que queramos romper con Europa, más bien al revés. Ustedes quieren esta Unión Europea de las multinacionales; nosotras queremos construir una Europa para las clases populares y la queremos construir con los trabajadores y trabajadoras de Alemania, de Francia, de Grecia, de Portugal: todas juntas.

  Beatrix von Storch (EFDD). – Herr Präsident! Die Debatte heute heißt „Wiederaufbau eines Europas, das auf Werten aufbaut und eine auf Zusammenhalt gegründete Gesellschaft fördert“. Wiederaufbau setzt voraus, dass etwas zusammengebrochen ist. Diese Selbsterkenntnis ist auf jeden Fall schon mal sehr gut. Wir müssen etwas wieder aufbauen.

Herr Timmermans sprach von den Werten Europas: Demokratie und Rechtsstaat. Niemand hier im Hause ist gegen Demokratie oder Rechtsstaat. Das Problem ist, dass Sie – genau, jetzt lachen Sie natürlich – diejenigen, die für nationale Souveränität eintreten, für antidemokratisch und für Befürworter eines Unrechtsstaates halten. Und genau das ist absurd, das treibt dieses Land auseinander.

Und dann müssen wir uns erinnern: Demokratie und Rechtsstaat müssen ausgefüllt werden mit Werten, die dahinter stehen. Ich erinnere daran, dass wir in der Grundrechtecharta, im Verfassungsvertrag und im Lissabon-Vertrag ausdrücklich keinen Bezug auf das christliche Erbe Europas haben. Das sind die Werte, auf die Europa gebaut ist. Dessen müssen wir uns bewusst werden und wieder klar werden. Das sind Werte. Demokratie und Rechtsstaat ist Technik; dazu sagen wir alle Ja. Aber die Werte müssen wir wieder klar bekommen.

  Marco Zanni (ENF). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, credo che il titolo scelto per questo dibattito sia azzeccato al cento per cento per far capire le problematiche che stiamo vivendo oggi. Innanzitutto si usa il termine "rifondazione", ed è chiaro che quando si chiede una rifondazione vuol dire che qualcosa è stato distrutto. Qui l'Europa è stata distrutta dalle politiche imposte dall'Unione europea. Si usa il termine Europa e non Unione europea, ed è ora di far capire ai cittadini che questi sono due concetti differenti: l'Europa è una cosa, l'Unione europea è un'altra. Smettiamola con questa retorica e smantelliamo questa retorica del "there is no alternative" di chi ci vuol far credere che il futuro dell'Europa può essere solo l'Unione europea.

Poi si elencano tre punti fondamentali in cui l'Unione europea oggi ha fallito: nei valori, perché i trattati sono basati su valori completamente sbagliati; nel garantire istituzioni democratiche, visto che oggi la gran parte delle istituzioni dell'Unione non sono democratiche, e la Banca centrale europea ne è un esempio; e infine nel proporre un'economia prospera. È chiaro che l'Unione europea ha fallito nel progresso economico.

L'unico modo di rifondare l'Europa, a mio avviso, è abbandonare questi trattati, che hanno fallito, e rifondare l'Europa su una cooperazione egalitaria tra Stati sovrani. Questo è l'unico modo, perché prima o poi il conflitto enorme che esiste tra il modello sociale proposto dai trattati e il modello sociale proposto dalle costituzioni nazionali emergerà. I trattati parlano di concorrenza, di mercato, di profitto, di lavoro merce – concetto tipico del modello sociale dei trattati che è il lordo liberismo mercantilista tedesco. La Costituzione italiana, ad esempio, nei primi articoli, dove si espone il suo modello sociale, parla di lavoro e di tutela del lavoro come elemento fondamentale della produzione.

Questo oggi nell'Unione europea non sta succedendo. È chiaro che se vogliamo andare avanti l'unico modo è smantellare questa Unione europea perché è il coronamento di due progetti molto pericolosi: l'imperialismo tedesco e la disciplina dei mercati e dei sindacati attraverso il vincolo esterno tipica delle élite dei paesi periferici.

  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, eu nu o să mă iau de titlu. Este important să analizăm fondul. Nu suntem sinceri cu noi dacă nu reconsiderăm și nu resetăm Europa. Avem nevoie să reconstruim o Europă bazată într-adevăr pe valori, o Europă unită, domnule comisar. Vreau să nu mai dați scenarii și să nu mai alimentați euroscepticii. Sunt pro-european și am intrat în politică exact pentru că vreau și în țara mea și în Uniunea Europeană ca totul să fie construit pe valoare. Dar dacă acum, când țara mea e de zece ani aici, încă se află în afara unui spațiu, avem mai multe spații: spațiul Schengen, non-Schengen, avem drepturi diferite, noi cetățenii.

Cetățenii trebuie să înțeleagă că, pentru a fi uniți au acces și ei la lucrurile care, valorile despre care vorbim și cred, domnule comisar, că trebuie să investim mai mult în educație, pentru ca oamenii să înțeleagă. Liderii politici sunt aleși, și ca cetățenii să poată să aleagă corect, trebuie să fie oameni educați, să avem un set de valori după care să ne ghidăm când ne stabilim liderii. Și, în final, spun că și liderii naționali și liderii europeni au o responsabilitate maximă acum. Într-adevăr am construi o Europă bazată pe valori.

  Peter van Dalen (ECR). – In verscheidenheid verenigd. Dat is het motto van de Europese Unie. Kern van dat motto is dat je dus rekening met elkaar houdt, dat je elkaar respecteert, dat je geen karikatuur van elkaar maakt, dat je elkaar niet wegzet in een bepaald frame.

Helaas zie ik dat de vertegenwoordigers van de ALDE-fractie, de fractie die dit debat heeft aangevraagd, dat regelmatig wel doen. Bijvoorbeeld als er vanuit de samenleving kritiek is op het pushen voor nóg meer EU, dan wordt die kritiek vaak weggezet als populisme, zonder dat serieus wordt nagegaan of die kritiek ook hout snijdt. Het niet serieus nemen van die kritiek heeft mede geleid tot de brexit.

Ik vind het goed en nodig dat we met elkaar nadenken over wat anders en wat beter moet, zeker. Maar juist van de ALDE-fractie vraag ik dan ook begrip en respect voor de opvattingen van anderen.

  Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, apesar das notícias mais positivas destes últimos tempos, não tenhamos ilusões: o projeto europeu vive ainda uma séria crise de resultados cujas causas são bem conhecidas. Por um lado, as deficiências estruturais na construção do euro e, por outro, uma política de austeridade que constituiu uma resposta errada à crise.

São estas as causas profundas da divergência que se agrava e que mina os alicerces do projeto europeu. Mas a crise do projeto europeu é uma crise, essencialmente, de valores, que começa no valor da solidariedade. Se o valor da solidariedade não voltar a bater no coração do ideal europeu, então não haverá solução para nenhum dos nossos problemas.

Os cidadãos estão a dizer-nos, nos últimos atos eleitorais, que querem dar uma nova oportunidade ao projeto europeu. Pois essa oportunidade só pode ser agarrada com uma resposta solidária que enfrente os nossos problemas em comum e que realmente permita reconquistar a confiança dos cidadãos europeus.

  Kazimierz Michał Ujazdowski (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! W tej debacie wracają ojcowie założyciele, powracamy do źródeł Europy, to jest całkowicie zasadne i ze względów aksjologicznych i zasad integracji. Ojcowie Europy mieli poczucie, że prawa człowieka, prawa rodziny, dobro wspólne, demokracja są na fundamencie kultury chrześcijańskiej. Ja w przeciwieństwie do pani poseł Sophia in t’ Veld doskonale rozumiem wpis Manfreda Webera, nie można rozumieć kultury europejskiej bez tożsamości chrześcijańskiej. Natomiast nie mogę zaakceptować traktowania religii, która dała siłę i żywotność cywilizacji europejskiej, ze wstydem bądź jej cenzurowania.

Drugą kwestią jest obrona integralności rynku – to było bardzo silnie obecne w myśli ojców założycieli i dzisiaj wrogiem integralności rynku jest przede wszystkim protekcjonizm, i to często protekcjonizm państw bogatych reprezentowanych przez rządy, które zamykają rynki kosztem konkurencji i kosztem przyszłości gospodarki europejskiej.

  Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Úr! Bizonyos politikai erők Európa egyre több részén távolodnak el, vagy értelmezik újra illetve félre az alapértékeinket, úgy mint a demokráciát, a jogállamiságot, miközben az egyenlőség és a szolidaritás is egyre inkább háttérbe szorulnak. Az elmúlt időszakban számos választást tartottak Európa-szerte, és kivétel nélkül, minden alkalommal azért kellet szorítanunk, hogy nehogy a szélsőséges, Európa-ellenes erők kerüljenek ki győztesen.

Volt, hogy félelmeink végül szerencsére nem váltak valóra, de nem mindegyik tagállam ilyen szerencsés. Magyarország sajnos jó példa erre. Az illiberális demokrácia zászlaját lengetve, egyre távolodik az európai értékektől, és ennek megfelelően alakul a magyar emberek élete is. Hatalmas szakadék tátong az Orbán-kormány oligarchái és az igazi magyar valóság között, miközben az egyre növekvő orosz befolyásnak köszönhetően most már biztonsági kockázatot is jelent a putyini minta szerint eljáró Orbán kormány. Bár az uniós pénzek felhasználásának szigorú felügyeletével némileg tudja az EU kontrollálni a helyzetet, de igazi változást csak a választók tudnak elérni.

  Patrizia Toia (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io sono convinta che per pensare al futuro dell'Europa bisogna avere ben chiaro quali sono le fondamenta della nostra costruzione. Tanto più vacilla questa costruzione, tanto più devono essere solidi i riferimenti alle nostre radici, che sono i valori di democrazia, di pace e di giustizia. Non si pensi che sono valori archiviati o inutili, perché la democrazia in Europa è tanto più necessaria quando abbiamo derive autoritarie in alcuni Stati membri. La pace è necessaria quando vediamo il conflitto all'esterno dell'Unione, con punte anche di conflittualità all'interno. E la giustizia sociale è tanto più necessaria quando vediamo che, in questi ultimi anni soprattutto, sono aumentate le diseguaglianze e le difficoltà di molte parti della popolazione.

Allora sono fondamenta che, se hanno garantito un successo di integrazione, devono essere rafforzate di fronte a una situazione di crisi come quella che abbiamo. Nel Libro bianco Juncker ci mette davanti ad alcune ipotesi, ma io penso che noi non possiamo scegliere quale Europa, magari in uno Stato membro un tipo di Europa e in un altro un'altra Europa. Non abbiamo cinque alternative, ne abbiamo due: o vincere insieme o perdere separati.

  Frans Timmermans, First Vice-President of the Commission. – Mr President, just a few reflections on the basis of what I have heard in the debate. As a teenager, I went to Spain. It was coming out of dictatorship, and as a young man coming from the Netherlands I was shocked to see the abject poverty in Spanish rural areas. Not just the poverty in economic terms; also the poverty in moral terms. Domestic violence was endemic. Children did not go to school, or very badly to school. Girls especially were not even encouraged to go to school. Then look at Spain today. Look at what has been achieved. Surely I am not claiming this for the European Union – it was the Spanish people who did that. But they could not have done that, I believe, in this measure without becoming members of the family of free European nations in the European Union.

As a soldier, I was trained to fight the Eastern bloc. In 1989 the Wall came down, which is without any doubt the most important political event in my lifetime. At that time, Poland was in worse economic shape than Ukraine. Look at Poland today where it is. I think the economy is five or six times bigger than the Ukrainian economy. Surely I do not claim that as a result of the European Union – it is the Polish people who did that. But I am sure the European Union helped in achieving that, especially in terms of the rule of law. It is not just about the economy: it is about the independence of courts. It is about the predictability of jurisdiction, it is about the fight against corruption. So if people today say the European Union is just a big shambles and a mess, they must have been blind over the last 40 years. Let us not lose track of our historic achievements; that would be my first point. And if you know what we can achieve coming out of this crisis, where the number of jobs in Europe now is higher than ever before – I know we still have many things to overcome – but let us have a bit more self-confidence that we can overcome this. Look at what our parents and grandparents overcame. We can do so much better and so much more. We should not talk ourselves down in this.

And let me stress this one thing. The values the European Union is based upon, enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty, have been signed and ratified by every single nation member of the EU, and yes, there are cultural differences and all sorts of differences. But Article 2 is binding on every single Member State and every single actor in that Member State, and you cannot get rid of that responsibility simply by arguing along cultural lines. I believe the reason why we talk about re-foundation today is because we have understood that our Union is not unbreakable. As long as you think it cannot be broken anyway, you do not care so much about fundamental values – they will be all right.

But now that we see that our fundamental values are under threat, under fire, we know that we have to stand up for them and speak up for them more than ever before.

I just want to say one thing about the Christian foundations of Europe, and I say this as a Christian. Yes, of course, Christianity has a huge role in how we developed our values, but I would feel very uncomfortable as a Christian, if another Christian claimed the copyrights on European values as exclusively Christian. We would not be here without the humanists, we would not be here without the Enlightenment. It was my own church that needed to be enlightened. The Spanish Inquisition was not invented by atheists, so let us all take responsibility for what we contributed. But let us respect the diversity and the fact that the sources of our values are manifold and cannot be claimed only by one denomination or one political vision.

  Helena Dalli, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, I thank the honourable Members for their valuable comments, of which obviously I have taken good note, and you can rest assured that reflection on the future of Europe will continue to be one of our top priorities. In exploring avenues for the EU to take in the future, we should perhaps bear in mind two things: one, that the EU cannot swiftly resolve all problems as if by magic; and two, that we have to balance our ideas with some practical constraints. These may sometimes limit us in our ambitions. So we need to be realistic about what we can and what we cannot do.

  Der Präsident. – Damit ist die Aussprache geschlossen.

Schriftliche Erklärungen (Artikel 162 GO)

  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR), в писмена форма. – Нуждата от реформа на Европейския съюз е очевидна. Всички ние осъзнаваме това. Смятам, че сегашният модел на управление на Европа е грешен. Ако искаме Европа да просперира, да бъде силна, то ние трябва да разберем, че пътят за създаване на един федеративен съюз е грешка.

Гражданите на Европа показват, че желаят промяна. Според мен, реформата на Европа трябва да бъде в посока на по-силни национални парламенти, по-силни национални институции. Европейските граждани показаха нееднозначно, че искат по-малко европейска бюрокрация, облекчени режими за бизнеса, данъчна конкуренция между държавите членки. Според мен, Европа трябва да се откаже от прилагането на общ подход, защото всяка една държава е различна по устройство, има различни норми и установен ред.

Виждаме, че се очертава ясно разделение между Германия и Франция, от една страна, и държавите от Централна и Източна Европа, от друга. Това разделение е породено от двойните стандарти и лицемерието на западните политици. Европа трябва да се върне към първоначалния модел на съюз между суверенни държави, които си сътрудничат в условията на общ пазар.

  Laura Ferrara (EFDD), per iscritto. – Il dibattito di oggi, ha ad oggetto, la rifondazione di un'Europa, basata su valori. Ebbene, quando si parla di valori, in questo contesto, io credo che non si possa fare a meno di pensare alla Carta dei diritti fondamentali, che io credo, sia alla base dell'esistenza stessa dell'Unione europea. Al di là delle tante belle e condivisibili dichiarazioni di intenti ,espresse dal Parlamento per la salvaguardia dei diritti fondamentali, un po' ovunque nel mondo, da alcuni anni assistiamo a casi di mortificazione, se non addirittura di sistematica violazione, di principi sanciti nella Carta, in alcuni Stati membri. Purtroppo, però, alle denunce più volte sollevate dal Parlamento - vorrei ricordare l'unica istituzione pienamente democratica dell'Unione, in quanto eletta direttamente dai cittadini - non hanno fatto seguito adeguate azioni, da parte delle altre istituzioni. Ad oggi l'art. 7 del Trattato non è stato mai attivato e non si riesce a capire quali possano essere le misure alternative, per prevenire le violazioni dei diritti fondamentali all'interno dell'UE. Da questo punto di vista, dunque, non posso condividere l'ottimismo nei confronti di questa Europa, troppo spesso bloccata nell'empasse, di un Consiglio in cui sembrano, prevalere l'egoismo degli interessi nazionali.

  Alfred Sant (S&D), in writing. – Soulsearching about European values has become a prevalent mood because, since 2008, certain basic tenets about what the EU stood for, and on which its soft power rested, have been downgraded. Among these was the belief that Europe stood for a social market system that would promote the free market while guaranteeing social rights, in the context of economic stability or growth. Today, when stability or growth are lacking or threatened, in order to reacquire competitivity and growth under existing structures of European integration, the only way out is to restrain social conditions. There has emerged a contradiction between the social rights that the EU proclaims, and the options available to it to achieve desired outcomes. Indeed, it has become questionable whether the three objectives that are fundamental to the European Union as of now, can be kept all three of them together: free market policies under conditions of increasing globalisation and oligopolisation; an ongoing commitment to further European integration; and a total commitment to safeguard and enhance existing social rights in Europe. Before this dilemma is satisfactorily addressed, a sentiment of angst about the real import of European values will prevail.

  Maria Lidia Senra Rodríguez (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – Refundar a Europa sim, mas não podemos permitir que se jogue com as palavras. Vocês não estão para refundar nada. O que propõem, um dia sim e outro também, é seguir aprofundando esta União Europeia neoliberal e insolidária; com as políticas de austeridade estão a aumentar o desemprego, o empobrecimento e a precarização das classes trabalhadoras e do conjunto das classes populares. A refundação de uma Europa baseada em valores e assente em instituições democráticas significa construir uma nova Europa, começando por respeitar o direito de decidir dos povos, por colocar os direitos humanos antes dos interesses do "mercado livre" e do capital e por abandonar a agenda neoliberal.

Para isso, devem retirar as propostas contidas no documento dos "Cinco presidentes", entre elas a de avançar para a União Económica e Monetária. Devem pôr fim, também, aos projetos de União da Defesa, que vão utilizar milhares de milhões de euros dos orçamentos, tanto da União Europeia, como dos Estados, para avançar na construção de um aparato militar para continuar a impor pela força os interesses desta União Europeia neoliberal e em detrimento das políticas de emprego, das políticas sociais e da manutenção dos serviços públicos.

  Ivan Štefanec (PPE), písomne. – Európska únia v posledných troch rokoch čelí bezprecedentnému tlaku zo strany Ruska a bojuje s migračnou krízou. Okrem toho sme svedkami vzniku rôznych protieurópskych hnutí, ktoré sú výdatne podporované takzvanými alternatívnymi médiami. Výsledkom je pokles dôvery nielen v spoločný európsky projekt, ale aj v štát a jeho inštitúcie. Túto dôveru môžeme obnoviť len takou politikou, ktorá je založená na našich prirodzených hodnotách a rieši reálne problémy občanov.

  Claudiu Ciprian Tănăsescu (S&D), în scris. – În actualul context, valorile reprezintă cheia refondării Uniunii, care se confruntă cu pierderea identității și a comunității, cu riscuri sociale, economice, culturale, de siguranță și de securitate ridicate, cu incertitudine și nesiguranță. Nu trebuie uitat faptul că Uniunea Europeană nu este doar o uniune politică, ci, mai ales, culturală și identitară (unitate în diversitate). Valorile UE sunt amenințate în prezent de cei ce nu le înțeleg și de cei care se tem de ele. Viitorul UE depinde de plasarea valorilor Uniunii în centrul tuturor politicilor, acțiunilor și măsurilor europene. Ancorarea în instituții democratice, eficiente și eficace face ca abordarea tuturor problemelor europene sau mondiale să fie făcută dintr-o perspectivă europeană, o perspectivă democratică, a statului de drept, prosperă și echitabilă. Astfel, terorismul, migrația, insecuritatea economică, alimentară și socială își pot găsi rezolvarea. Însă valorile pe care se întemeiază UE, conform articolului 2 din Tratatul privind Uniunea Europeană (TUE), și anume respectarea demnității umane, libertatea, democrația, egalitatea, statul de drept, precum și respectarea drepturilor omului, inclusiv a drepturilor persoanelor care aparțin minorităților, trebuie să fie promovate, protejate și susținute permanent, mai ales în rândul celor tineri.