Posėdžio stenograma
PDF 5053k
Trečiadienis, 2017 m. birželio 14 d. - Strasbūras Atnaujinta informacija
1. Posėdžio pradžia
 2. Diskusijos dėl žmogaus teisių, demokratijos ir teisinės valstybės pažeidimo atvejų (paskelbiami pateikti pasiūlymai dėl rezoliucijų) (žr. protokolą)
 3. Derybos prieš pirmąjį svarstymą Parlamente (patvirtinimas) (Darbo tvarkos taisyklių 69c straipsnis) (žr. protokola)
 4. Darbotvarkės keitimas (žr. protokola)
 5. Pasirengimas birželio 22 ir 23 d. Europos Vadovų Tarybos susitikimui (diskusijos)
 6. Prezidento D. Trumpo sprendimas dėl JAV pasitraukimo iš Paryžiaus klimato susitarimo (COP 21) (diskusijos)
 7. Iškilmingas posėdis - Côte d'Ivoire
 8. Balsuoti skirtas laikas
  8.1. Išmetamų šiltnamio efektą sukeliančių dujų metinio kiekio sumažinimas siekiant vykdyti įsipareigojimus pagal Paryžiaus susitarimą (A8-0208/2017 - Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy) (balsavimas)
  8.2. Prašymas atšaukti Parlamento nario Rolando Pakso imunitetą (Darbo tvarkos taisyklių 150 straipsnis) (balsavimas)
  8.3. Prašymas atšaukti Parlamento narės Mylène Troszczynski imunitetą (Darbo tvarkos taisyklių 150 straipsnis) (balsavimas)
  8.4. Prašymas atšaukti Parlamento nario Jeano-Marie Le Peno (Jean-Marie Le Pen) imunitetą (Darbo tvarkos taisyklių 150 straipsnis) (balsavimas)
  8.5. Prieštaravimas deleguotajam aktui: žalinimo išmoka (balsavimas)
  8.6. Poreikis parengti ES strategiją siekiant pašalinti vyrų ir moterų pensijų skirtumą ir jo išvengti (A8-0197/2017 - Constance Le Grip) (balsavimas)
  8.7. 2016 m. Komisijos ataskaita dėl Serbijos (A8-0063/2017 - David McAllister) (balsavimas)
  8.8. 2016 m. Komisijos ataskaita dėl Kosovo (A8-0062/2017 - Ulrike Lunacek) (balsavimas)
  8.9. 2016 m. ataskaita dėl buvusiosios Jugoslavijos Respublikos Makedonijos (A8-0055/2017 - Ivo Vajgl) (balsavimas)
  8.10. Padėtis Kongo Demokratinėje Respublikoje (RC-B8-0397/2017, B8-0397/2017, B8-0398/2017, B8-0399/2017, B8-0400/2017, B8-0401/2017, B8-0402/2017) (balsavimas)
  8.11. Tvarumo susitarimo įgyvendinimo padėtis Bangladeše (B8-0396/2017) (balsavimas)
 9. Paaiškinimai dėl balsavimo
  9.1. Išmetamų šiltnamio efektą sukeliančių dujų metinio kiekio sumažinimas siekiant vykdyti įsipareigojimus pagal Paryžiaus susitarimą (A8-0208/2017 - Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy)
  9.2. Poreikis parengti ES strategiją siekiant pašalinti vyrų ir moterų pensijų skirtumą ir jo išvengti (A8-0197/2017 - Constance Le Grip)
  9.3. 2016 m. Komisijos ataskaita dėl Serbijos (A8-0063/2017 - David McAllister)
  9.4. 2016 m. Komisijos ataskaita dėl Kosovo (A8-0062/2017 - Ulrike Lunacek)
  9.5. 2016 m. ataskaita dėl buvusiosios Jugoslavijos Respublikos Makedonijos (A8-0055/2017 - Ivo Vajgl)
  9.6. Padėtis Kongo Demokratinėje Respublikoje (RC-B8-0397/2017, B8-0397/2017, B8-0398/2017, B8-0399/2017, B8-0400/2017, B8-0401/2017, B8-0402/2017)
  9.7. Tvarumo susitarimo įgyvendinimo padėtis Bangladeše (B8-0396/2017)
 10. Balsavimo ketinimai ir pataisymai (žr. protokolą)
 11. Ankstesnio posėdžio protokolo tvirtinimas (žr. protokola)
 12. Asignavimų perkėlimas (žr. protokolą)
 13. Pateikti dokumentai (žr.protokolą)
 14. Deleguotieji aktai (Darbo tvarkos taisyklių 105 straipsnio 6 dalis) (žr. protokola)
 15. Europos atnaujinimas, paremtas vertybėmis, įtvirtintas efektyviomis demokratinėmis institucijomis ir skatinantis klestinčią ekonomiką teisingoje ir darnioje visuomenėje (diskusija aktualia tema)
 16. Tolesni veiksmai Panamos dokumentų klausimu ir teisinės valstybės principo užtikrinimas Maltoje (diskusijos)
 17. Europos strateginių investicijų fondo įgyvendinimas (diskusijos)
 18. Užsienio investicijos į strateginius sektorius (ES veiksmai) (diskusijos)
 19. Vaikų skurdas (diskusijos)
 20. Europos bendro vartojimo ekonomikos darbotvarkė - Interneto platformos ir bendroji skaitmeninė rinka (diskusijos)
 21. Parlamento sudėtis (žr. protokolą)
 22. Komitetų ir delegacijų sudėtis (žr. protokolą)
 23. Uostų apmokestinimas (diskusijos)
 24. Europos politinių partijų ir fondų statutas ir finansavimas (diskusijos)
 25. Kito posėdžio darbotvarkė (žr. protokolą)
 26. Posėdžio pabaiga



1. Posėdžio pradžia
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

(La seduta è aperta alle 9.05)


2. Diskusijos dėl žmogaus teisių, demokratijos ir teisinės valstybės pažeidimo atvejų (paskelbiami pateikti pasiūlymai dėl rezoliucijų) (žr. protokolą)

3. Derybos prieš pirmąjį svarstymą Parlamente (patvirtinimas) (Darbo tvarkos taisyklių 69c straipsnis) (žr. protokola)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

4. Darbotvarkės keitimas (žr. protokola)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

5. Pasirengimas birželio 22 ir 23 d. Europos Vadovų Tarybos susitikimui (diskusijos)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

  Presidente. – L'ordine del giorno reca la discussione sulle dichiarazioni del Consiglio e della Commissione in vista della preparazione del Consiglio europeo del 22 e del 23 giugno (2017/2625(RSP)).


  Helena Dalli, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, President Juncker, Commissioner, honourable Members, the 28 Heads of State and Government will be meeting in Brussels next week. They have a very dense agenda which will be spread over two days.

The first item on the agenda is migration. The Eastern Mediterranean route and the Western Balkans route are largely under control. The most pressing issue today is the Central Mediterranean route. In February, leaders agreed on a list of measures to address the situation. Member States and institutions have followed up on this guidance and significantly increased their engagement. Still, the magnitude of the crisis and the harrowing numbers of lives lost at sea remind us every day that more is needed – more efforts and more coordination to implement what has been decided.

The European Council will review the state of play and look at how to improve the effectiveness of our action. Leaders will also revert to the reform of the Common European Asylum System. The European Council is expected to give a steer for further work to continue under the Estonian Presidency.

Second on the agenda is security and defence. In the light of recent tragic attacks, notably in Manchester and London, leaders will again speak out firmly against terrorism, hatred and violent extremism and will look at what more the EU can do. As concerns external security and defence, leaders established a comprehensive work programme in December. Since then more progress has been achieved than in the last ten years. Building on this new momentum, leaders will discuss further steps on some issues, for instance, permanent structured cooperation, EU battle groups or the industrial dimension of EU defence.

Turning now to jobs, growth and competitiveness, which is the third item on the agenda, a year ago leaders set the deadline of 2018 to complete the Single Market in all its dimensions. They will therefore look at what has been achieved, and where we are lagging behind. This deadline should remain a strong driver to make headway at all levels, including in interinstitutional negotiations. Furthermore, in the light of recent developments, the European Council will return to trade policy. Leaders are expected to reaffirm the EU strong commitment to our trade policy. They will also discuss how the EU can make sure trade remains free and fair for all.

To conclude, I would like to mention two other important topics. First, leaders will show their strong and continued support to the Paris Agreement on climate change. This is an important point, and we will discuss this here later on in the morning and I think that we should expect some strong language on this issue. Second, in preparation for the Estonian Presidency, leaders will encourage a broader outlook on the digital dimension of Europe. As demonstrated by recent cyber attacks, digital issues go beyond the Digital Single Market. They have a bearing on many if not all other EU policies. So for now, I thank you for your attention.


  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Commission. – Mr President, Minister, honourable Members, since we last met here one month ago, Europe has again seen its way of life attacked through cowardly acts of terrorism. In Europe, determination will always triumph over fear. These attacks will not undermine our resilience. They do, however, bring into sharper focus the discussions on defence and security that we will have at this month’s European Council. Europeans expect their Union to keep them safe from threats, whether they be from within or without, and whatever their nature. That was recognised by EU leaders in Bratislava and in Rome when they pledged to step up their defence cooperation. They highlighted defence as one of the key issues for our Union when moving forward.

To support that, and faithful to what I told this Parliament last September in the State of the European Union speech, the Commission last week published a reflection paper on the future of European defence, showing how far we can go depending on the level of ambition and political will of our Member States.

We have all the tools we need in the Treaties to make it happen, including permanent structured cooperation, the sleeping beauty of the Lisbon Treaty. But now is the time to decide, and this House must play a full role in that debate. Whichever road we go down, our ever closer partnership with NATO will remain the cornerstone of Europe’s defence and security. On defence, the European Union and NATO are like twins. We are part of the same family, and rivalry is not an option. Within NATO there is a great deal the European Union can do to improve its own cooperation. The simple truth is that no European country alone can tackle the scale and complexity of the challenges we face, nor can we rely on any foreign power to do it for us. We cannot outsource our own security.

That starts with the need to invest in a more efficient way. The United States already spends twice as much as all European countries combined, while Russia and China have dramatically stepped up their defence budgets in recent years. And 90% of the money we invest in defence, research and technology in Europe is spent without any kind of coordination at all. That leads to inefficiencies and duplication that could easily be avoided. That is why the European Defence Fund that the Commission proposed last week will support Member States’ budgets and facilitate cooperation on joint research and purchasing of equipment and technology. We have earmarked EUR 590 million to support defence by 2020, and have proposed to allocate at least EUR 1.5 billion each year after that. The fund is both an investment boost to our industry and a statement of intent to our citizens, who expect us to do more to protect them.

I was encouraged to see already vocal support for our proposals at last week’s high-level conference on security and defence which I hosted with Prime Minister Sobotka in Prague, but also the Franco-German announcement for the development of a European drone programme and the joint training of officers. We are not talking about the militarisation of the European continent. It is about doing more together for the stability and peace of our continent.

Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs, il est normal que l’Union européenne s’implique fortement dans tout ce qui relève de la sécurité et de la défense. Mais la sécurité mondiale exige bien plus que les seuls efforts en matière de dépenses militaires.

La stabilité européenne comme la stabilité mondiale dépendent aussi de nos efforts dans les domaines de la coopération au développement et de la lutte contre les changements climatiques, dont nous savons à quel point ils redessinent notre planète et sont source d’instabilité.

Notre terre et tous ses peuples en subiront les effets. La montée des eaux n’a jamais été aussi rapide: elle menacera la côte du Bengale, comme la côte de Floride et certaines côtes européennes.

Tous les peuples ne sont pas égaux face aux conséquences des changements climatiques. La partie la plus pauvre du monde, qui n’est responsable que de 7 % des émissions de CO2, est la plus vulnérable.

Cette fois-ci, nous ne pourrons pas prétendre que nous ne savions pas. À travers le monde, le nombre des catastrophes naturelles liées au climat a plus que triplé depuis le début des années 60.

Chaque année, ces catastrophes ont provoqué plus de 60 000 décès, principalement, mais non exclusivement, dans les pays en développement.

Les épisodes de sécheresse deviennent de plus en plus nombreux et de plus en plus graves, provoquant de véritables situations de famine, comme c’est actuellement le cas en Afrique de l’Est.

Réduire les budgets de l’aide au développement ou remettre en cause les engagements pris à la COP 21, c’est porter une lourde responsabilité en nuisant gravement à la stabilité mondiale. Ce message, l’Union européenne doit continuer et continuera à le porter. Vous pouvez compter sur moi et le monde comptera sur nous.

Nous avons connu, ces dernières années, le plus important afflux de réfugiés depuis la Deuxième Guerre mondiale, mais nous devons aujourd’hui prévenir une crise bien plus grave encore. Agissons sans perdre un seul instant, car ne pas tenir aujourd’hui les engagements de l’accord de Paris, c’est risquer de jeter, d’ici à 2050, jusqu’à 250 millions de réfugiés climatiques sur les routes de l’exil.

Herr Präsident, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Wir haben eigentlich jetzt schon eine Vorreiterrolle bei der Reform des europäischen Asyl- und Migrationssystems eingenommen. Auch wenn die öffentliche und die veröffentlichte Meinung oft behaupten, die Europäische Union komme in der Flüchtlingskrise nicht voran, entspricht dies nicht ganz der Wirklichkeit. Das belegt unser aktuelles Migrationspaket, das die Kommission gestern an den Europäischen Rat geschickt hat. Wir sehen mehr Solidarität als zuvor, aber wir sehen noch nicht genug Solidarität. Und wir sehen, dass unsere Außengrenzen besser geschützt sind als je zuvor.

Die Union und die Mitgliedstaaten unterstützen Griechenland und Italien; wir haben 20 000 Flüchtlinge aus diesen beiden Ländern umverteilt. Das zeigt: Wo ein Wille ist, ist auch ein Weg. Und wir haben vor Ort zentrale Aufnahmestellen eingerichtet, für die wir EU-Beamte, Mitarbeiter von EU-Agenturen und Experten aus allen Mitgliedstaaten entsandt haben. Gleichzeitig haben wir den Schutz unserer gemeinsamen Außengrenzen in unser aller Verantwortung überführt. Dank der Europäischen Grenz- und Küstenwache können wir heute die am stärksten gefährdeten Grenzabschnitte besser absichern. Zurzeit sind bereits – aber niemand sagt das – 1 600 europäische Grenzschützer im Einsatz, die die nationalen Grenzbeamten unterstützen: 967 in Griechenland, 402 in Italien, 168 in Bulgarien und 65 in Spanien. Zusätzlich steht ein Pool von 1 500 Grenzschutzbeamten sofort einsatzbereit.

Wir zeigen Solidarität nicht nur innerhalb der Union, sondern auch denjenigen Staaten gegenüber, die einen Großteil der Flüchtlinge aufnehmen. Dazu gehört die Türkei. Bei meinem jüngsten Treffen mit Präsident Erdoğan Ende Mai haben wir beide bekräftigt, dass wir weiterhin an der erfolgreichen Umsetzung der EU-Türkei-Flüchtlingsvereinbarung arbeiten wollen. Die EU steht zu ihrem Wort, und auch die Türkei steht zu ihrem Wort. Denn heute kommen 98 % weniger Flüchtlinge von der Türkei nach Griechenland, als dies vor dem Abkommen der Fall war.

Aber natürlich werden wir uns nicht auf dem Erreichten ausruhen. Unsere Berichte zeigen deutlich, wo noch Mängel bestehen und wo die Mitgliedstaaten sich noch weiter anstrengen müssen. Hier geht es um ganz praktische Fragen, wie zum Beispiel die noch fehlende Ausrüstung für den Europäischen Grenz- und Küstenschutz. Es geht aber auch um grundlegende Fragen, nämlich wie Mitgliedstaaten EU-Recht umsetzen. Nach ganzen zwölf Berichten, in denen wir immer wieder angemahnt haben, dass einige Länder mehr tun müssen, um ihren Verpflichtungen bei der Umverteilung nachzukommen, gibt es immer noch drei Länder – Polen, Ungarn, Tschechische Republik –, die entweder keinen einzigen Flüchtling aus Italien und Griechenland aufgenommen haben oder aber seit über einem Jahr niemanden mehr aufnehmen. Das lässt uns keine andere Wahl, als heute deshalb die Vertragsverletzungsverfahren gegen diese Länder einzuleiten.

Ich möchte dies unterstreichen: Hierbei geht es nicht um Sanktionen, sondern es geht darum, deutlich zu machen, dass getroffene Entscheidungen geltendes Recht sind, selbst wenn man dagegen gestimmt hat. Die Kommission ist Hüterin der Verträge, und wir müssen unserer Pflicht nachkommen, so wie wir es heute in 137 weiteren Vertragsverletzungsfällen gegen insgesamt 27 Mitgliedstaaten tun. Man soll aufhören, zu behaupten, die Einleitung von Vertragsverletzungsverfahren sei mit Sanktionen gleichzusetzen. Es geht hier um die Einhaltung des europäischen Rechts, und wer darauf drängt, dass europäisches Recht eingehalten wird, der sanktioniert nicht.


Die europäische Solidarität darf keine Einbahnstraße sein; der Verkehr muss sich in beide Richtungen bewegen. Ich gebe die Hoffnung nicht auf, dass sich der europäische Geist, die europäische Vernunft und unsere europäischen Werte am Ende durchsetzen werden und wir diese Frage der Solidarität nicht vor dem Gerichtshof lösen müssen. Europäische Solidaritätsfragen müssen nicht vor Gericht gelöst werden, sondern schreien nach einer sofortigen politischen Antwort. Solidarität kann man allerdings nicht mit der Brechstange erzwingen; sie muss von Herzen kommen, vor allem, wenn es um Menschenleben geht. Ich werde die Mitgliedstaaten anlässlich des nächsten Europäischen Rates intensiv daran erinnern.



  Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I want to start with a topic which is not officially on the agenda next week, but which will surely overshadow the whole debate – namely, the general election in the UK. Let me start with a frank analysis from our side: I do not think it is a good result, because we were asking London for clear orientation and stability, and what we see today is a situation of disorientation – some are calling it a chaotic situation – in London. Theresa May gambled and she lost, and the country is deeply divided. Twelve months after the Brexit result, when we look at the political landscape all over Europe, we now see clear leadership in France, Spain is stable, Italy is stable, Germany is stable, and so is Dublin. So Europe is united, but we are seeing a lot of problems on the table in London. So the main message for people in the European Union is that it is better to reform the European Union, if needed, than to destroy it or to leave it.


One inspiring element of this election is that the youth is back. They abstained in the Brexit decision, and now they have gone to vote and have taken their destiny into their own hands. That is a very promising thing, because they are in favour of partnership and in favour of Europe. A hard Brexit was what Theresa May offered, and I have to say that there is no majority for this option. In Great Britain, people are rethinking their priorities, and today they are mainly discussing jobs: that is what we should also focus on. Let us talk about jobs, let us talk about the economy, and about people’s daily lives. That is one thing.

The second thing is the official agenda: there, the most important thing is that we have had enough papers on the table and we have had enough talks on the issues. It is now time to act. That is what people all over Europe expect from our leaders. On defence, it is obvious we have the Commission’s very good papers – Jean—Claude Juncker’s papers – on the table, and we have the Bratislava decision on the table. So let us now start with cyber war, with drones, and with action in the Sahel Zone. It is now up to us simply to do it, and that is what we expect from the Council.

On migration, for the EPP Group, the precondition for all further measures was always that we need strong border control. We have to protect our borders. When we listen to our Commission President, this is now much better organised and works much better than it has done in recent years. Now we can go a step further. I want to underline that on the question of solidarity it is not Europe which is failing, because Brussels – I should say the Commission – is offering a clear proposal, and we in Parliament have a clear majority in favour of practicing solidarity in the European Union. It is not Europe that is failing, but for the moment it is national egoism which is failing and not bringing results. That is why we should move. Let us go on and let us show leadership. With Brexit in mind, the most convincing thing that our leaders can do now is act.



  Presidente. – Prima di dare la parola al presidente Pittella, volevo dirvi che oggi non sarà possibile concedere domande "cartellino blu" perché i tempi sono molto stretti e abbiamo due ospiti importanti che parteciperanno alla nostra giornata di lavoro.

Volevo altresì inviare un messaggio di solidarietà da parte del Parlamento europeo alla città di Londra per il grave incendio che sta distruggendo un grattacielo in cui ci sono feriti e dispersi. Quindi siamo vicini alla città di Londra, ancora una volta colpita da un evento drammatico.


  Gianni Pittella, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, una dedica alla signora May con una frase: chi vuole stravincere è sempre sul punto di perdere tutto. E un ringraziamento al leader del partito laburista britannico Jeremy Corbyn per la grande vittoria ottenuta, che è una vittoria del coraggio nella proposta politica e programmatica e anche una vittoria di una concezione giusta di Brexit, né hardsoft ma right e fair.

Una battuta sul terrorismo: se vogliamo essere seri, la prima cosa che dobbiamo fare è rafforzare la cooperazione dei servizi di intelligence, il resto è propaganda. Sui rifugiati e sull'immigrazione, bene la sorveglianza delle frontiere esterne e bene le procedure d'infrazione, seppur tardive, perché alcuni Stati membri da tempo stanno bloccando lo schema di ricollocazione dei rifugiati.

Mi spiace – devo dirlo al Consiglio e non alla Presidenza maltese, che ringrazio molto –che nel Consiglio giace, come un libro chiuso e nemmeno sfogliato, la proposta della Commissione europea sulla revisione del sistema di Dublino. È grave e vergognoso che quella proposta non sia stata degnata nemmeno di un'apertura di discussione, mentre il Parlamento ha alacremente lavorato e sta alacremente lavorando.

Il problema non è solo quello dei rifugiati, Presidente Juncker, lei lo sa bene e lo sa anche il Commissario Avramopoulos. C'è un problema grande che riguarda i flussi di immigrati irregolari e dobbiamo metterci in testa una cosa: se vogliamo ridurre la irregolarità dei flussi dobbiamo garantire la legalità dei flussi, cioè aprire canali legali per l'immigrazione. Questa è la strada maestra, insieme all'altra che quella di un partenariato serio con l'Africa, non il baratto – noi diamo alcuni soldi, pochi, all'Africa e in cambio loro accettano il ritorno, il rimpatrio – ma una vera partnership politica, economica e sociale che consenta di risolvere le grandi sfide che ha l'Africa.

Ne ha parlato Juncker, con riferimento al cambiamento climatico, al tema dell'educazione e al tema della democrazia. Fin quando l'Africa è terreno di preda di multinazionali che intascano proventi giganteschi e non danno nessun ritorno ai cittadini africani, fin quando non c'è democrazia e noi non li aiutiamo a costruire un sistema democratico e uno sviluppo autonomo e autoctono, noi non risolveremo il tema degli immigrati irregolari, perché lì hanno due strade: o vengono da noi o vanno con i terroristi di Boko Haram, altra strada non c'è per quei giovani, per quelle ragazze. Noi dobbiamo offrire una prospettiva. Se offriamo questa prospettiva all'Africa, noi offriamo anche una prospettiva migliore all'Europa.


  Syed Kamall, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, the agenda for this Summit highlights some of the big challenges ahead: security, migration and asylum, Turkey, as well – as others have said – as some discussions on the Brexit negotiations. Topics we have discussed before and no doubt topics that we will discuss again; but each time we have to ask ourselves: are we any closer to solutions and real action?

If you will allow me, let me start with the British general election. An election in which the Conservative party lost seats but not enough to lose power, and where the opposition gained seats but not enough to gain power and ended up 56 seats behind, and just as in any other country, for example the Netherlands at the moment, the largest party will seek to form a government with support from a smaller party. But the UK Government expects to begin negotiations later this month, for we have kept you waiting long enough.

Just as in this Parliament, the largest party will need to build wider coalitions in order to pass legislation. Now if that means addressing concerns over civil liberties while drafting new laws to tackle the threat of terrorism, to my mind a wider coalition is not necessarily a bad thing.

Can I also take this opportunity to thank colleagues from across the political spectrum for their messages of condolences and solidarity after the recent terrorist attacks in both Manchester and my home city of London. We may be divided on our politics but we are united in not wanting to allow the terrorists to win.


I hope the Council will understand the importance of tackling terrorism at different levels. At the international level: military cooperation without undermining NATO, better data sharing between national law enforcement agencies; at the national level: upholding the rule of law, our shared values and the security of our citizens, as well as making sure that any shared intelligence is actually acted upon; and at a local community level: encouraging local projects to tackle radicalisation at its roots.

But security is just one of the issues facing us. The migration crisis continues as does the EU-Turkey deal, and the ECR believes that the EU should focus on a new relationship based not on the false promise of membership, but on an honest relationship based on cooperation. Because while the deal with Turkey appears to be holding for now, the Council must seek consensus from all Member States to effectively tackle the migrant crisis, in case that agreement breaks down, by getting the basics right – processing asylum applications quickly and efficiently, returning those who do not qualify to their country of origin, agreeing clear criteria for qualification, based on the Geneva Convention – and by not continuing to pursue a struggling relocation scheme without the full support of all Member States.

Our discussions on the challenges will continue way beyond this Summit and future ones, but how many times do we have to discuss them before our voters see real progress? While others will call for new rules, the ECR Group calls for the EU to make what we already have work better. While others will call for more agencies, the ECR Group calls for more action and while others will call for further political integration, the ECR Group calls for political cooperation for a reformed EU which does less, but does it better.


  Guy Verhofstadt, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, for once I have to contradict Manfred Weber. He said that there is at least one positive outcome of the British election: the disappearance of UKIP and of those who want not only Britain out of Europe, but who want to destroy the European Union from inside.

I think that it is true that there will be a lot of items on the agenda in the European Council next week, but the main point on the agenda is whether we can now start the negotiations on Brexit. It is three years since the start of the debate, a year since the outcome of the British referendum and three months since the triggering of the notification, and we are not still not in a position to start negotiations, because there is – for the moment anyway – no clear position from the new government in the United Kingdom – if there is already a new government, because every day I read that there is a deal, but then six hours later there is no deal and they are still discussing it.

But there are five pressing questions that need to be answered on a short—term basis. Mr Kamall, maybe you can help the government to respond to them. First: is the British position still that of the letter of 29 March, or will the new government take into account the outcome of the election, which was a little different from the hard talk of the letter of the 29th? The second question is: will it be the opinion of the Tories or the position of the whole nation? Party interest or national interest? Because this is not about the Tories leaving the European Union but about the UK leaving the European Union. The third question: what about the Good Friday Agreement? What is the proposal so that the Good Friday Agreement can be kept in place and that no hard border will be created between the Republic on the one hand and Northern Ireland on the other hand? The fourth question: will the British government – as we do on the European side – one hundred per cent guarantee the current rights of EU citizens living in Britain, like we are ready to guarantee the current rights of British citizens living on the continent? Finally, the fifth question: is it still the opinion of the UK government to leave the single market and the customs union? Is the populist illusion of limiting free movement in Europe really more important than the prosperity and fortune of British workers, British industry, British companies and the British economy? Because let us face reality. This Brexit has already had a negative impact on everybody in Europe, and especially on Britain. Zero growth in the first quarter in Britain; for the moment it is three times less than in the last quarter of last year. And because of what? Because of the uncertainty that has been created.

So I think the time is now right for us to receive from the British side clear answers to these five questions so that these negotiations can start. I know that yesterday Emmanuel Macron, the new French President, spoke about an open door. He said that, if Britain is changing its mind, it will find an open door. I do not disagree with him but, like in Alice in Wonderland, all doors are now the same. It will be a brand new door with a new Europe: a Europe without rebates, without complexity, with real power and with unity. That is the door towards Europe. For me, Jean-Claude, the most important thing now is the reform of our Union, and for this reform not to be bogged down in these Brexit talks. Brexit talks for the moment look more like the Echternach Procession – you are from Luxembourg and maybe you can explain to everybody what the procession of Echternach is – namely two steps forward and one step back. That is typical Echternach.

I am very grateful to the Commission for the different reflection papers that they have put on the table, but the Commission is more than a think tank. I think the moment is now there, when we start these Brexit talks, to have also legislative proposals on the reform of the European Union, on defence – as you have done – and on economic and monetary union. But not only reflection papers: we also need legislative proposals. Do not leave the space open for the Council. It is not for the Council to fill in the space; it is the Commission that will have to do it with legislative proposals. We have now a new president in France who is pro-European, and we will have German elections. That is the moment to go forward. We always say do not waste a good crisis. Well, do not waste a good election cycle either.


  Gabriele Zimmer, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Es sind aus meiner Sicht drei Themen, die sehr aktuell sind und die sowohl offiziell als auch inoffiziell bei der Ratstagung sicher eine Rolle spielen müssen: Das ist zum einen die Migrationskrise, auf die ich gleich nochmal zurückkomme, der Brexit, aber eben auch die Situation in Griechenland.

Ich möchte Sie auffordern, dass auch der Rat mit Blick auf die kommende Tagung der Gläubiger und der Eurozonenfinanzminister Stellung nimmt, um deutlich zu machen: Jetzt muss endlich Schluss sein mit der Erpressung. Jetzt muss endlich Geld gezahlt werden. Jetzt muss aber auch endlich mit den Verhandlungen zu einem Schuldenschnitt begonnen werden. Wie wollen Sie im Radio über Jobs und growth sprechen, wenn Sie Teile der Europäischen Union einfach wegbrechen lassen und nicht dafür sorgen, dass dort wieder Bedingungen entstehen, die Jobs und growth überhaupt erst einmal möglich machen? Das ist der eine Punkt.

Zum Brexit möchte ich nur eine Bemerkung machen, weil schon viel gesagt worden ist: Theresa May versorgt sich mit der Unterstützung der DUP. Ich möchte Sie noch einmal darauf aufmerksam machen, dass allein mit diesem Fakt die im Mandat vorhandene Forderung, dass das Good Friday Agreement in all seinen Teilen gewahrt bleiben muss, schon verletzt wird. Die britische Regierung ist zur Neutralität zwischen den beiden regierenden Kräften im Norden Irlands und auch zur Unparteilichkeit verpflichtet. Ich bitte hier wirklich sehr um Aufmerksamkeit.

Wenn es dann darum geht, die Frage der Migrationskrise anzusprechen, möchte ich Sie noch einmal daran erinnern: Bitte sorgen Sie dafür, dass legale und sichere Wege aufgemacht werden! Die Toten im Mittelmeer erlauben nicht, dass wir uns weiter vor dieser Entscheidung drücken. Sie erlauben aus meiner Sicht auch nicht, dass wir als Europäische Union Deals mit Sudan und mit Libyen organisieren. Beides sind Regime – es sind zum Teil gescheiterte Staaten. Wir finanzieren direkt im Sudan Kräfte, die zu denen gehörten, die massiv gegen Migranten aus anderen Regionen, aus anderen Ländern Afrikas vorgegangen sind, diese wieder abschieben oder verantwortlich für unmenschliche Behandlung, für Folter, für Diebstähle, für alles mögliche sind. Wir wissen, dass die libysche Küstenwache unterwegs ist, um beispielsweise auch Seenotrettung zu behindern.

Wir kennen den Brief, den „Sea-Watch“ und auch „Ärzte ohne Grenzen“ an die Bundeskanzlerin geschrieben haben, in dem sie sie auffordern, dem endlich Einhalt zu gebieten, endlich dafür zu sorgen, dass wir diese Gelder – zum Beispiel die 140 Millionen an den Sudan für die Finanzierung dessen, dass der Sudan mit seinen Kräften die Flüchtlinge zurückhält – gefälligst in die Länder stecken, aus denen die Flüchtlinge kommen. Wir müssen all jenen Ländern in Afrika endlich konkret und auch langfristig helfen; ansonsten sind auch die Forderungen nach geschlossenen Grenzen einfach inhuman, weil sie dazu führen, dass wir die Leute immer wieder zurücksetzen.

Sie, Herr Juncker – und das ist meine letzte Bitte hier heute an dieser Stelle – sprachen davon, dass die Union Griechenland und Italien hilft: Gehen Sie bitte in die Hotspots! Ja, es gibt Hilfe, aber andererseits gibt es gleichzeitig Bemühungen, beispielsweise die Familienzusammenführung zu behindern und eben auch Migranten wieder nach Griechenland und Italien zurückzuführen. Das können wir nicht zulassen.

Solidarität ist keine Freiwilligkeit in der Europäischen Union. In der Frage haben Sie Recht, und da unterstützen wir Sie. Vertragsverletzungsverfahren gegen jene, die nicht mitmachen, sind richtig. Sanktionen in dem Sinne, dass Gelder gekürzt werden – darum kann es nicht gehen. Es geht wirklich darum, Solidarität zu einem Pflichtbestandteil der Europäischen Union zu machen.


  Ska Keller, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, I share the calls of some of our colleagues for more solidarity on the refugee issue. I think it is super disappointing that the Council has dropped any progress on the issue of solidarity from the agenda, and I am afraid that if you cannot even solve that task, then I really have a hard time imagining how there can be progress in other areas – at least not in a way that will be satisfactory. I think the reason for that is that for solving problems you would actually need to tackle their root causes. You would have to look at the root cause for why people have to flee, and do something about that. You would have to look at the root causes for conflict and not just spend more money, and also look at the root causes of radicalisation and terror.

Your answer to conflicts and violence worldwide is just to push for more military spending. You want to actually take money away from SME funding and from structural funds and put it into the weapons industry. But I do not really think that that particular industry really needs that extra bit of help, but what we are actually doing here – or what we would be doing here – is actually to make a 29th or 28th sort of defence policy. But rather than doing that and wasting a lot of money, we should make pooling and sharing the rule, and not the exception. This sort of cooperation could actually save us something like EUR 100 billion every year: money that is actually urgently needed to tackle all the root causes of conflicts, for example, in the world.

On terrorism we also urgently need answers, but I do not think that your recipe of simply collecting more and more data is going to do it. Rather, we need more policewomen and policemen on the ground. We need to strengthen the exchange of data on actual suspects and unknown risk persons, so that the tools that we already have today actually serve the security of our citizens. And yes, of course we need to prosecute those who pose a real threat to us and our way of life – absolutely – but we also need to look further into the root causes of radicalisation so that fewer people become a threat to our security and to our freedom. I wish the Presidency good luck with their discussions, and I hope that it will defy my low expectations and actually dare to look into the root causes and come up with solutions that actually solve something.


  Nigel Farage, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, I know that a lot of the people here are very pleased with the result of the UK general election and view it as a victory for the EU. Let me give you a sense of perspective: in the 2015 general election, just 13% of voters voted for parties – namely UKIP, which was the only one – that wanted to leave the European Union. Last Thursday, over 85% of British voters voted for parties on a manifesto not just of leaving the European Union, but of leaving the single market as well. In fact, on the morning of the general election, 70% of the British public – whichever way they had voted in the referendum – simply wanted the government to get on and complete and conclude Brexit.

I know that Theresa’s terrible campaign has cast a bit of doubt on this, and I saw that Emmanuel Macron yesterday – a call echoed by Mr Verhofstadt this morning – said that there is still time for the United Kingdom to change its mind; that it does not have to leave. Let me tell you that the only certainty in this mess is that we will be leaving. But that has not stopped a parade of former prime ministers and of former European Commissioners from lining up and attempting to get the British Government to backslide on its commitments. There is now a big push, a big drive, for us to opt for a Norway-style option, and I have to confess that your chief negotiator, Mr Barnier, is right: it took Theresa May nine months to trigger Article 50, and by the time the talks start it will be nearly four months since it was triggered, so I do accept that we go into this, as a British Government, with a British Prime Minister in a very weak position. And she is caught in a bit of a pincer movement, because the political class would like us to stay in the customs union and to stay in the single market, but the people have made it perfectly clear they want us to leave both of those things. And I would say this: that unless Theresa May – and it is difficult for her, because she never really believed in Brexit – stands up at the summit next week, in those negotiations, and makes it absolutely clear that she is not giving an inch – that we are leaving the single market – then her own party will get rid of her, and then yet more time will be lost in the Article 50 process.


  Marcel de Graaff, namens de ENF-Fractie. – De Raad spreekt op 22 juni onder andere over EU-defensie, brexit en migratie. Laat ik direct duidelijk zijn.

Over EU-defensie: wij willen geen EU-leger, maar samenwerking van soevereine staten binnen de NAVO. Dat heeft ons de Koude Oorlog doorgeholpen. Er is geen enkele noodzaak tot een bureaucratisch geldverslindend EU-leger.

Over brexit: Engeland verlaat de EU omdat de EU een mislukt project is dat zich ontwikkelt tot een tweede Sovjet-Unie. Dus ik wil geen miljardenrekening voor Engeland. De EU moet stoppen en plaatsmaken voor economische samenwerking tussen soevereine staten.

Over migratie: de EU blijkt niet in staat om ngo's te stoppen die met gehuurde boten al tienduizenden migranten hebben opgehaald uit Libië in plaats van ze terug te slepen. Bij dezen spreek ik mijn steun uit voor Hongarije en de andere Visegrad-landen in hun strijd tegen islamisering. Laat de Raad dit voorbeeld volgen.


  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Mr President, colleagues, citizens in Europe and overseas, I am also asking for solidarity, but in this case solidarity with my homeland: Hungary. As you all know, we resist mass migration and we keep defending our borders and the borders of Europe. The European Union wants to push us on our knees. Now they started infringement proceedings against us; they want to punish us hard, they want to weaken our economy, and I ask for your solidarity and support around the world.

Please write letters of dissent to this odd, strange man Mr Juncker, and moreover make Hungary and Hungarian goods and services trendy. Lots of you are now deciding where to go for a holiday: come to our safe country which is still European, come to Hungary; we have fantastic thermals spas, you can get your health back; we have a fantastic beautiful capital – Budapest; buy Hungarian products; if you go to see friends, bring a bottle of Hungarian wine or some good Hungarian food; show that you support Hungary and we will not give up.




  Herbert Reul (PPE). – Meine Herren Präsidenten, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Wir haben eben wieder von so einem Sprücheklopfer gehört, wie toll der Brexit ist. Das Ergebnis des Brexit ist schlicht und einfach: Hier gibt es eine Regierung, die nicht mehr verhandlungsfähig ist, die Menschen schlittern in eine ungewisse Zukunft, und im Rest Europas gibt es wieder mehr Begeisterung für Europa. Das ist die Wahrheit, das ist das Ergebnis.

Ich finde, wir müssen das Ergebnis für uns jetzt als Chance nutzen und die Gelegenheit nutzen. Und da ist auch der Rat gefordert – der in den letzten Jahren ja nicht immer so handlungsfähig war, wie wir uns das gewünscht haben –, die Chance zu nutzen, jetzt auch das Beste daraus zu machen. Übrigens gehört dazu auch, Frau Kollegin, dass Regeln, die verabredet werden, von allen eingehalten werden. Wenn sie nicht eingehalten werden, dann kriegt man Kritik. So ist das im Leben. Wenn ich falsch parke, kriege ich auch ein Problem. Regeln sind dafür da, dass sie eingehalten werden, und zwar in allen Fragen – in allen Fragen, auch bei der Staatsverschuldung.

Der zweite Punkt ist: Wenn der Rat sich jetzt trifft und die Chance nutzen will, dann, finde ich, ist die Vorlage der Kommission insbesondere im Themenbereich Sicherheit und Verteidigung doch außerordentlich interessant und gut. Nehmt doch einfach mal zwei, drei Sachen daraus – es muss ja nicht alles gemacht werden –, nehmt mal zwei, drei Sachen daraus und setzt einen ersten Punkt und zeigt den Leuten in Europa, die jetzt wieder auf die Straße gehen und sagen: „Europa ist toll, ist wertvoll“: Wir können das lösen, wir kümmern uns um die Probleme, die anliegen, und wir schaffen auch ganz konkrete Konzepte. Mehr Zusammenarbeit – konkret, nicht allgemein, sondern praktisch etwas tun im Bereich von Cyberkriminalität, etwas tun im Bereich von Drohnen, umsetzen, Realitäten liefern. Das ist das Allerbeste. Und insofern hat der Kommissionspräsident Juncker ja eben etwas Wichtiges vorgetragen. Vielleicht erklären wir das viel zu wenig.

Natürlich, Frau Keller ist das Thema Flüchtlinge nicht erledigt. Wer glaubt denn das? Aber wir können ja zumindest sagen: Es liegt noch ein großes Stück Arbeit vor uns, aber wir haben auch eine Menge geschafft. Es ist doch wahr, dass diese Abkommen mit der Türkei erfolgreich waren, auch wenn mir nicht alles passt, was da in der Türkei passiert. Aber die Ergebnisse sind so schlecht nicht. Die Zahlen sind geringer geworden, Umsiedlungen klappen – viel zu wenig, aber zum Teil. Es klappt nicht, dass alle Staaten sich beteiligen, jawohl. Ich kann auch all das erzählen, was nicht klappt. Aber wäre es jetzt nicht intelligent, in einer Zeit, in der die Menschen in Europa wieder Spaß, Hoffnung, Interesse an Europa haben, auch von den Erfolgen zu berichten? Ich lade Sie ein: Machen Sie einfach mit!


  Maria João Rodrigues (S&D).(inaudible) version just suffered a big blow: the 27 are, in fact, more united in implementing the roadmap adopted in Rome. And, once and for all, the European Union needs to assert itself as a political entity and a strong pillar of the multilateral system. So the defence package just presented by the Commission is certainly a very important move, and we need to be prepared to have that discussion about the package, but we know that lasting peace also depends a lot on permanent systemic action for development worldwide, starting with Africa. We know this very well.

We also need to be prepared to open a new generation of trade agreements, pushing for sustainable development all over the world. At the same time, we also need to build much more powerful instruments to cope with citizens’ concerns.

There is a lot of hard work to be done. We have just now the revision of the European Fund for Strategic Investments and we need to make sure that this fund will become more powerful, pushing for real, additional, strategic investment projects. We need to make sure that the upcoming pillar of social rights will prepare the labour market in Europe to provide better jobs, particularly for young people, and we need to make sure that our eurozone will start working for real convergence. So this is a very demanding internal agenda.


  Helga Stevens (ECR). – De Europese Raad zal zich binnenkort opnieuw buigen over het probleem van de irreguliere migratie van economische migranten uit Libië naar Italië. Naast de 200 miljoen euro die we investeren in menswaardige opvang in Libië en omstreken is het tijd om werk te maken van een terugkeerbeleid vanuit de EU, gebaseerd op onze ervaringen met de EU-Turkijedeal.

Deze deal resulteerde in snelle asielprocedures in Griekenland, zodat alle vluchtelingen die al veilig in Turkije waren naar dat land konden worden teruggestuurd. Hiermee kregen we de vluchtelingenstroom onder controle.

Ik vraag mij af waarop wij wachten om dezelfde soort samenwerking op poten te zetten met alle landen in Noord-Afrika. Waarom moeten we bij die ene EU-Turkijedeal blijven? Het is immers legaal om migranten terug te sturen naar een veilige haven. Volgens de Commissie zelf is dat een plaats waar mensenlevens niet worden bedreigd, waar in elementaire behoeften wordt voorzien en waar ook vervoer naar toe kan worden geregeld. Buiten Turkije komen hier zeker nog andere Noord-Afrikaanse landen voor in aanmerking.

Ik roep alle Europese leiders dan ook op te onderzoeken welke juridische mogelijkheden er zijn om bijvoorbeeld tot een EU-Libiëdeal te komen. Alleen zo kunnen we drama's op zee met dodelijke afloop vermijden.


  David Coburn (EFDD). – Mr President, I have just noticed something and wondered if everybody else had noticed the same thing: that all the leaders today are speaking in English. They do not normally speak in English. This is extremely strange, and I thought my good friend President Jean Claude Juncker here had said that English was no longer the language of the European Parliament. Is there something I have missed here, ladies and gentlemen?


  Presidente. – Grazie ma non è ai sensi del regolamento. Mi scusi.


  Josu Juaristi Abaunz (GUE/NGL). –Señor presidente, pensaba hablar de la externalización de los controles migratorios y del asilo, proceso que diluye las responsabilidades a favor de un marco jurídico impreciso y de débiles o nulos controles democráticos, un proceso que tiene consecuencias irresponsables. Pero he escuchado atentamente al señor Juncker y, aunque no espero un cambio en las políticas, sí me gustaría instarle a que cuidemos la terminología.

¿Qué mensaje enviamos a la sociedad cuando insistimos en la idea de defender mejor nuestras fronteras? Aludimos, sin citarlo, a un peligro del que debemos defendernos, a un enemigo; y, Señorías, ese enemigo son personas que simplemente necesitan, buscan y merecen un futuro para sus hijos. Esa terminología no es inocente, porque alimenta mensajes y posiciones xenófobas y de extrema derecha.

Señorías, miremos al Mediterráneo central, por favor: está muriendo mucha más gente de lo que pensamos y están ocurriendo hechos muy graves, como maydays lanzados por ONG a doce millas de la costa libia que no están siendo respondidos ni atendidos por barcos europeos.


  Laura Ferrara (EFDD). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'Italia sta pagando caramente il fallimento della gestione europea dei flussi migratori. Sono stati 181 436 gli arrivi nel 2016 e circa 64 000 dall'inizio del 2017. Per l'immigrazione l'Italia ha previsto 4,6 miliardi di spesa in quest'anno, un miliardo in più rispetto al 2016. Gli aiuti dell'Unione europea sono irrisori: l'ultimo stanziamento di 58 milioni corrisponde a circa il 3 % dei 4,6 miliardi. Dunque una mortificazione al principio di equa ripartizione delle responsabilità previsto dai trattati, pur essendo l'Italia un contribuente netto, vale a dire che l'Italia dà all'Unione europea più di quanto riceve.

Il regolamento di Dublino, pur essendo stato dichiarato morto, costringe ancora a rimandare in Italia più migranti di quanti ne sono stati ricollocati dall'Italia stessa in altri Stati membri. La volontà del Consiglio di bloccarne la revisione fornisce così il desolante quadro di un'Europa incapace di trovare soluzioni efficaci e condivise. Se il Consiglio continuerà ad essere espressione degli egoismi nazionali, a fallire non sarà solo la riforma del sistema comune europeo di asilo ma l'intero progetto europeo.


  Edouard Ferrand (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, mes chers collègues, le prochain Conseil européen sera en marche vers plus d’immigration, de submersion migratoire devrait-on dire. Le président français nouvellement élu semble vouloir imposer une de ses marottes des plus nocives, à savoir le droit d’asile européen commun. Il y a fort à parier que celui-ci a pour objet de se substituer aux législations nationales.

Le droit d’asile, depuis l’origine des États, est une prérogative exclusive de ces derniers. Comme le fait d’accorder ou non l’asile doit être étudié au cas par cas.

Nous refusons totalement une telle dérive qui accentuerait encore plus la pression migratoire sur nos pays, leur ôtant de surcroît toute possibilité décisionnelle.


  Steven Woolfe (NI). – Mr President, today in this Chamber the political elites are gloating and cheering. They have overseen the resistance parties failing to take power in Austria and France, UKIP decimated and a Conservative Brexit government weakened. Political elitism is a doctrine of servitude, but its forces are strong, determined and well financed and it is attacking and destroying its enemies one by one.

They infiltrated UKIP; they isolated, ignored and removed true conservative party Brexiteers; they attacked and removed the voices of resistance from our radio and TV stations. They attack and abuse the President who was elected in the United States of America, yet celebrate the globalist placeman they installed in France. Those who love freedom: patriots, Democrats, Brexiteers, must say no more. We must regroup and return fire. We must fight for a true Brexit, not a fake Brexit.


  Janusz Lewandowski (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! W programie Rady Europejskiej znajdują się obecnie kwestie, które przesądzają o wiarygodności Unii Europejskiej: kontrola migracji, poczucie bezpieczeństwa, obniżenie zagrożeń terrorystycznych, Brexit. To są gorące tematy debaty europejskiej w dzisiejszych czasach. Tu rodzą się ludzkie lęki, a z tych lęków czerpie moc antyeuropejski populizm, który jeszcze je podsyca. Rzeczywiście jest to sprawdzian mocy sprawczej i użyteczności Unii Europejskiej w oczach zwykłych obywateli.

Jeśli chodzi o migrację, oczywistym wyzwaniem jest dzisiaj szlak wiodący przez Libię i Morze Śródziemne z uwagi na rozpad państwowości libijskiej i powstanie zorganizowanego przemysłu przemytu ludzi. Należy wdrażać przyjęte już zobowiązania, nie ma czasu na deklaracje (mówił o tym Manfred Weber). Trzeba wdrożyć deklarację maltańską i zreformować europejski system azylowy.

Jakby mało było tych wyzwań, po raz pierwszy mamy nieprzewidywalnego partnera po drugiej stronie Atlantyku, i dlatego ma sens organizowanie własnej europejskiej polisy ubezpieczeniowej. O ile jednak trudno będzie znaleźć wspólny język z prezydentem Stanów Zjednoczonych w kwestiach klimatu czy światowego handlu, to wymiar obronny Unii Europejskiej powinien powstawać w pełnej synergii z NATO, nie wykluczam bowiem, że prezydent Trump potwierdzi amerykańskie zobowiązania w Polsce, gdzie przyjedzie w dniu 6 lipca. Inspiracją powinna być także wspólna deklaracja Unii Europejskiej i NATO przyjęta w zeszłym roku w Warszawie.


  Tanja Fajon (S&D). – Vsak vrh se ukvarja z migracijami, a ljudje še vedno ne morejo računati na nas. Države ne izpolnjujejo obvez o premeščanju iskalcev azila iz Grčije in Italije.

Predsednik Juncker, omenili ste na stotine milijonov podnebnih beguncev, ki bodo lahko posledica neizvajanja podnebnega sporazuma. Žal tudi v tej hiši ni posluha za uvedbo jasnih kriterijev, ki bi omogočili mednarodno zaščito podnebnim beguncem.

V pismu smo s kolegi opozorili voditelje evropskih vlad na dramo z otroki brez spremstva. Vrnila sem se iz Grčije. Brez ambiciozne reforme Dublina bo situacija v Grčiji in Italiji neobvladljiva. Razprave v Svetu se radikalno odmikajo od stališč v Parlamentu.

Gradimo varnost na evropskih mejah, kolegi, ne gradimo pa varnosti tam, od koder ljudje bežijo. In z nečloveškimi schengenskimi ukrepi na mejah, z notranjim nadzorom med, denimo, Slovenijo in Avstrijo, koder že mesece ni nezakonitih prehodov, dejansko ne bomo uspeli rešiti te situacije.

In veliko več pozornosti bi morali nameniti borbi proti kriminalnim združbam, ki tihotapijo z ljudmi, proti nasilju nad ženskami in otroki.

Skratka, odgovornost je na nas, dragi kolegi, da rešimo to situacijo. Državljani to pričakujejo.


  Franck Proust (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, le message que nous devons envoyer aux chefs d’État ou de gouvernement en amont du prochain Conseil européen doit être le suivant: le temps de la clarté est venu.

Les événements politiques majeurs, du Brexit jusqu’à la sortie des États-Unis de l’accord de Paris, avec la décision inconsciente de Donald Trump, nous offrent une occasion unique d’être clair sur ce que nous sommes et sur ce que nous défendons.

L’Europe change et son avenir se construit chaque jour, dans notre travail et sur des priorités: l’Europe sociale et juste, avec la révision de la directive sur le détachement des travailleurs, qui n’a d’ailleurs pas attendu le volontarisme récent de la France pour que des députés européens se saisissent du dossier; le renforcement de la zone économique et monétaire; l’Europe de la défense; la politique commerciale au service du juste échange et de la protection de nos intérêts économiques et de nos emplois.

Les responsables européens doivent avoir le courage de la fermeté et surtout la volonté de l’unité. Fermeté avec la Turquie, par exemple, qui doit enfin comprendre qu’aucune adhésion à notre Union n’est envisageable. Unité, ensuite, pour montrer aux États-Unis de M. Trump ou à la Russie de M. Poutine que l’Europe est de retour pour construire un bloc protecteur de ses citoyens et fort sur la scène internationale. Unité, enfin, pour que les vingt-sept États membres soient soudés dans les négociations sur le Brexit aux côtés de la Commission et de Michel Barnier.

Il faudra faire comprendre à Mme May, clairement affaiblie par les récentes élections au Royaume-Uni, que l’on ne peut pas gagner sur tous les tableaux et que l’appartenance à notre communauté de destin ou la sortie de cette communauté n’est et ne sera jamais un simple jeu.


  Josef Weidenholzer (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Vergleicht man die Situation der Union mit der Lage von vor einem Jahr, dann lässt sich ohne Zweifel feststellen, dass es Anzeichen für eine Stabilisierung gibt. Nicht nur die wirtschaftliche Lage verbessert sich, vielmehr haben wir nach Brexit und Trump auch an Zuversicht gewonnen. Im Bereich der Migrations- und Flüchtlingspolitik allerdings ist die Lage viel komplizierter. Zwar sind die Zahlen deutlich zurückgegangen, aber wir haben es immer noch nicht geschafft, die langfristigen Weichenstellungen vorzunehmen: eine Reform des Dublin-Systems oder die Schaffung legaler Zuwanderungsmöglichkeiten. Und noch immer ist der Relocation-Prozess nicht abgeschlossen, noch immer sitzen Zehntausende Menschen in Griechenland und auf dem Westbalkan fest und werden zu einem Sicherheitsproblem für die Region. Und noch immer sind wir nicht in der Lage, rechtzeitig ausreichende Mittel für die Herkunftsregionen zur Verfügung zu stellen. Im Zusammenhang mit der Befreiung Mossuls und Rakkas bereitet sich bereits eine neue Tragödie vor.


  Esteban González Pons (PPE). – Señor presidente, quiero empezar recordando a las víctimas de los últimos atentados en Inglaterra, en especial al joven español Ignacio Echeverría, que murió ayudando a la policía luchando con su monopatín.

Compartimos los mismos principios. Por eso nos atacan, no por nuestro pasaporte. No nos atacan por nuestras fronteras sino porque compartimos los mismos valores. Y los compartimos. Los valores nos unen. En los últimos atentados en Inglaterra las víctimas no eran solo del Reino Unido. También eran de Australia. También eran de Canadá, de Francia. También eran de España. No estamos solos frente al terrorismo. Ningún país de la Unión Europea puede afrontar solo los retos de la globalización. Nadie es más inteligente ni mejor que los demás como para encontrar las soluciones por sí mismo, sin colaborar todos contra aquello que nos ataca, contra aquello que nos espera en el futuro.

Por eso, el brexit es un paso atrás. El brexit es caminar de espaldas. Y ayer precisamente celebrábamos el aniversario del programa Erasmus, que es lo contrario del brexit: cuatro millones de jóvenes europeos moviéndose —doscientos mil británicos por la Unión Europea y prácticamente el mismo número de jóvenes del resto de la Unión Europea por el Reino Unido, entre ellos mi hija María—; casi un millón de niños nacidos de los Erasmus, niños que tienen cuatro lenguas maternas, la primera generación de europeos de la historia. El programa Erasmus pone de manifiesto que Europa se hace a partir de nuestras diferencias. Nuestra diferencia y nuestra tolerancia es nuestra ventaja.

Por eso, entre Erasmus y brexit elijamos siempre Erasmus, porque Erasmus significa generosidad, y brexit, egoísmo.


  Ramón Jáuregui Atondo (S&D). – Señor presidente. yo creo que es importante destacar que hay un horizonte para la Unión Europea más positivo, más optimista que hace unos años: hay crecimiento económico, hay creación de empleo y se está derrotando políticamente a los populismos. Me parece importante destacar este horizonte.

En segundo lugar, me gustaría recordar que, ayer mismo, el presidente francés, el señor Macron, anunció su posición favorable a que el impuesto sobre las transacciones financieras pueda establecerse en la Unión Europea. Me parece una idea que deberíamos considerar, porque necesitamos un recurso financiero propio para la Unión Europea, para atender tantos problemas como tenemos por delante.

Tenemos, por supuesto, una necesidad financiera en materia de migraciones; tenemos necesidad de una financiación de la seguridad y de la defensa frente al terrorismo porque, por primera vez en la historia de la Unión Europea, la seguridad interior depende de la seguridad exterior; y tenemos necesidades importantes para poner en marcha el pilar social o para poner en marcha el cambio climático, como el señor Macron proponía.

Vamos a avanzar en esa dirección, señorías.


  Elisabetta Gardini (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, vorrei dire ai colleghi che domenica scorsa milioni di italiani si sono recati alle urne per eleggere il loro sindaco e che è accaduto, per esempio, che la sindaca di Lampedusa, che era diventata il simbolo dell'accoglienza, premiata dall'Unesco e portata da Renzi alla Casa Bianca di Obama, abbia perso le elezioni, e come lei tanti altri sindaci. Allora che cosa succede? Dobbiamo dire che gli italiani non sono più solidali? No, gli italiani sono solidali, sono quel popolo che voi plaudite per la generosità e l'accoglienza, e dobbiamo continuare a farlo.

Però, per spiegarvi cosa sta accadendo, uso le parole di Carlo Nordio, un magistrato italiano che ha attraversato da protagonista tutti i momenti, anche bui, del nostro paese fin dagli anni Settanta. Lui dice che sembra che finalmente si sia scoperta l'inesorabile logica dei numeri, che prescinde dalle utopistiche aspirazioni solidali. Quando una stanza è piena non può entrarci più nessuno. Ed è questo che sta accadendo in Italia. Quindi, la stragrande maggioranza dei comuni rifiuta nuova accoglienza, a prescindere dall'appartenenza politica degli amministratori.

Aggiunge poi che questo fenomeno migratorio, ormai banalmente definito epocale, è in realtà frutto di una strategia elaborata a tavolino dalle organizzazioni criminali, e quindi chiede che per affrontare questa situazione si metta in campo una politica organica e unitaria, chiara, seria e severa. Sento da questi banchi troppa inutile e vuota retorica, che rischia di diventare solidarietà per queste criminali organizzazioni di trafficanti di esseri umani. Basta!


  Cécile Kashetu Kyenge (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, esprimo solidarietà alla sindaca Giusi Nicolini.

Sono tanti i punti all'ordine del giorno del prossimo Consiglio europeo. Mi limiterò ad alcune osservazioni sul fenomeno migratorio. La Presidenza maltese ha ricordato il dramma che ogni giorno si verifica nella rotta del Mediterraneo centrale e il Presidente Juncker ha illustrato i risultati raggiunti sulle questioni migratorie, peraltro resi possibili grazie al ruolo di colegislatore del Parlamento, chiamando tutti gli Stati membri alle loro responsabilità, pena la procedura di infrazione, peraltro già lanciata nei confronti di tre Stati membri. Alle misure punitive vanno associate iniziative politiche lungimiranti come il partenariato con l'Africa.

La Presidenza maltese deve ricordare al Consiglio europeo la procedura che si applica alla riforma del sistema europeo comune di asilo, vale a dire la procedura legislativa ordinaria. Spero quindi che i leader europei discutano le proposte legislative sulle quali le nostre commissioni stanno lavorando con grande senso di responsabilità. Non c'è spazio per la fantasia. Non c'è spazio per soluzioni alternative.


Procedura "catch-the-eye"


  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, at next week’s Council there will be a new Irish face around the table – and a new face of Ireland, perhaps. Today, the taoiseach Enda Kenny hands over that office to Leo Varadkar, and I take this opportunity to wish our new taoiseach, our new party leader, well in his work ahead, and also to acknowledge the great work of Enda Kenny as leader of our country in very difficult times.

Yesterday there were tributes paid to him, and the most remarkable comments were the simplest and nicest ones – about his sunny disposition, his optimism in dark times, and how that is so needed in politics today. That disposition was undented by six years in office, as I say, in very difficult times. He spoke about the honour that he had of leading our country, and I hope that our new leader will carry that same optimistic disposition and work for a united Europe.

His last call was to Theresa May to warn her about a Brexit that would damage the Good Friday Agreement. We should honour his words, his commitment to peace and his commitment to Europe. I salute his work, and I wish our new leader every success.


  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente. Telegráficamente. Seguridad y lucha contra el terrorismo. Homenaje a Echevarría. Ignacio Echevarría, un héroe español caído en un acto salvaje de terrorismo en Londres, defendiendo con dignidad la contribución de los ciudadanos europeos a la causa de los valores europeos.

Defensa. No es cuestión de más gasto, sino de coordinación y de solidaridad entre los Estados miembros. Puesta en común de los recursos defensivos. Haría un cambio y una diferencia fenomenal en la capacidad defensiva del conjunto de la Unión Europea.

Rutas migratorias. He escuchado decir que están bajo control. ¿Y están bajo control los Estados miembros clamorosamente incumplidores? No solo procedimientos de infracción, sino también, y sobre todo, sanciones.

Y, finalmente, cambio climático. Voz única de toda la Unión Europea contra la decisión disparatada y populista del presidente Trump de retirar a los Estados Unidos de los acuerdos de la COP 21, desentendiéndose de la suerte de sesenta mil víctimas anuales de los desplazamientos climáticos y de los quinientos millones de desplazados que se esperan en los próximos treinta años como consecuencia de la sequía, la desertización y la subida del nivel del mar.


  Marek Jurek (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Dzisiaj po raz kolejny pan przewodniczący Juncker odpowiedzialność za katastrofalne błędy własnej polityki zrzucał na państwa Europy Środkowej – na Polskę, Węgry i Czechy. Ale solidarność, o której mówił, nie polega na odpowiedzialności za cudze błędy. Solidarność polega na pomocy w niezawinionej potrzebie. Jeżeli prowadzi się złą politykę, to trzeba tak naprawdę wyciągnąć z niej wnioski. Przewodniczący Juncker mówi o prawie. Prawo to również odpowiedzialność polityczna. Te władze Unii Europejskiej powinny podać się do dymisji, dlatego że nawet deklaracje o walce z nielegalnym przemytem ludzi nie zostały w pełni wykonane. Wszyscy doceniamy to, co nasi marynarze robią w ramach operacji SOPHIA. To jest ratowanie ludzi na morzu. Ale tak naprawdę przemysł nielegalnej imigracji ciągle działa i niszczy Europę, a ci którzy przyglądali się temu biernie, pouczają tych, którzy nie przyjmują konsekwencji tej sytuacji.


  Diane James (NI). – Mr President, since the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, the response from the EU has been ‘more Europe’. It has announced its intention to speed up the Capital Markets Union. It has increased the size of the Juncker fund by a staggering EUR 185 billion and announced the formation of a common defence fund. There are also suggestions that EU funding in the future will be contingent upon national acceptance of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and that non-eurozone members will have to adopt the single currency.

This is staggering authoritarianism and control-freakery in terms of a political system. It is all very well suggesting that the so-called populist parties across Europe are now in demise; I would suggest and ask the EU to very, very seriously consider whether some of the announcements that they have made and the demands that are now being placed on Member States will actually be counterproductive to what they want to do in terms of stopping populism.


(Fine della procedura "catch-the-eye")


  Helena Dalli, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, thank you so much for this useful exchange which I will convey to the President of the European Council.

Let me use these concluding remarks to make a more general comment. Recently, a tangible sense of unity, urgency and responsibility has been added to our actions. This should also encourage us, Parliament and the Council to deliver results more rapidly, united by the same objective and showing that we are able to meet the challenges that the EU is facing.

The Presidency needs your ideas and your energy. It needs your flexibility and your sense of responsibility to deliver on the guidance provided by the European Council. We have had many achievements in the past five months, but there is much more work to be done ahead of us. So let us keep this sense of urgency alive.


  Presidente. – La discussione è chiusa.

Dichiarazioni scritte (articolo 162)


  Lorenzo Cesa (PPE), per iscritto. – Siamo probabilmente alla vigilia del Consiglio della svolta! All'ordine del giorno del summit figurano per l'ennesima volta, i temi scottanti di attualità, che sono l'immigrazione, la sicurezza e la difesa. Ma questa volta ci auguriamo che alle discussioni senza risultato ed ai passi indietro in tema di integrazione, seguirà finalmente un salto di qualità. La revisione del sistema di asilo ed il superamento del Trattato di Dublino, sono decisioni ormai imprescindibili. Serve solidarietà e lungimiranza. Gli egoismi nazionali hanno fallito e questo Parlamento lo ha già dimostrato. Esiste una forte maggioranza che istituisca una difesa e sicurezza comune tra gli Stati europei. L'Unione deve dotarsi finalmente, di una capacità d'intervento e di un fondo proprio, dal quale attingere per le spese militari. Il Consiglio della settimana prossima non può disattendere le aspettative dei cittadini su questi temi, che attendono dall'Europa, un nuovo concreto slancio.


  Mireille D'Ornano (ENF), par écrit. – Le retrait des États-Unis de l’accord de Paris rappelle la primauté de la souveraineté nationale et concrétise un engagement de campagne du candidat à la Maison Blanche. Nous le déplorons néanmoins, tant le développement durable doit fédérer au-delà des clivages partisans. Les conséquences de cette décision, qui ne prendrait effet qu’en 2020, c’est-à-dire dans la foulée du prochain scrutin présidentiel américain, sont à nuancer, notamment au regard du poids de 14 % des États-Unis dans les émissions mondiales. Par contraste, la Chine en représente 29 % et est, néanmoins, astreinte à des obligations moins strictes par cet accord. Pour les Européens, le retrait américain ouvre une brèche. La Chine, qui a détrôné depuis 2015 les Européens, notamment l’Allemagne, dans le secteur photovoltaïque, ne saurait avoir seule la main sur l’innovation dans le domaine des énergies renouvelables. Par des mesures protectionnistes en cas de concurrence déloyale et par un soutien à la recherche et développement, les industries européennes durables doivent retrouver leur place de leaders mondiaux. Au-delà du projet industriel, il s’agit de tenir les promesses faites aux Européens au sujet de la transition énergétique : celles d’un nouveau modèle économique, porteur de croissance et d’emplois.


  Maria Grapini (S&D), în scris. – Ședința Consiliului de săptămâna viitoare are multe puncte pe ordinea de zi. Aici multe luări de cuvânt s-au referit la migrație, securitate, apărare. Sunt puncte importante desigur. Eu vreau să mă refer la problema legată de locuri de muncă, creștere economică, competitivitate. Doamnă ministru, ați spus că veți discuta despre politica comercială, despre cum rămâne liberă și echitabilă. Mi-aș dori ca aceste puncte să nu fie trecute superficial. Europa va fi puternică dacă vom asigura cu adevărat un comerț echitabil, nu așa cum este acum, fără politici de apărare eficientă. Va fi puternică dacă tinerii nu vor mai pleca pentru o viață mai bună în SUA. Trebuie să creștem locurile de muncă printr-o politică de reindustrializare și acorduri comerciale echitabile.


  Sergio Gutiérrez Prieto (S&D), por escrito. – Aunque el horizonte para la Unión Europea en materia económica y de creación de empleo es más positivo y más optimista que hace unos años y que se está derrotando políticamente a los populismos, la preocupación por las cuestiones migratorias y las relacionadas con la seguridad y la defensa frente al terrorismo no cesan de aumentar. Por primera vez en la historia de la Unión, la seguridad interior depende de la seguridad exterior y la puesta en común de los recursos defensivos y una mayor coordinación son más que nunca necesarias. Además, en materia de inmigración, es necesario afrontar solidariamente los enormes desafíos existentes y pasar de los procedimiento de infracción a las sanciones para aquellos Estados miembros que no cumplen con sus compromisos con el reparto de refugiados. En relación al cambio climático y a la decisión de Trump de retirar a los Estados Unidos de los acuerdos de la COP 21, debemos asumir el liderazgo mundial no solo en temas medioambientales, sino también comerciales y de derechos sociales. Por último, los Estados concernidos deben dar el impulso final necesario para la aprobación del impuesto sobre las transacciones financieras como un nuevo recurso público para afrontar todas estas urgencias.


  Κώστας Μαυρίδης (S&D), γραπτώς. – Κύριε Γιούνκερ, στην ομιλία σας σήμερα, αναφερθήκατε αρκετές φορές στη σημασία της ευρωπαϊκής αλληλεγγύης και της τήρησης των ευρωπαϊκών Συνθηκών. Παρόλα αυτά, στις 25 Μαΐου 2017, στην συνάντησή σας με τον Ερντογάν παραδώσατε έγγραφο με οδικό χάρτη δεσμεύσεων της ΕΕ προς την Τουρκία, που περιλαμβάνει την έναρξη διαπραγματεύσεων για εκσυγχρονισμό της Τελωνειακής Ένωσης της Τουρκίας περί το τέλος του έτους και για νέα Σύνοδο Κορυφής ΕΕ-Τουρκίας για την άνοιξη του 2018. Αυτός ο οδικός χάρτης με δεσμεύσεις δόθηκε χωρίς τη σύμφωνη γνώμη των κρατών-μελών, παρακάμπτοντας το Ευρωπαϊκό Συμβούλιο ως το αρμόδιο όργανο. Είναι αυτή η στάση σας σεβασμός των Συνθήκων της ΕΕ; Την ίδια στιγμή, η Τουρκία παραβιάζει την κυριαρχία ενός κράτους μέλους της ΕΕ και απειλεί ευρωπαίους πολίτες της Κύπρου, αλλά η αλληλεγγύη σας δεν ισχύει για την ευρωπαϊκή Κύπρο; Ως εκλεγμένος ευρωβουλευτής αντιπροσωπεύω ευρωπαίους πολίτες προς τους οποίους θα ήθελα απλά να εξηγήσετε τους λόγους της συμπεριφοράς σας.


  Miapetra Kumpula-Natri (S&D), kirjallinen. – Kokouksessa on mukana isoja aiheita, joista haluaisin lyhyesti kommentoida yhteistä turvallisuus- ja puolustuspolitiikkaa. Kannatan lämpimästi Euroopan puolustusyhteistyötä ja katson, että kokouksessa on pohdittava sen uusia suuntia sekä periaatteellisella että konkreettisella tasolla. Tässä maailmanpoliittisessa tilanteessa EU-maat ovat toistensa paras turva. Pooling & sharing vapauttaisi varoja sinne, missä EU:n kannalta tärkein turvallisuustyö tehdään: uhkien ennaltaehkäisyyn. EU:n laajuista puolustusta ei voi järjestää samalla periaatteella kuin kansallisvaltion puolustusta, joten tarvitaan uudenlaista ajattelua, ei kansallisvaltioilta matkittua EU-armeijaa. Nykyaikaista turvallisuuden kasvattamista tarvitaan esimerkiksi kyberturvallisuuden parantamisessa, eikä sekään ole halpaa. Myös siinä jäsenmailla on yhteistyöstä konkreettista lisäetua! Puolustusmenojen pakollinen kasvattaminen ei sovi Suomelle kuten ei monelle muullekaan maalle. Samoin esillä ollut ajatus 500 miljoonan aseteollisuuden tutkimuskäyttöön korvamerkitystä rahasta on mahdoton perustella kansalaisille ja tiedeyhteisölle. Hyvä, toimiva, eurooppalainen turvallisuusyhteistyö on paras keino varautua sekä ulkoisiin että sisäisiin uhkiin.


  Sergei Stanishev (S&D), in writing. – The EU asylum system is currently in shambles. The Dublin regulation is legally alive but politically dead. The terms we all so commonly use – ‘solidarity’ and ‘shared responsibilities’ – have lost their meaning. Meanwhile, Council is dragging its feet. Now, more than ever, we need commitment and real actions. Because, let’s not forget, as somebody recently pointed, a vision without actions is simply a hallucination. Being a Member State is not a matter of cherry picking. it is not just about benefiting from European funds or protecting your national interests, but also contributing to collective efforts for tackling common challenges. It was Greece, Portugal and Spain who were most affected by the economic crisis. Today it is Greece and Italy struggling to cope with the migration inflow to Europe. Shall we just ‘duck and hide’ today and expect a helping hand tomorrow when the next crisis hits? Solidarity is a two-way street. The recipe for success is simple: listen to the European citizens. And what the vast majority want is common solutions to the migration crisis, joint approach to security and defence and shared efforts on the social dimension.


  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), írásban. – Bár az EiT mostani ülésén is több olyan, az EU jövőjét meghatározó fontos kérdés szerepel, mint az európai szemeszter, vagy a közös biztonságpolitika, az európai polgár ezúttal is - még mindig - elsősorban a menekültválság megoldását várja az állam- és kormányfőktől. Egy tartós, működőképes menekült-befogadási szabályrendszerről való megállapodás már nem odázható tovább, ezt a felelősségüket a tagállamok politikai vezetői immár nem kerülhetik meg.

Megítélésem szerint ennek legfontosabb elemei: véget vetni az embercsempészetnek és a Földközi-tengeri katasztrófáknak, biztosítani a menekültekkel való humánus, élhető jövőt ígérő elbánást, az EU határain jelentkező migránsok emberséges, egységes és átlátható szabályok szerinti kezelését, befogadását, átirányítását vagy visszatoloncolását. Legalább ennyire sürgető - és csakis a csúcsvezetők szintjén elvégezhető - feladat a szolidaritás alapeszméjének visszahozása az uniós migrációs politika jogrendjébe és gyakorlatába. Közös kihívást kell intézniük a menekült-elosztás közösen elfogadott rendjét megtagadó kormányokkal, mindenekelőtt Orbánéval szemben.

Ehhez új támpontot ad az a döbbenetes fejlemény, hogy Orbán legutóbbi parlamenti beszédében az Unió létét, alapértékeit támadta, kijelentve, hogy „az EU a terroristák pártján áll”, mert sokan a magyar határon tiltakozó menekült tízéves börtönbüntetését kifogásolták - többek között - ebben a Parlamentben is. Mindezek kapcsán elvárom Elnök úrtól, hogy az EiT-en elhangzó beszédében határozottan adjon hangot az EP közel egységes álláspontjának.


  Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – Em 2015, na UE28, um recente relatório da UNICEF denunciava que 27% das crianças e jovens, 25,3 milhões, vivem na pobreza. As políticas de austeridade da UE impuseram aos Estados-Membros cortes nos apoios e prestações sociais com as famílias e as crianças e nas prestações substitutivas de rendimentos de trabalho, quando estes mais eram necessários.

As políticas de direita e de austeridade impuseram cortes na saúde, na educação, e noutros serviços públicos, ao mesmo tempo que impuseram cortes em salários, desemprego, degradação das relações laborais, aumentando as desigualdades e a pobreza. São políticas de exploração e de miséria da UE que alimentam a realidade que não se pode esconder hoje em inúmeros países: milhares de crianças sinalizadas nas escolas com fome, necessidades básicas como vestuário, habitação e cuidados de saúde por suprir, crianças vítimas do abandono e insucesso escolar, do trabalho infantil, da mendicidade, da prostituição juvenil, do abandono.

Infelizmente, nenhuma destas questões será discutida no próximo Conselho. A UE não tem solução a não ser a sua dissolução para dar lugar a um novo modelo de cooperação.


  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE), na piśmie. – W ciągu ostatniego roku znacznie przybliżyliśmy się do tego, by Unia Europejska stała się istotnym narzędziem służącym zwiększaniu nakładów na badania nad technologiami obronnymi, jak również poprawie zdolności, którymi dysponują siły zbrojne państw członkowskich. Propozycje Komisji dotyczące Europejskiego Funduszu Obrony, jak również ustanowienie między innymi Military Planning and Conduct Capability (MPCC), które ma za zadanie planowanie i prowadzenie nieofensywnych misji o charakterze militarnym, są krokami w dobrym kierunku.

Jednak, mimo że pewne działania są proponowane przez instytucje europejskie, konkretne i namacalne decyzje leżą w gestii państw członkowskich. Parlament Europejski wielokrotnie potwierdzał swoje poparcie dla wzmacniania współpracy obronnej i w zakresie bezpieczeństwa. Stanowił miejsce konstruktywnych dyskusji w tym zakresie. Jednak to państwa członkowskie muszą potwierdzić swoją gotowość do kolektywnego działania. Czas na konkretne działania. Plany są gotowe. Pomysły przeanalizowane. Myślę, że więcej wezwań do działania już nie potrzeba. Jedyne, czego brakuje, to wola polityczna. Mam nadzieję, że w końcu ta wola zostanie wyrażona jednoznacznie podczas najbliższego szczytu Rady Europejskiej.


(La seduta è sospesa per alcuni minuti)




6. Prezidento D. Trumpo sprendimas dėl JAV pasitraukimo iš Paryžiaus klimato susitarimo (COP 21) (diskusijos)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

  President. – The next item is the debate on the Council and Commission statements on President Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the COP 21 Climate agreement (2017/2729(RSP)).

The Paris Agreement has been a historic achievement of the international community, the first ever global commitment to address climate change and its consequences. While we regret the decision taken by the United States of America’s administration to withdraw from this agreement, our long-standing commitment and determination to lead global action on climate change must not relent. We Europeans will not miss the opportunity that the Paris Agreement represents for our citizens, for our planet and for our economy.

Tackling this global challenge also entails working with our industry for new investments, new technologies and more sustainable growth and jobs. The European Parliament has been at the forefront of climate action within the European Union, and today there is an important vote on this. Our overwhelming vote in favour of this agreement made possible its ratification and entry into force. We must be proud of this achievement and we must also continue to work with the United States, its companies, states and cities on this and other fronts. We have set ourselves the most ambitious target in the world. We have the most advanced legislation, which we are strengthening now, showing our continuous commitment.

We were fundamental to this global agreement, as we were able to forge a strong alliance between developing and developed countries. This multilateral spirit was fundamental to the success of the COP 21, and for this I want to thank Commissioner Cañete and the Commission for their strong engagement in this issue in which the nations of the world, big and small, united to defend a higher cause.

Today we have the honour to have with us Mrs Hilda Heine, President of the Republic of the Marshall Islands and Chair of the High Ambition Coalition. Madam President, you know very well the effects that climate change can have, especially on the most vulnerable. Your testimony today is of the utmost importance for us. Madam President, you have the floor.


  Hilda Heine, President of the Marshall Islands. – Mr President, I bring warm greetings from the people and government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. It is indeed a great honour and privilege to address you today.

I come from a country whose beauty is as breathtaking as its vulnerability. Our ancestors refer to our islands as ‘jolet jen Anij’ or ‘Gifts from God’. Midway between Australia and the United States, the Marshall Islands comprises more than 1 000 islands dotted within 29 different atoll chains, often no wider than a road. While our territory, mostly ocean, is vast, our population is about 50 000 – far smaller than this beautiful city.

It would seem that my country and yours could hardly be further apart or more different but there is much that we have in common. On a personal level, some of my ancestry is European, German to be specific. On a national level, we are strongly committed to liberal democracy, to human rights and the rule of law. Like the European Union, my country also believes deeply in a multilateral approach to solving global problems. The gravest of these is the battle against climate change.

We are all vulnerable to climate impact. No one can escape, but the Marshall Islands is on the front-line. Wherever you stand in my country you see the ocean. With an average elevation of two metres above sea level, we have nowhere to run and nowhere to hide. King tides and droughts have become more regular and frequent with disaster often hitting us in different ways in different parts of the country at the same time.

One of my first acts as President was to declare a state of disaster because of an unseasonal and prolonged drought. We had less than three weeks of fresh water left. At the very same time we were on high alert for widespread inundation. The drought lasted seven months and cost us nearly EUR 3.5 million. The year before that, a typhoon wiped away more than 3% of our economy and the year before, that many of our people were left homeless by a single king tide.

Climate change is not a hoax. This is what the everyday struggle against climate change looks like. For us and our Pacific island cousins the ocean that has been our lifeblood risks becoming the cause of our nightmares and through no fault of ours. Unless the world keeps its promise to pursue efforts to limit global temperature rise to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius my country and others like Tuvalu and Kiribati risk becoming completely uninhabitable before the century ends.

But the current geopolitical situation would seem to make achieving the 1.5°C limit more challenging than this time last year. In the 18 months or so since the historic Paris Agreement was reached the world seems to have been turned upside-down more than once. The leader of the world’s largest historical contributor to climate change has announced that he wants to leave the Paris Agreement. In my view, that decision was, at best, misguided. It was also disappointing and confusing for those of us that have long believed in the importance of US global leadership. This is particularly so for my country, a long-time committed ally and friend.

In the coming three years before the US can legally withdraw, we all have a duty to work together to convince President Trump of the importance of climate action. We have compelling arguments and evidence to help change hearts and minds. Because of that, I am cautiously optimistic and so are my people.

I have come here today to explain why and to ask for your help. The Paris Agreement that we all fought so hard to achieve is a balanced, fair and durable agreement. It is a ringing endorsement of multilateralism. It will stand the test of time. The Agreement gives countries flexibility to determine their own contributions towards fighting climate change in the context of collective science-based goals. The Agreement will bring countries together every five years to take stock of progress towards achieving those goals with a view to raising ambition. The Agreement provides for transparency and accountability and sets out provisions relating to means of implementation, adaptation, and loss and damage. Importantly, the Agreement recognises that the national circumstances of countries must be considered in its implementation.

It took us well over 20 years to achieve the Paris Agreement. We cannot do better and we do not have the luxury of more time. The Agreement is not open to renegotiation. Almost 150 countries have now joined the Agreement; some 50, including more than a quarter of the G20 since the US election. No one else is walking away. In fact, they are doing the opposite. Some have joined in the last few days.

I have been overwhelmed in recent weeks by the widespread global support and commitment to the Paris Agreement, including leaders, governments, cities, regions and business community and individuals. I commend Italy for its climate leadership in the G7 and expect no less of Germany in the G20. Such collective acts of leadership are critical and must not fall by the wayside.

Apart from the moral case for climate action, the economic case is undeniable. A recent OECD report highlights in no uncertain terms that any delay in climate action is bad for the economy. Growing numbers of decision-makers at all levels see this. Real world climate action is accelerating and exceeding national targets.

Who could have predicted only a few years ago that renewable energy would increasingly be the cheapest option? Climate action simply makes sense at every level. This realisation is resulting in new countries emerging as climate champions, including India and China.

We are also seeing countries coming together to find new ways to push the boundaries of climate ambition. The High Ambition Coalition, which my country established with the European Union and others, was key to reaching the deal in Paris. That Coalition, which bridges traditional economic and geo-political divides is now working towards the full implementation of the Paris Agreement and the creation of the political space needed for deeper and faster climate action.

In September next year my country will take over leadership of the Climate Vulnerable Forum – a group of 48 developing countries that has pledged to go 100% renewable by 2050. If we can do that, so can you!

At the sub-national level we are seeing an unstoppable groundswell of collective commitment to climate action. Initiatives include the Under2 Coalition, the 2050 Platform, Mission 2020, the C40 Group of Cities and the We Mean Business Coalition. Statements of commitment from US states, cities and businesses in the last week is to be welcomed and so is the direct engagement of European nations with them.

As the UN Secretary-General recently said, the climate action train has truly left the station. But for a country like mine, there is an urgent time imperative. A cost effective path to achieving the 1.5°C limit requires peaking global emissions before 2020 and a rapid acceleration of climate action before 2020 so as to set the world towards net-zero emissions in the second half of this century. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has confirmed this rapid decarbonisation is possible but requires unprecedented levels of leadership.

So once again the world is looking to Europe. Thankfully you have a good track record. From the Kyoto Protocol and delivering on its implementation to securing the Durban mandate that led to the Paris Agreement, and ensuring the success of Paris itself, including bringing it into force in record time, Europe has been at the centre of it all. Indeed, in Paris, it was the Marshall Islands and the European Union that marched arm-in-arm with others into the historic or final plenary.

With that in mind, I pay tribute to President Juncker, Commissioner Arias Cañete and other European leaders and ministers over the years for their commitment. They are true climate warriors, as are many of you who grace this Chamber and others around the world.

Domestically, Europe is demonstrating that economic growth and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases are both possible and mutually reinforcing. Your ground-breaking legislation and policies are being emulated by others around the world. Leadership must increasingly be about implementation. You are turning rhetoric into reality and beginning to put in place what is needed to deliver on your Paris promises.

The EU and its Member States together provide about 40% of all global public climate finance. The EU is also the biggest provider of technical climate assistance to developing countries. An important example is the MPC partnership. In my country EU support has on its own helped solarise more than 90% of our outer islands. Every penny is being put to good use. For all of this, I say thank you for your leadership and for your example.

Going forwards, what must climate leadership from Europe look like? First, Europe must urgently communicate a 2050 strategy to reduce emissions, consistent with the 1.5°C limit and net-zero emissions in the second half of this century. I have already committed my country to doing so.

Second, in 2018 the world will come together to consider progress and inform countries in coming forward with new or revised Nationally Determined Contributions in 2020. The EU must approach this dialogue open to the possibility of raising its ambition as a result. We will not stay within 1.5°C unless Europe and others move before 2020 to raise ambition.

So I am pleased to see President Macron has already committed France to doing even more and I welcome similar statements by Prime Minister Modi of India and others. This is exactly the race to the top we need.

The 2018 dialogue, together with the climate action summit which California plans to host next September and the UN Secretary-General’s climate summit of world leaders in 2019 are the three biggest political moments we have before the end of this decade to push the cause of increased climate ambition. Europe must be at the centre of these, working with countries and others around the world to ensure further and faster climate action by all.

Third, I urge you to move to five-year international targets. Ten-year targets risk lacking in low ambition and are less responsive to the latest science and technological developments.

Fourth, the European Union must continue to push ambitious climate action in all relevant fora and sectors, including on shipping emissions and ensuring environmental integrity in reducing aviation emissions. It will also be important to push for the Kigali amendment on HFCs to enter into force as soon as possible. My country has already ratified the amendment. I acknowledge the sustained leadership of the Federative States of Micronesia to this important cause.

The EU must also lead the world in mainstreaming climate action to deliver the sustainable development goals including in relation to oceans. I pay tribute to our Pacific cousins from Fiji, as well as to Sweden for their leadership. All Pacific islands are also extremely proud that Fiji will represent us when it leads the world at COP 23, the first island climate summit.

Finally, ongoing leadership of the EU on climate finance, in particular for the most vulnerable countries, will be critical. Support for implementation by developing countries is a crucial part of the Paris Agreement. Sadly, the US decision to stop Green Climate Fund (GCF) funding presents a problem and one we hope the EU and its allies can address.

Bilateral assistance will also continue to be viable for countries like mine. An even greater focus by the EU on the Pacific region is urgently needed.

In concluding, I note that some people, maybe even some in this room, think that it is impossible to achieve the goals we agreed in Paris; that is to say that my country cannot be saved. It is impossible to explain how it feels as the leader of my people to see reports or commentaries that apparently forecasts the oblivion of our home land, our ‘jolet jen Anij’.

I have seen and experienced the forced relocation and migration of my fellow citizens to other parts of the Marshall Islands and beyond as a consequence of the testing of nuclear weapons. So, the responsibility my generation has to leave to our children, and to their children and grandchildren, the Marshall Islands as a secure place to call home weighs heavily. Failure is not an option. As our young climate warriors eloquently put it ‘we are not drowning, we are fighting’. I think I speak for all of my Pacific sisters and brothers when I say that.

By working together, the Marshall Islands, the European Union and many others have achieved the impossible before and we will achieve it again because we must. For your leadership, past, present and future, I say ‘Kommooltata’ – thank you very much!

(Sustained applause)


  President. – The President of the Marshall Islands will stay with us because I think it is also important for her to know our position. We want to be at the centre of the debate on climate change.


  Helena Dalli, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, the recent announcement by President Donald Trump to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement on climate is a highly regrettable step. The announcement is in line with previous actions on environmental regulation by the new US Administration, such as the rolling-back of existing climate programmes and the weakening of international climate commitments. The decision to withdraw has been taken in the face of many convincing arguments in support of the new international framework and its architecture that have been voiced by the international community, businesses and other stakeholders. Unfortunately, at this point the details of the US approach are still unclear.

However, what has become evident now is the fact that the US withdrawal adds to the global responsibility held by the European Union as the key supporter of a rules-based multilateral system. Let me stress here that the EU is committed to leading with ambitious climate policies and through our committed support for the poor and the vulnerable.

The Paris Agreement is fit for purpose. It is ambitious, yet not prescriptive. With its flexible architecture it constitutes an international framework which encourages countries to widen the array of options contributing to the goals of preventing climate change, which threatens global development, peace and stability.

Therefore the Council is committed to ensuring that the EU significantly contributes to the optimalisation of the Paris Agreement and to the design of all the elements of the Paris outcome. Our goal should be to minimise the consequences of the US decision on the effectiveness and credibility of the climate framework. The EU will also continue to support the convergence between intergovernmental negotiations and the implementation agenda. This includes conversion of countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions goals into concrete policies and actions.

The Council is continuing its work on the completion of the internal legislative and regulatory framework of the Union, which is necessary to deliver our Paris target of reducing economy—wide emissions by at least 40% by 2030. On 19 June the Environmental Council will hold an exchange of views on the effort-sharing and the land-use change and forestry emissions proposals. We hope to swiftly finalise the Council’s position and to start our interinstitutional negotiations as soon as possible. The EU position following President Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the COP 21 climate agreement will also be discussed during the Foreign Affairs Council meeting on 19 June.


  Jean-Claude Juncker, President of the Commission. – Mr President, when I addressed the Paris Conference in November 2015 I saw the world united around a simple goal: to hand over to future generations a healthier planet, more stable and fairer societies, and more prosperous and modern economies. Thanks to the negotiations, and in particular to the chief negotiator of the European Union, my good friend Miguel Cañete, a historic deal was made. The world agreed to save its one and only home.

Doing justice to its traditional name, ‘gifts from God’, the Marshall Islands took action, becoming one of the first to ratify the Paris Agreement. The testimony of President Heine is a reminder of the need for action. It is a matter of survival. Here is a fact: every morning, international datelines set that the day begins at the Marshall Islands. President Heine, we will work to help your country continue to mark the beginning of our days. We will not allow the denial of the very few to be the end of the days of the Marshall Islands.

Unfortunately, not everyone in the world sees the truth of the facts. The withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement is more than a sad event; it is a sign of abdication from common action in dealing with the fate of our planet. We are disappointed and we regret that decision, but the abandonment of Paris by the US Administration will not mean the end of the Agreement. I am convinced that it will make the rest of the world more united and determined to work towards the full implementation of the Paris Agreement. The European Union will not renegotiate the Paris Agreement.


The 29 articles of the Agreement must be implemented and not renegotiated.

Climate action does not need more distractions. We have spent 20 years negotiating; now is the time for action and now is the time for implementation.

I see a strengthened resolve from all those who care about the future of the planet and who see the opportunities of a modern economy. This includes partners within the United States, such as the states of California, Washington, New York, which, taken together, would be the world’s fourth economy. As the European Union, we will step up our climate diplomacy and collaboration with other partners. For example, climate action was a key topic of the EU-China Summit on 2 June. In September, Miguel Cañete will co-host a major gathering with his Chinese and Canadian counterparts to implement the Paris Agreement and accelerate the clean energy transition. We are also reaching out to our partners in the African Union and the ACP countries. We adopted joint statements expressing our common resolve and we will work hard to have a clear message coming out of the G20 Summit, or at least from 19 of its members, in July. In Paris, the world committed to helping vulnerable countries adapt to the consequences of climate change. The decision of the US to go back on its pledge to the Green Climate Fund leaves a major void. From our side, we stand firm to our commitments and we will work with third countries to mobilise the right public and private investments.

You can count on the efforts of the Commission to keep the momentum going on the implementation of the Paris Agreement. In return, we hope to count on your support to make the European Union’s commitments a reality and make swift progress on all Commission proposals related to that goal. When we ratified the Paris Agreement in record time, this House showed its commitment to climate action. We need to keep the same spirit, more than ever.


  Manfred Weber, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, sehr geehrte Frau Präsidentin! Ich möchte zunächst zum Ausdruck bringen, dass wir durch Ihre Anwesenheit und durch Ihre Rede geehrt sind. Ein herzliches Willkommen!

Bei der Frage, wie wir mit den Entscheidungen von Donald Trump umgehen, steht zunächst eine ganz banale Frage im Raum, nämlich die Frage: Wie halten wir es mit Fakten, wie gehen wir mit Tatsachen um? Die großen amerikanischen Universitäten – Harvard, Stanford, Georgetown, Yale – und sogar 82 % der amerikanischen Bürger bringen zum Ausdruck, dass für sie klar ist, dass Klimawandel eine Realität ist. Für uns ist es genauso klar: Der Wandel kommt, er wird groß, er wird dramatisch, und es geht nur noch um die Frage, wie stark wir ihn mit gemeinsamen Anstrengungen begrenzen können. Wir als Europäer dürfen stolz sein, dass wir mit anderen gemeinsam die driving force waren, vorangegangen sind und den Paris-Vertrag erst möglich gemacht haben. Die Europäer werden deswegen den Ausstieg Amerikas nicht akzeptieren und dem nicht folgen.

Die emotionale Frage, die im Raum steht, ist: Wie reagiert man darauf? Zunächst natürlich mit etwas Frustration ob der Entwicklung in den Vereinigten Staaten. Aber dann, wenn man ein paar Sekunden darüber nachdenkt, auch mit umso mehr Entschiedenheit, die hervorkommt – wegen der Verantwortung für die folgenden Generationen und auch wegen des Wissens, dass die Frage des Klimawandels auch einen Modernisierungsschub für unsere Wirtschaft anstoßen wird. Selbst amerikanische Konzerne wie Exxon sprechen sich ja dafür aus, dass man die Klimaziele nicht aufgibt, weil sie erkennen, dass darin auch eine große Chance besteht, wenn wir es mit der Wirtschaft anpacken, diesen Wandel anzustoßen.

Donald Trump negiert die Fakten, Donald Trump entscheidet sich gegen den Willen seiner eigenen US-Bürger, Donald Trump wird keine neuen Jobs mit diesen Entwicklungen, mit dieser Entscheidung schaffen. Und deswegen begeht Donald Trump mit dieser Entscheidung einen großen, einen historischen Fehler. „America First“ ist Egoismus. „America First“ ist bezogen auf den Abbruch von Beziehungen. Vielleicht sollten wir dem ein „Europe First“ entgegenstellen. „Europe First“ ist der Ansatz von Partnerschaft, von Miteinander, davon, gemeinsam Probleme lösen zu wollen. Insofern braucht Europa weniger „America First“ und mehr „Europe First“.


  Gianni Pittella, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Heine, grazie innanzitutto. La bellezza e la vulnerabilità delle Isole Marshall sono la cifra del nostro pianeta e sono le direzioni opposte verso le quali possiamo andare, grazie alle nostre scelte o a causa delle nostre scelte. Possiamo andare verso la bellezza, la salute e la sicurezza del pianeta, ma possiamo andare anche verso il disastro.

Un tweet – lui ama i tweet – a Donald Trump. Non pensavo che ci potesse essere un Presidente degli Stati Uniti peggiore di George Bush, ma devo ricredermi perché non c'è mai limite al peggio. Ha raggiunto l'apice del peggio, spero non lo superi, e sta conducendo verso il disastro il pianeta, ma noi lo fermeremo. Noi, insieme alle forze progressiste del mondo, noi come forze europee, ma insieme a tutte le grandi realtà sociali, politiche, istituzionali, associative e associative non governative, noi insieme fermeremo il disastro di Trump. L'Europa deve fare l'Europa, come ha fatto nel corso degli anni quando ha costruito il mercato unico. Era un grande obiettivo, e oggi questo deve essere il grande obiettivo.

Non siamo ingenui. Trump fa questo non solo perché è un po' così, ma perché vuole ridurre i costi delle produzioni americane. Questa è competizione sleale e noi dobbiamo prendere le contromisure, che significa anche pensare a dazi. Pensiamoci, ma certamente, se si fa competizione sleale, noi dobbiamo saper rispondere. Abbiamo un dovere, quello di preservare la prospettiva di vita, di bellezza e di salute per i nostri figli, per i nostri nipoti, per il mondo intero.


  Julie Girling, on behalf of the ECR Group. – Mr President, I would like to thank very much President Heine for coming here today and for her clear leadership and inspiration to the High Ambition Group.

For those of us who have struggled perhaps a little bit with how to address Donald Trump, what tone to adopt towards him – after all, he is a legitimately elected world leader – he has now solved my problem, because I am very happy to publicly and loudly say that this, and his action, is reckless. It is myopic and it is totally irresponsible.

It is made even more contemptible by the fact that we now know that he has decided that climate change is real. He has stopped his denying of it. He says it is real and indeed his ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, has confirmed that for us. So that makes his decision even more contemptible. He is not even pretending any more that he does not believe in climate change.

We can also see that he has a complete misunderstanding of the Paris Agreement and what the US’s obligations are under that Agreement. He seems to think that it will be giving US industry an extremely unfair position and totally ignoring the fact that actually it gives the US a huge amount of flexibility in how they deal with making sure that they stand up for their obligations.

And given the modest commitments that the US is being asked to make – let us face it, for many people what the US is being asked under Paris is actually still way underperforming Europe and many of the Member States in Europe – it seems even more the case that ‘the Donald’ should be asked exactly where he gets his information and his advice from, because with higher per capita emissions than the world average, the US has a moral duty to significantly reduce its emissions and ensure that global average temperatures remain below 2 degrees C.

Maybe we should say that the next human-caused climate disasters should be called Hurricane Donald, Super Drought Pruitt, or Tropical Cycle Bannon, because that is going to be his legacy.


  Catherine Bearder, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, President Trump is not the only threat to our global environment and the beautiful island states such as yours, President Heine, and thank you for coming to talk to us. Climate change sceptics in the UK also threaten European global protection. The British elections delivered a disastrous result for our Prime Minister, and Ms May battles on – she has appointed a new Environment Secretary, Mr Michael Gove. Gove has a shocking record. When he was Education Secretary, Gove wanted to get climate change off the school curriculums. He voted to sell off all of England’s publicly-owned and protected forests and woodlands. He has voted 12 times against measures to prevent climate change, including opposing limits on greenhouse gas emissions. He supports fracking and he supports drilling in national parks. He has opposed refitting homes to stop carbon loss. To quote a past colleague of this House, Caroline Lucas, who is now an MP: ‘Michael Gove is an environmental disaster waiting to happen’. During the Brexit referendum campaign, Gove stated that he had enough of experts. Well, frankly, the experts and the public have had enough of him, too, just as they have had of President Trump.

Colleagues, please be tough during the Brexit negotiations when it comes to the environment, as you will be with Mr Trump. Climate deniers like Gove need to know they have international treaty commitments that they cannot evade. He will try to slip and slide on environmental agreements. So, given the election results last week, it remains to be seen whether the UK will actually leave the EU. But if we do, the UK, just like the US, must fulfil its international environmental obligations. Environmental challenges do not stop at borders. Our environment, our planet, is interlinked, especially when it comes to the most vulnerable states on the planet. We must work together to protect it in the UK, in the US, and of course driven here by the European Union.


  Kateřina Konečná, za skupinu GUE/NGL. – Drazí kolegové a především vážená paní prezidentko, děkuji, že jste dnes mezi nás přišla a děkuji také za Vaše slova.

Donald Trump se rozhodl odstoupit od klimatické dohody z Paříže. Zjevně by se tak rád vrátil do středověku, kde bylo popírání vědecky ověřitelných faktů na denním pořádku. Bohužel i přes všechny jeho tweety je změna klimatu nezadržitelná. Jak jsme dnes měli možnost slyšet, celé národy a státy jsou ohroženy tímto procesem, který s sebou přináší vzrůstající hladiny moře i drtivá sucha. Klimatické změny taktéž způsobené člověkem mohou v dalších letech způsobit migrační vlnu takových rozměrů, že současná krize bude v jejím porovnání pouhou banalitou. Co chce s tímto vším pan Trump dělat, neřekl.  Zjevně by mu vyhovovala role neomezeného vládce pustiny.

Kam až vede bezohledné využívání zdrojů a nedbání na ochranu životního prostředí nám dnes a denně ukazuje např. situace okolo palmového oleje v Indonésii. Dnes více než jindy musíme ukázat světu svoji jednotu, odhodlání a správnou cestu.


  Ska Keller, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Vielen Dank, Frau Präsidentin, dass Sie heute hier sind, dass Sie uns nochmal vor Augen führen, was es eigentlich heißt, was die Auswirkungen des Klimawandels für die Menschen in den meistbetroffenen Gebieten bedeuten. Ich kann Ihnen nur versichern: Wir Grüne werden uns weiter dafür einsetzen, dass wir mehr gegen den Klimawandel tun, und ich freue mich sehr, dass viele Kolleginnen und Kollegen, die heute schon gesprochen haben, auch gesagt haben: Ja, sie unterstützen das Pariser Abkommen, und sie finden die Entscheidung von Trump falsch.

Aber es reicht nicht, Trump zu kritisieren und uns dann auf dem moral high ground zu sehen und zu sagen: Wir sind besser dran. Nein! Die Ziele, die wir bis jetzt vorgegeben haben, von der Kommission hier verabschiedet haben, sind auf einem optimistischen Szenario aufgebaut. Sie werden uns nicht garantieren, dass wir noch nicht einmal zwei Grad einhalten werden. Aber für Inseln wie die von Frau Präsidentin Heine reicht das nicht. Wir müssen auf unter zwei Grad bleiben. Wir sollten maximal 1,5 Grad anpeilen – nur dann haben diese vielen Inseln eine Möglichkeit zu überleben. Wir müssen also jetzt mehr tun – wir als Europäerinnen und Europäer.

Wir sind der drittgrößte Verursacher von CO2—Emissionen, aber wir als Europäische Union haben auch die Kraft und die Technologie, etwas gegen den Klimawandel zu tun. Wir sind nicht eine der ärmsten Nationen der Welt. Wir haben die Möglichkeiten, und wir müssen vorangehen. Wir können hier wirklich Führungskraft zeigen, wir können vorangehen, und wir können dazu beitragen, dass es mit dem Klima weitergeht. Und gerade wenn Trump aussteigt, können wir nicht sagen: Na gut, die USA machen jetzt nichts, dann machen wir jetzt auch nichts mehr, sondern wir müssen diesen Verlust der USA kompensieren. Denn wenn wir später von zukünftigen Generationen gefragt werden: Ja warum habt ihr nicht mehr getan? Dann können wir nicht sagen: Ja der Trump wollte nicht mehr. Sondern wir müssen unseren eigenen Anteil steigern – wir hier im Parlament, aber auch die Regierungen.

Wenn ich dann sehe, wie zum Beispiel die Bundesregierung in Deutschland sich zwar immer für ein Familienbild vor dem Gletscher aufstellt, aber gleichzeitig den größten Verschmutzern bei der Vergabe von CO2-Zertifikaten entgegenkommt oder den harten CO2-Normen bei Autos im Wege steht, dann geht das einfach nicht zusammen. Das passt nicht zur Führungsrolle Europas, und das passt nicht zum Kampf gegen den Klimawandel.

Dabei haben wir wirklich eine Chance, mit dem Kampf, mit Energieeffizienz und mit erneuerbaren Energien gute neue Jobs mit echter Zukunftsperspektive zu schaffen. Es liegt allein am politischen Mut – den müssen wir aufbringen. Der Planet wartet nicht auf uns, der kann auch ohne uns – aber wir nicht ohne ihn und wir nicht ohne ein verträgliches Klima. Wir können es schaffen – wir müssen es nur wollen, daran denke ich.


  President. – The President of the Marshall Islands and I are leaving the plenary. Madam President, thank you for your engagement and for your speech. Thank you for your cooperation with the European Union. The European Union and the European Parliament will support your position.





  Rosa D'Amato, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, secondo alcuni calcoli, l'uscita degli Stati Uniti dagli accordi di Parigi porterebbe ad un aumento teorico di circa 1,4 milioni tonnellate di CO2 per anno fino al 2025 e comporterebbe danni seri all'economia e all'agricoltura.

Stiamo parlando di numeri abnormi davanti ai quali non possiamo far finta di nulla. Nell'era della quarta rivoluzione industriale dell'economia circolare, dell'attuazione dell'Agenda 2030 e dell'Accordo di Parigi, questa è la sede ideale dove programmare un futuro più sostenibile.

L'Unione europea ha delle responsabilità non solo verso le proprie popolazioni ma anche verso i paesi meno sviluppati del pianeta tutto. È arrivato il momento di riprendere una posizione centrale nello scenario scientifico e tecnologico e di incrementare gli investimenti nel settore. Ma se questa Europa è la stessa del Dieselgate e dei finanziamenti alle fonti fossili per mezzo dell'EFSI e della BCE, allora è evidente che per cambiare clima occorre prima di tutto un cambiamento del clima politico.


  Harald Vilimsky, im Namen der ENF-Fraktion. – Frau Präsidentin, meine sehr verehrten Damen und Herren! Man glaubt gar nicht, wie viele edle Retter des Weltklimas hier vorhanden sind, wenn man durch die Garage des Hauses geht und die vielen sechszylindrigen und achtzylindrigen Fahrzeuge sieht mit einem entsprechend hohen Ausstoßvolumen. Man glaubt es auch nicht, wenn man sich das Besuchsprogramm des Hauses, des Europäischen Parlaments ansieht, wo Mandatare in die entlegensten Winkel der Welt fliegen, um über wichtige Themen wie Gender Mainstreaming und anderes zu diskutieren. Es ist aber alles recht und alles gut, wenn es um USA-Bashing geht, wenn es um Trump-Bashing geht; da sind der Scheinheiligkeit keine Grenzen gesetzt.

Schauen wir uns dieses Klimaabkommen, das Sie so hochjubeln, einmal im Detail an. Monsanto ist am Verhandlungstisch gesessen, die Nuklearlobby ist am Verhandlungstisch gesessen. In Wahrheit ist es ein Kniefall vor der Atomlobby. Und das wahre Ziel, nämlich erneuerbare Energien zu fördern, das wurde verabsäumt. Und daher kann ich nur an Sie appellieren: Seien Sie ehrlich in der Frage des Klimaschutzes, des Naturschutzes, und beenden Sie Ihre Scheinheiligkeit!


  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – Madame la Présidente, la décision du président Trump de retirer les États-Unis de l’accord de Paris a soulevé un tollé mondial. Même le président de Goldman Sachs, qu’on ne savait pas si soucieux de la planète, y est allé de sa petite condamnation.

Pour ma part, je ne dramatiserai pas cette décision. D’abord, parce que l’accord de Paris est très peu contraignant juridiquement, quoi que l’on en ait dit, et que rien ne permet de forcer son application par ses signataires. Il est avant tout un engagement politique. Ensuite, le retrait des États-Unis ne sera effectif qu’en 2020, et beaucoup d’autorités infrafédérales aux États-Unis – les États, les grandes villes – ont déclaré vouloir mener des politiques conformes aux accords. Enfin, parce que les Américains ont le sens des affaires: s’il s’avère lucratif d’investir dans l’économie verte et les secteurs économiques qui vont avec, ils le feront.

Mon inquiétude porte plutôt sur la perspective d’une surenchère européenne que, sous prétexte de compenser les effets supposés de ce retrait, l’on imposerait à notre économie.

Je remarque que M. Pittella est devenu favorable aux droits de douane pour conjurer la concurrence déloyale quand il s’agit des États-Unis. J’espère qu’il le sera autant dans d’autres circonstances.


  Françoise Grossetête (PPE). – Madame la Présidente, personne aujourd’hui ne pourra dire qu’il ne savait rien du changement climatique: la répétition des catastrophes naturelles, de plus en plus violentes, touchant des territoires déshérités et donc des populations pauvres, en les appauvrissant un peu plus, la montée des eaux, qui menace les côtes et les îles, la sécheresse enfin, responsable de la famine en Afrique de l’Est, sont malheureusement une réalité et risquent à terme de pousser à l’exode des milliers, voire des millions de personnes, sans parler de notre biodiversité, mise en péril aussi.

Le président Trump a retiré les États-Unis de l’accord de Paris. C’est là une décision irresponsable qui «ringardise» son propre pays, en empêchant les Américains d’entrer dans la modernité.

La protection assumée de notre environnement et la révolution technologique qu’elle entraîne, c’est cela la modernité.

Nos entreprises ont bien compris cet enjeu, elles qui investissent pour accéder rapidement aux technologies les plus efficaces. Elles défendent leurs emplois et elles ont notre soutien.

L’accord de Paris fut un succès mondial. L’Europe s’est engagée sur une voie claire et visionnaire pour défendre le climat. Certains, ici dans cette enceinte, trouvent que notre législation va trop loin, mais non, nous sommes tout simplement ambitieux et responsables pour les générations futures.


  Kathleen Van Brempt (S&D). – Madam President, President Trump made his announcement to leave the Paris Agreement, ironically, in the rose garden, and the question is: how should we react? We can be very angry, we can be frustrated – but let us not be afraid, and let us stand united. We have heard many of our political leaders in Europe say that we will keep up the engagements in the Paris Agreement. It is nice to give good speeches, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the first thing we need to do in Europe is implement the Paris Agreement in full. When we have a vote on the Effort Sharing, when we discuss renewable energy, when we discuss energy efficiency, let us move up and make it more ambitious. That is our goal.

Second, we always say that Europe is divided – with two speeds, or three speeds. Well, we can also say that in the United States we have more than one speed: we have the Trump administration, but we also have states, cities, mayors, companies that have said they will implement the Paris Agreement and that they will keep on track with it. Let us not turn our back on the United States and their people, but work together with these cities and states. I think that is also what the European Commission should do: to make sure that at international level we keep up with China, India, but also with the citizens of the United States. Rest assured, Trump is not the rightful representative of the people in the United States, because they do stand with the Paris Agreement and with combating climate change.


  Hans-Olaf Henkel (ECR). – Frau Präsidentin, meine Damen und Herren! In seiner Fernsehserie verabschiedete der Unternehmer Trump seine Kandidaten meistens mit dem Satz: „You are fired.“ Nun meint er ja, er müsste sein Land so führen wie ein Unternehmen. Als jemand, der sein Leben immer in der Industrie verbracht hat, kann ich Ihnen sagen: Er führt sein Land nicht so, wie man sein Unternehmen führen sollte. Statt neue Produkte zu entwickeln, setzt er auf alte Technik. Statt auf den Rat seiner eigenen Forscher zu hören, setzt er auf alternative Fakten. Statt sich um die langfristige Gesundheit seines Unternehmens zu kümmern, setzt er es für kurzfristige Ziele aufs Spiel.

Wenn ich Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender dieses Unternehmens wäre, würde ich Herrn Trump morgen sagen: „You are fired.“


  Marisa Matias (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, o facto de Donald Trump ter abandonado o Acordo de Paris é uma má notícia para todos nós, mas, se concordamos com isto, temos de ser coerentes e, por isso, quero aqui deixar um apelo.

Ainda há poucos dias votámos na comissão ITRE a posição deste Parlamento sobre o dossiê LULUCF e ganhou o lobby do negócio da floresta. Este primeiro voto que fizemos no Parlamento não põe apenas em causa o Acordo de Paris, como faz recuar a própria legislação europeia em matéria de combate às alterações climáticas.

É por isso que apelo a este Parlamento, à Comissão Europeia e ao Conselho, para que façam a transposição do Acordo Paris como deve ser, sem truques na contabilização das emissões e sem hipocrisia. Não podemos contar apenas as árvores que são plantadas e ignorar aquelas que são cortadas.

Ainda estamos a tempo de emendar a mão. Apelo a este Parlamento, ao Conselho e à Comissão. O LULUCF deve ser um dossiê que transpõe o Acordo de Paris e não que nos faz recuar em matéria de alterações climáticas.


  Bas Eickhout (Verts/ALE). – Madam President, I would like to thank everyone for these heart-breaking speeches on climate change. It is really great to hear how everyone is involved in it and concerned and, well, let us see, in half an hour you can vote and you will add loopholes to our own climate legislation watering down our targets for 2030. There might be some inconsistency with some of you guys, but I am sure you are going to work on that.

I also want to thank the Council for being here because you have been listening to the Marshall Islands. I know that you are even worse on the effort-sharing regulation. You are playing for more loopholes all over the place. I really hope when the Environment Council is meeting next week, you still have in your mind the speech by the President of the Marshall Islands, and act accordingly. I think that is important.

And to the Commission I would say: one of the clear demands we got from the Marshall Islands is to come now, before 2018, with your 2050 road map. Are you going to do that? Or is this going to be for the next Commission, postponing, postponing? I shall be silent now because I am going to listen to Mr Helmer and, if I understand The Guardian correctly, you are going to step down in July; so if this is your final speech I am happy to listen to it.


  Roger Helmer (EFDD). – Madam President, may I, from this Hemicycle, send congratulations to President Trump for his wisdom and courage in pulling America out of the climate agreement in Paris and resisting the pressure from the green lobby, of which we have heard so much today. In fact, he has given America a huge competitive advantage in terms of industry and exports, which will be damaging to Europe if we cling to the outmoded climate passion that we have heard in this Hemicycle.

Some colleagues will be familiar with the peer-reviewed paper published recently by Danish statistician Bjørn Lomborg, in which he estimates the cost of Paris at USD 100 billion by the end of the century, when the impact on climate will be 0.17 °C. In other words, an eye—watering amount of money for virtually no return. This is pure virtue signalling and gesture politics; we should be ashamed of ourselves.


  Janice Atkinson (ENF). – Madam President, last month colleagues from across six nations this side of the House wrote to President Trump, urging him to pull out of the Paris climate agreement – and he did. He is putting American jobs first. He is fighting against global interests; he is protecting the nation state; he is trying to protect his citizens from terror. He is a president that has the guts to stand up to the global elites and their green hobbies. He puts American people first, instead of virtue signalling with other people’s money.

Trump’s policies, like Brexit, have really challenged the status quo in this place, and that is why you are all so frustrated now. So good luck, President Trump. I wish you well, along with Steve Bannon, your chief strategist. You are winning, and we are winning, despite the rhetoric that goes on – and despite Ms May really messing up. But I am sure all my colleagues across this House would like to join me in wishing President Trump a very happy birthday.

(Applause from some quarters)


  Peter Liese (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin! Ich hatte die große Ehre, an der Delegation des Europäischen Parlaments bei der Klimakonferenz in Marrakesch teilzunehmen. Und da gab es natürlich einen Schock, als bekannt wurde, dass Präsident Trump die Wahl gewonnen hat, weil wir natürlich mit der jetzigen Entwicklung rechnen mussten. Aber es war schon in Marrakesch ganz klar: Der Rest der Welt wird sich nicht beirren lassen und an Paris festhalten. Ich danke Jean-Claude Juncker und Miguel Arias Cañete für ihre klaren Aussagen in dieser Beziehung. Und auch das Parlament wird nicht nur reden, sondern handeln.

Bas Eickhout geht jetzt leider gerade raus. Er sprach von loopholes. Aber er sollte nicht verschweigen, dass wir heute Mittag über das effort sharing abstimmen, und die EVP stimmt dem Kompromiss zu, der eine ambitionierte Umsetzung von Paris vorsieht – gleichzeitig realistisch, aber ambitioniert. Und ich bin froh, dass wir nach Diskussionen mit meiner Fraktion zu dieser Zustimmung kommen. Klimaschutz bedeutet eine Chance für die Wirtschaft, und Trump wird den USA das meiste Leid zufügen, weil er die Zukunft verpasst.


  Miriam Dalli (S&D). – Qiegħda hawnhekk nirrappreżenta dawk iċ-ċittadini li huma mħassba u li jridu li tittieħed azzjoni, bis-serjetà, biex nindirizzaw it-tibdil fil-klima - anke mill-istituzzjonijiet Ewropej u anke minn din il-Kamra. U xi kultant nibda nisma’ d-diskorsi u lanqas nemmen lil widnejja, għaliex għandna nies li lanqas biss qegħdin jirrealizzaw li, jekk l-ekosistemi tad-dinja se jmutu, l-ekonomiji se jikkollassaw għal kollox.

U bir-rispett kollu, meta konna qegħdin nitkellmu u ninnegozjaw il-Ftehim ta’ Pariġi, ħassejt li kien hemm kunsens li stajna naħdmu lkoll flimkien biex insalvaw il-futur tal-pjaneta tagħna. U kont qed nittama li din kienet il-bidu ta’ rivoluzzjoni li se twassal għal tibdil li jsir fi żminijietna. Id-deċiżjoni tal-President Amerikan li jirtira mill-Ftehim ta’ Pariġi, irridu nammettu, hija daqqa ta’ ħarta. Però dan l-ostakolu mhux se jnaqqas mid-determinazzjoni tagħna li naġixxu. Irridu mmexxu, irridu nispiraw u rridu nempawerjaw. Għaliex dan huwa ż-żmien li għandna nieħdu azzjoni b’saħħitha: il-mument fejn niddeċiedu bħala kontinent wieħed magħqud fuq liema naħa tal-istorja rridu nkunu.

U dan huwa suġġett b’impatt dirett fuq id-drittijiet tal-bniedem. Qegħdin nitkellmu, kif smajna wkoll, dwar id-dritt għall-ikel, id-dritt għall-ilma nadif, id-dritt għas-saħħa, id-dritt għall-edukazzjoni, id-dritt għas-sigurtà tal-bniedem. Huma proprju dawn in-nies, li huma l-aktar vulnerabbli li lanqas qegħdin jikkontribwixxu għat-tibdil fil-klima, u s-solidarjetà trid tkun magħhom.


  Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Porozumienie paryskie daje każdej stronie możliwość wykorzystania swoich uwarunkowań. Nie zakłada dekarbonizacji, docenia rolę lasów w bilansie emisji CO2, stawia na zrównoważony rozwój. Po wycofaniu się Stanów Zjednoczonych z porozumienia paryskiego unijna polityka klimatyczna powinna być zrewidowana. Przestrzegam jednak przed bezmyślną reakcją polegającą na jednostronnym zawyżaniu europejskich ambicji, które miałyby wypełnić lukę po Stanach Zjednoczonych. Nasze samotne wysiłki nie uratują świata, wręcz przeciwnie, spowodują, że europejski przemysł będzie jeszcze mniej konkurencyjny. Apeluję, Panie Komisarzu, o to, aby porozumienie paryskie było fundamentem europejskiej polityki klimatycznej niezakładającej dekarbonizacji, doceniającej rolę lasów w bilansie emisji CO2 i stawiającej na zrównoważony rozwój.


  Yannick Jadot (Verts/ALE). – Madame la Présidente, quelle belle unanimité dans ce Parlement contre Donald Trump. Effectivement, la décision du président américain est irresponsable et criminelle.

Mais, franchement, si les discours sur le climat et sur l’environnement avaient dû sauver la planète, ça se saurait. La crédibilité d’une diplomatie climatique, la crédibilité d’un leadership, c’est la crédibilité de l’action climatique qui est posée. Trop souvent, la Commission européenne comme le Conseil, comme la droite de ce Parlement, à force de trop écouter les lobbies du nucléaire, du pétrole, du gaz, de l’agriculture intensive, de l’exploitation forestière et du transport ne voient pas toutes les PME, les chercheurs, les start-up, les collectivités et les citoyens qui veulent faire plus en faveur du climat et qui construisent aujourd’hui le monde de demain.

S’il y a un beau projet pour l’Europe, c’est de nous réconcilier avec l’avenir, avec le climat. C’est de créer les emplois. Et là, nous réconcilierons les Européens avec l’Europe et nous réconcilierons l’Europe avec le reste du monde. Alors, agissez, agissez, agissez!


  Marie-Christine Arnautu (ENF). – Madame la Présidente, dans cet hémicycle climatisé à outrance et empli de députés venus par avion des quatre coins de l’Europe, cette énième condamnation du président des États-Unis me semble aussi hypocrite que celle des Saoudiens dénonçant le soutien du Qatar au mouvement djihadiste.

Sa décision est pourtant celle d’un chef d’État démocratiquement élu, qui n’a jamais caché son climato-scepticisme et qui n’a qu’un but, protéger les emplois américains. Vous feriez mieux d’en prendre exemple, vous qui êtes incapables de lutter contre le chômage ou le terrorisme, mais qui prétendez agir sur le climat.

Il est urgent, pourtant, de se préoccuper des emplois menacés de nos travailleurs, ceux que les conséquences de vos politiques n’ont pas encore jetés au chômage et dont les entreprises subiront désormais une nouvelle baisse de compétitivité face à leurs redoutables concurrentes américaines.

M. Trump a un grand tort en effet, celui ne pas faire semblant de vouloir respecter un accord, non contraignant juridiquement, mais au contraire d’affirmer officiellement ce qu’il croit être bon pour ses concitoyens.

Mais cela vous est tellement difficile de l’admettre, tant cela est différent de votre façon de penser et d’agir.


  Adina-Ioana Vălean (PPE). – Madam President, I think it is fair to say that there is an agreement in this House that we need to continue to fulfil our commitments to the Paris Agreement, and I hope this will be seen in the vote which is following on effort sharing, which I hope will have the support of this House.

The problem still exists in the support that the Member States are giving to the Paris Agreement targets, because even if we adopt policies with ambition, then we have to have the support of the Member States – we need to implement this. This House cannot have a very good say. We need the Member States to put the money where they promised they would put the money and to implement these policies we are agreeing upon.

The weakness of the agreement lies in its voluntary nature, so the implementation will depend very much on how the global economy will fare. The Paris Agreement, we need to say, makes economic sense, because it will create more jobs, more prosperity and sustainable growth in our economy. This is something President Trump needs to find out.


  Gilles Pargneaux (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, l’Union européenne doit apporter deux réponses au président Trump.

Tout d’abord, à l’occasion de la COP23, qui aura lieu à Bonn, du 7 au 16 novembre prochain: prenons ce leadership pour permettre au monde, derrière les propositions concrètes de l’Union, de combattre cet attentisme ou cette décision ridicule du président américain.

Puis, bien évidemment, on le sait aujourd’hui, en Amérique, les réactions négatives à l’égard de M. Trump sont importantes: de nombreuses entreprises et villes, mais aussi

trente États sur cinquante condamnent son attitude.

Par conséquent, Monsieur le Commissaire, prenons contact avec ces États, avec ces entreprises américaines et avec ces villes pour installer une coopération avec l’Union dans les mois à venir à l’occasion de la COP23.


  Ivo Belet (PPE). – Wat de positie van de Verenigde Staten ook is, we zijn de weg ingeslagen van een CO2-arme en energie-efficiënte economie en er is geen weg terug. Dat is uiteraard de juiste keuze, ook en vooral omdat ze ons minder afhankelijk maakt van onbetrouwbare olie- en gasleveranciers.

Dus ambitie, zeker ook in de hervorming rond de verdeling van de inspanningen, waar we straks over stemmen. Maar ook: niet naïef zijn. Kijk naar de hervorming van het ETS, waarin we maatregelen willen om de koolstoflekkage tegen te gaan.

En tegelijkertijd verder werken aan die hervorming van het ETS, dat systeem robuuster maken en het vooral koppelen aan systemen zoals in Californië. Want we hebben sterke bondgenoten in de Verenigde Staten. Laten we ook verder werken aan een systeem, aan een gelijk speelveld voor industriële producenten die voor Europa willen produceren. Daarvoor kunnen we het ETS ook succesvol inzetten.


  Jeppe Kofod (S&D). – Madam President, we just had our 80th Transatlantic Legislators’ Dialogue (TLD) with our American counterparts in Congress after Trump announced his withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. I have to say with our American counterparts in Congress, it was a difficult conversation with them, but it is needed and what Trump did is actually disrespectful not only to his own people, but to people all over the world and for the 194 States that are there and committed to fighting climate change.

I also have to say that this withdrawal is actually placing a lot of question marks over the US government; it has further implications for the US. Can the US be trustworthy when it has to do negotiations and new global and international deal in the future? That is a question we have to ask ourselves. It is weakening our position to take collective action on a very important issue. But as others have said, there is a coalition: cities, States, people all over the world, including in the United States, that want change and they will continue despite Trump’s decision. Let us stand together and work together and we will succeed.


  Francesc Gambús (PPE). – Señora presidenta, señor comisario. Gracias también a la presidenta Heine por su testimonio y su inspiración.

El presidente de los Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, ha demostrado la incapacidad de su administración para participar en el liderazgo de la lucha contra el cambio climático. La Unión Europea, que ya había liderado las negociaciones previas del Acuerdo de París, debe hacerse mayor y tomar el mando para liderar esta transición hacia una economía hipocarbónica.

Hoy, el 20 % del presupuesto de la Unión es destinado a acciones de lucha contra el cambio climático. Estamos en pleno desarrollo de actualización del mercado de comercio de emisiones y en el establecimiento de una economía circular, y debemos hacer todavía más. Y necesitamos, a su vez, una política industrial que sea sostenible, con la misma ambición en sus tres pilares: económico, de creación de empleo, social y medioambiental.

Y en este sentido —y termino— quiero preguntarle, señor comisario: ¿Qué medidas ha tomado o piensa tomar la Comisión para proteger la economía europea, la industria europea y sus empleos, ante un más que posible dumping ambiental por parte de los Estados Unidos?


  Jo Leinen (S&D). – Frau Präsidentin! Der Klimaschutz ist nicht nur eine politische, sondern auch eine moralische Pflicht – das hat die Rede der Präsidentin der Marshallinseln gezeigt. Es wäre völlig unverantwortlich, dass ganze Staaten von der Bildfläche verschwinden, wenn wir die Erderwärmung nicht begrenzen können. Der Schutz des Klimas wird die größte Transformation der Ökonomie seit der ersten industriellen Revolution. Der Abschied von fossilen Energien und hin zu erneuerbaren Energien schafft auch völlig neue Chancen.

Wir in Europa müssen aufpassen, dass wir die neuen Produkte nicht nur kaufen, sondern auch selber produzieren. Die meisten Photovoltaikanlagen werden in China produziert. Die meisten Elektroautos werden demnächst in China produziert. Grüne Städte und Gebäude werden in China produziert. Also, Europa muss sich anstrengen, damit wir den Anschluss nicht verlieren.

Herr Kommissar, ich habe es bedauert, dass beim EU-China-Gipfel keine Erklärung für den Klimaschutz und die gegenseitige Kooperation zustande gekommen ist, denn der globale Klimaschutz braucht leadership. Und das muss Europa in Zusammenhang mit China sein.


Catch-the-eye procedure


  Giovanni La Via (PPE). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signora Presidente, il suo discorso è stato molto toccante e incisivo. Siamo tutti vulnerabili, ma soprattutto lo sono le Isole Marshall che sono, con mille isole e 50 000 persone, a rischio quotidiano.

Nonostante le decisioni di Trump, cresce in tutto il mondo una voce critica con annunci di alleanze tra grandi città e Stati federali americani, con le dichiarazioni del resto del mondo e dei cittadini e con l'Europa pronta a giocare un ruolo leader.

Il mondo guarda all'Europa e noi abbiamo già raggiunto obiettivi importanti, a partire dalla rapidissima ratifica dell'accordo di Parigi che ho avuto l'onore di guidare a nome del Parlamento, ma ci impegneremo a fare ancora di più, non dimenticando la necessità di assicurare la competitività del nostro mondo industriale. È ormai dimostrato che la transizione verso la nuova economia sostenibile è anche una strategia vincente da un punto di vista della crescita economica e della creazione di nuovi posti di lavoro, ed è questa la direzione in cui dobbiamo andare.

Signora Presidente, e credo di parlare con la grande maggioranza di noi, sappia che il Parlamento europeo è con voi e l'Europa è con voi.


  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, decizia președintelui Trump de a retrage SUA din Acordul privind schimbările climatice i-a creat Uniunii Europene o problemă majoră și trebuie să recunoaștem acest lucru. Unul dintre cei mai mari poluatori ai planetei, SUA, nu dorește să participe la măsurile legate de protecția mediului.

Toți de aici cred că dorim să contribuim la protecția mediului. Există și alt poluator major, China. Uniunea Europeană consider că nu poate prelua singură sarcina salvării planetei. Ce vor face Comisia, Consiliul privind relațiile politice și economice cu cei doi mari poluatori? Vom continua să umplem piața de produse care vin dintr-un mediu poluant și vom dezindustrializa mai departe Europa? Vom distruge locuri de muncă? Vom lăsa tinerii fără locuri de muncă? Eu cred că instituțiile europene, inclusiv noi, Parlamentul, trebuie să ne asumăm responsabilitatea de a negocia orice acord în favoarea cetățenilor europeni. Protejarea climei este vitală pentru planetă și acest lucru trebuie folosit în toate negocierile.


  Νεοκλής Συλικιώτης (GUE/NGL). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, η αποχώρηση των ΗΠΑ από τη συμφωνία του Παρισιού δεν πρέπει να ξαφνιάζει. Ο Trump ενίοτε επέκρινε τη συμφωνία χαρακτηρίζοντάς την ως φάρσα που έχει στόχο την αποδυνάμωση της αμερικανικής βιομηχανίας. Λογικό, αφού η νεοφιλελεύθερη πολιτική του Trump θέτει τα συμφέροντα των πολυεθνικών πάνω από την προστασία του περιβάλλοντος. Η αποχώρηση αυτή δεν πρέπει να καταστεί δικαιολογία για τη μη τήρηση των συμφωνηθέντων και από τους υπόλοιπους. Αντιθέτως, η καταστροφική για την ανθρωπότητα πορεία των ΗΠΑ επιβεβαιώνει πως απαιτείται ακόμη μεγαλύτερη δράση από εμάς. Οι δραματικές κλιματικές αλλαγές εκπέμπουν σήμα κινδύνου. Δεν αρκεί λοιπόν να καταδικάζεται η αποχώρηση των ΗΠΑ. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, σε συνεργασία με την Κίνα και άλλα κράτη, πρέπει να αναπτύξει πρωτοβουλίες, ώστε να στηρίξει έμπρακτα τις αναπτυσσόμενες χώρες, και να αναπτύξει ολοκληρωμένο σχέδιο δράσης για την καταπολέμηση της κλιματικής αλλαγής, για τον τερματισμό της αλόγιστης χρήσης των φυσικών πόρων και για τη μείωση των εκπομπών αερίων του θερμοκηπίου. Εάν δεν τεθούν άμεσα δεσμευτικοί ουσιαστικοί στόχοι, δεν θα μπορέσουμε να σταματήσουμε την καταστροφή του πλανήτη.


  Piernicola Pedicini (EFDD). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io devo dire che ho apprezzato moltissimo le parole che sono state dette per lo più in quest'Aula su questo dibattito, in particolare quelle pronunciate dal presidente Pittella in merito a questa scelta scellerata da parte di Donald Trump di uscire dall'accordo di Parigi.

Pittella ha parlato anche di salute, ha parlato di bellezza dei territori. Il problema è che il presidente Pittella milita in un partito che ha deciso di raddoppiare le stazioni petrolifere in Italia, devastando di fatto i nostri territori e i nostri mari. Allora io chiedo: come pensate che si fermi il riscaldamento globale se siete alleati con i petrolieri? La mia domanda è: come pensate di combattere i cambiamenti climatici, se poi quello che dite è esattamente il contrario di ciò che fate?


  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, ανεξαρτήτως των κινήτρων και των δικών μας απόψεων, ο Πρόεδρος Trump, στον βαθμό της αρμοδιότητος που του αναλογεί, έχει το έννομο δικαίωμα να αποσύρει τις ΗΠΑ από τη συμφωνία του Παρισιού. Η ηθική διάσταση της απόφασης αυτής παραμένει, βέβαια, αμφίβολη. Βέβαια, έχει ήδη συντελεστεί η μεταστροφή σε επιλογές πιο φιλικές προς το περιβάλλον. Χρειάζονται όμως περαιτέρω δράσεις και κανονιστικές ρυθμίσεις. Οι αλλαγές που προβλέπονται στη συμφωνία θέτουν τόσο προκλήσεις όσο και ευκαιρίες, οι οποίες όμως δεν κατανέμονται αναλογικά μεταξύ των κρατών. Το ίδιο ισχύει και για τα αποτελέσματα της κλιματικής αλλαγής. Η λήψη νομικά δεσμευτικών δράσεων έναντι των στόχων είναι απαραίτητη, παράλληλα με την ενίσχυση της καινοτομίας. Κανόνας που πρέπει να λαμβάνεται αμελλητί είναι «όποιος ρυπαίνει τιμωρείται». Ειδάλλως, οι συνέπειες της αδράνειας θα είναι ευρύτερες του κόστους οποιασδήποτε προσαρμογής. Το ζητούμενο είναι η επιβίωση της ανθρωπότητος. Όμως, παρά την επείγουσα διάσταση του ζητήματος, δεν θα γίνει αποδεκτό το όποιο ιδιοτελές συμφέρον, που επιβάλλει συμφέροντα ή υπονομεύει κάποιο κράτος, υπό το κάλυμμα ρυθμιστικών πλαισίων.


  Elmar Brok (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Frau Ratspräsidentin, Herr Kommissar, meine Damen und Herren! Nur kurz zwei Punkte – erstens: Ich glaube, dass Herr Trump da eine Mauer gegen die Migration zu Mexiko bauen will und sich die Zahl der Migranten durch die Verhinderung des Kampfes gegen den Klimawandel noch erhöhen wird. Für uns ist es auch eine existenzielle Frage, dass, wenn wir die Lebensbedingungen in Afrika sichern wollen, der Klimawandel gestoppt wird, weil es sonst Völkerwanderung geben wird. Und deswegen ist Klimawandel auch in diesem Sinn eine wichtige Frage.

Und der zweite Punkt, den ich erwähnen möchte: Wer seine Wirtschaft auf Kohle und Zement stellen will, der muss sehen, dass die innovativen Unternehmen seines Landes dagegen sind. Deswegen sollten wir die Nerven behalten. Die amerikanischen Unternehmungen werden diese rückschrittliche Politik auf Dauer nicht akzeptieren. Trump ist hier dabei, sein eigenes Land in eine ökonomische Katastrophe zu führen.


  José Blanco López (S&D). – Señora presidenta, Trump ha cumplido su amenaza. Los Estados Unidos, su administración ―no el país― no serán un aliado de la lucha contra el cambio climático, pero no es esta la única amenaza. De un lado, el negacionismo de gente como Trump. De otro lado, la falta de ambición.

Valoro la defensa hecha por la Comisión de los Acuerdos de París, pero las buenas palabras no pueden ocultar la falta de ambición, por ejemplo, en el paquete de energía limpia. Si queremos que el Acuerdo de París sea algo más que un mal recuerdo de lo que pudo haber sido y no fue es hora de comprometerse a lo grande y dar un salto de gigante en los objetivos europeos. Por ejemplo, en materia de energía renovable, aumentando la ambición y haciendo que los objetivos sean vinculantes para los Estados miembros.

Ahí quiero ver a esta Cámara, como otras veces: con ambición, con compromiso, con luces largas.


(End of catch-the-eye procedure)


  Miguel Arias Cañete, Member of the Commission. –Madam President, all the House has listened to the passionate speech of the President of the Marshall Islands calling on us for ambition and action.

The best answer we can give is, first of all, to confirm that we will not renegotiate the Paris Agreement and that we will make all the efforts needed to provide the political momentum behind the Paris implementation. The implementation of the Paris Agreement domestically requires that this House gives full support in moving ahead on making the European Union’s commitment a reality.

The European Union is showing the world the way with our cutting-edge climate policy and there is no stronger statement we can make than swift progress on the ETS, the effort-sharing regulation, the land-use legislation as well as on the Clean Energy for all European Package. When we ratified the Paris Agreement in record time this House showed its commitment to climate action and we need to provide the same spirit now, more than ever.

Internationally we will have to implement the Paris Agreement by working closely with all our allies with ambition and determination. And as Ms Van Brempt and some others clearly stated, we have to keep working with the United States, which is much more than the Federal Government. In the United States the decision to withdraw also strengthened the resolve of those who care for the future of the planet and who understand the economic opportunities of a low-carbon transition.

Hundreds of United States mayors, governors, state attorneys-general, CEOs and others pledged to the United Nations to achieve and eventually exceed America’s commitment to the Paris Agreement in a declaration entitled ‘We Are Still In’ and they will submit a Societal Nationally Determined Contribution to the United Nations, aggregating action by different stakeholders and building upon the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy.

The states of California, Washington and New York founded the United States Climate Alliance, now joined by nine other states. So it is clear that we will continue to have great partners within the United States even if the Federal Government decides to stay on the side of the road.

We will also step up our climate diplomacy. Climate action was a key topic of the European Union-China Summit on 2 June and our cooperation on the ground with China is stepping up a gear. In September the European Union will host a major ministerial gathering with ministers here from China and Minister McKenna from Canada to advance in the implementation of Paris and accelerate their transition.

Finally, my last remark to his House is that the world’s reaction to President Trump’s action proved that the European Union is on the right side of history. Our task ahead is clear. Let’s keep our resolve.


  Helena Dalli, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, I thank everyone for their interventions, and despite the US decision to leave, I am encouraged by their support for full implementation of the Paris Agreement and our continuous leadership at international level. We will continue our work on this and on the current climate legislative proposals. I thank you all very much.


  Chair. – The debate is closed.

Written statements (Rule 162)


  Soledad Cabezón Ruiz (S&D), por escrito. – Los socialistas españoles estamos a favor de la reducción de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero como primera medida urgente a adoptar para mitigar los devastadores efectos del cambio climático. Tras el anuncio de la retirada de los Estados Unidos del Acuerdo de París, la Unión Europea ha de liderar el proceso y redoblar sus esfuerzos como región referente a seguir. Los socialistas queremos evitar que el incremento de la temperatura media global del planeta supere los 2 °C respecto a los niveles preindustriales y defenderemos acometer esfuerzos adicionales para que el calentamiento global no supere los 1,5 °C. De la misma forma defendemos el compromiso de la UE y de sus Estados miembros de continuar en el Acuerdo de París, reconociendo la necesidad de que las emisiones globales toquen techo lo antes posible y asumiendo que esta tarea llevará más tiempo en países en desarrollo. En este sentido apoyamos las contribuciones al Fondo Verde para el Clima, dirigido a que países en vías de desarrollo reduzcan sus emisiones y aumentar la resistencia a las consecuencias del cambio climático. Para ello, los socialistas queremos mantener el objetivo de movilizar 100 000 millones de dólares al año en 2020 y ampliar esta medida hasta 2025.


  Eugen Freund (S&D), schriftlich. – Das politische Klima zwischen der EU und den USA hat sich seit dem Amtsantritt von Donald Trump verschlechtert; nun macht der US-Präsident auch noch deutlich, was er vom globalen Klima und dessen Schutz hält. Die Ankündigung Trumps, aus dem Pariser Klimaabkommen auszusteigen, ist ein Rückschritt für die internationalen Bemühungen, den Klimawandel in den Griff zu bekommen. Eine der größten Herausforderungen unserer Zeit ist es, den nachfolgenden Generationen einen sauberen und lebenswerten Planeten zu übergeben. In dieser Hinsicht ist es erschreckend, wie leichtfertig Trump das mühsam errungene Pariser Klimaabkommen aufs Spiel setzt. Auch wenn Trump glaubt, er könne im Hinblick auf den Klimawandel jegliche wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse außer Acht lassen, so wird die Entscheidung am Ende erhebliche Auswirkungen auf die Umwelt und die internationalen Beziehungen haben.

Jetzt sind die Europäische Union und ihre Mitgliedstaaten gefragt. Die EU darf sich von der kurzsichtigen Politik des amerikanischen Präsidenten keinesfalls negativ beeinflussen lassen. Wir Europäerinnen und Europäer müssen jetzt mit Führungskraft vorangehen. Denn Klimaschutz muss trotz Trump weiter verfolgt und – soweit nur irgend möglich – mit ehrgeizigeren Zielen weiter ausgebaut werden. Es muss klar sein: Diese Ankündigung bedeutet auch, dass Europa mit dem unberechenbaren US-Präsidenten auch in einer so bedeutenden Frage wie dem Kampf gegen die Erderwärmung nicht mehr rechnen kann.


  Arne Lietz (S&D), schriftlich. – Präsident Trump hat sich für den Ausstieg der USA aus dem Pariser Klimaabkommen entschieden. Damit manövriert er sein Land ins klimapolitische Abseits. Zugleich erhöht er damit indirekt den Druck auf Europa und die anderen Unterzeichnerstaaten, ihre Verpflichtungen einzuhalten und zukünftig noch ambitionierte Ziele festzulegen. Als globale Wirtschaftsmacht steht die EU mehr denn je in der Pflicht, eine Führungsrolle beim internationalen Klimaschutz einzunehmen. Hierfür brauchen wir eine europäische Klimadiplomatie-Strategie. Das Europäische Parlament kann und muss bei der Ausarbeitung dieser Strategie wichtige Impulse geben. Ich setze mich seit einem Jahr dafür ein, dass es einen Initiativbericht zum Thema Klimadiplomatie im Ausschuss für Auswärtiges geben sollte. Beispielsweise plädiere ich dafür, dass unsere parlamentarischen Ausschüsse und Delegationen auf ihren weltweiten Reisen systematisch ihre Gesprächspartner nach der Umsetzung der UN-Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung (SDGs) und ihrer nationalen Klimaschutzziele im Rahmen von COP21 befragen. Das gilt auch für unsere EU-Vertretungen in der Welt. Der Europäische Auswärtige Dienst in Brüssel muss finanziell und personell in die Lage versetzt werden, Europa als zentralen Player in der Klimadiplomatie zu stärken.


  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D), por escrito. – Los socialistas españoles estamos a favor de la reducción de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero como primera medida urgente a adoptar para mitigar los devastadores efectos del cambio climático. Tras el anuncio de la retirada de los Estados Unidos del Acuerdo de París, la Unión Europea ha de liderar el proceso y redoblar sus esfuerzos como región referente a seguir. Los socialistas queremos evitar que el incremento de la temperatura media global del planeta supere los 2 °C respecto a los niveles preindustriales y defenderemos acometer esfuerzos adicionales para que el calentamiento global no supere los 1,5 °C. De la misma forma defendemos el compromiso de la UE y de sus Estados miembros de continuar en el Acuerdo de París, reconociendo la necesidad de que las emisiones globales toquen techo lo antes posible y asumiendo que esta tarea llevará más tiempo en países en desarrollo. En este sentido apoyamos las contribuciones al Fondo Verde para el Clima, dirigido a que países en vías de desarrollo reduzcan sus emisiones y aumentar la resistencia a las consecuencias del cambio climático. Para ello, los socialistas queremos mantener el objetivo de movilizar 100 000 millones de dólares al año en 2020 y ampliar esta medida hasta 2025.


  Javi López (S&D), por escrito. – Los socialistas españoles estamos a favor de la reducción de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero como primera medida urgente a adoptar para mitigar los devastadores efectos del cambio climático. Tras el anuncio de la retirada de los Estados Unidos del Acuerdo de París, la Unión Europea ha de liderar el proceso y redoblar sus esfuerzos como región referente a seguir. Los socialistas queremos evitar que el incremento de la temperatura media global del planeta supere los 2 °C respecto a los niveles preindustriales y defenderemos acometer esfuerzos adicionales para que el calentamiento global no supere los 1,5 °C. De la misma forma defendemos el compromiso de la UE y de sus Estados miembros de continuar en el Acuerdo de París, reconociendo la necesidad de que las emisiones globales toquen techo lo antes posible y asumiendo que esta tarea llevará más tiempo en países en desarrollo. En este sentido apoyamos las contribuciones al Fondo Verde para el Clima, dirigido a que países en vías de desarrollo reduzcan sus emisiones y aumentar la resistencia a las consecuencias del cambio climático. Para ello, los socialistas queremos mantener el objetivo de movilizar 100 000 millones de dólares al año en 2020 y ampliar esta medida hasta 2025.


  József Nagy (PPE), írásban. –Húsz hosszú éven keresztül folytak a tárgyalások a párizsi egyezményről. Végül egy történelmi megállapodás született, amelyben a nemzetközi közösség elkötelezte magát az éghajlatváltozás okainak és következményeinek kezelése mellett. A párizsi egyezmény erős szövetséget képvisel a fejlődő és fejlett országok között, hiszen a világon mindössze két állam nem járult hozzá aláírásával, mégpedig Szíria és Nicaragua. Éppen ezért volt mindannyiunk számára megdöbbentő Trump elnök bejelentése, miszerint az Amerikai Egyesült Államok nem kíván tovább a párizsi egyezmény részese maradni. A vitán a Marshall-szigetek elnöke, Hilda Heine is részt vett, így első kézből hallottunk az éghajlatváltozás által jelentett fenyegetésekről és az ellenük való mindennapi küzdelemről.

Olyankor tudatosítjuk csak igazán, hogy milyen szerencsés is a földrajzi elhelyezkedésünk, amikor a 7 hónapos aszály komoly következményeire, egy tájfun elsöprő erejére vagy a dagály miatt otthon nélkül maradt emberekre gondolunk. A Marshall-szigeteknek pedig ezek közül minden évre jutott egy. Az Európai Uniónak vezető szerepet kell vállalnia a párizsi egyezményben kitűzött célok teljesítése érdekében azért, hogy a következő generációnak egy egészséges bolygót adhassunk át. A megállapodás hosszú távon hozzájárul a gazdasági fejlődéshez és a társadalom jólétéhez is. A kötelezettségekre pedig akár lehetőségekként is tekinthetünk, melyek ambiciózus, modern technológiai vívmányok fejlesztésére ösztönzik a tagállamokat.


  Indrek Tarand (Verts/ALE), in writing. – Although President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the COP 21 Climate agreement baffled European countries and other signatories of the agreement, I believe that in the future, when we look back, we can thank President Trump, whose actions have pushed Europe and the rest of the world more together, in order to take climate change much more seriously and to actually take concrete steps to enforce agreements. We have even seen how several US states have gone against President Trump’s decisions, by pledging to fulfil COP 21 commitments voluntarily. We welcome such action, as this is a great example of how unified work of individuals and businesses at a grass-roots level can have an effect on important matters, even if the leaders of the country think otherwise. Climate change is a global challenge, and we need to tackle it, even if we are met with resistance.


  Elena Valenciano (S&D), por escrito. – Los socialistas españoles estamos a favor de la reducción de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero como primera medida urgente a adoptar para mitigar los devastadores efectos del cambio climático. Tras el anuncio de la retirada de los Estados Unidos del Acuerdo de París, la Unión Europea ha de liderar el proceso y redoblar sus esfuerzos como región referente a seguir. Los socialistas queremos evitar que el incremento de la temperatura media global del planeta supere los 2 °C respecto a los niveles preindustriales y defenderemos acometer esfuerzos adicionales para que el calentamiento global no supere los 1,5 °C. De la misma forma defendemos el compromiso de la UE y de sus Estados miembros de continuar en el Acuerdo de París, reconociendo la necesidad de que las emisiones globales toquen techo lo antes posible y asumiendo que esta tarea llevará más tiempo en países en desarrollo. En este sentido apoyamos las contribuciones al Fondo Verde para el Clima, dirigido a que países en vías de desarrollo reduzcan sus emisiones y aumentar la resistencia a las consecuencias del cambio climático. Para ello, los socialistas queremos mantener el objetivo de movilizar 100 000 millones de dólares al año en 2020 y ampliar esta medida hasta 2025.


(The sitting was suspended for a few moments)




7. Iškilmingas posėdis - Côte d'Ivoire
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

  Le Président. – Monsieur le Président de la République, soyez le bienvenu au Parlement européen.

C’est un honneur et un plaisir pour moi de vous recevoir aujourd’hui à Strasbourg.

Il y a un mois, cher Président, nous recevions M. Moussa Faki Mahamat, le président de la commission de l’Union africaine. Votre venue s’inscrit donc dans le cadre du rapprochement et du renforcement de notre partenariat avec, d’une part, l’Union africaine et, de l’autre, les États membres qui la composent.

Je tiens à saluer le travail extraordinaire que vous avez effectué dans votre pays: sortir d’une guerre civile, renforcer les institutions et l’État de droit, redresser, dynamiser et diversifier l’économie en créant une base industrielle, et améliorer les indicateurs sociaux.

La Côte d’Ivoire se classe parmi les économies à fort taux de croissance dans le monde, avec une estimation de 8 % cette année. Elle peut et doit servir d’exemple à d’autres pays du continent africain, en particulier en Afrique de l’Ouest. Cependant, beaucoup de choses restent à faire: la lutte contre la pauvreté, les infrastructures, l’éducation, la santé, l’accès à l’eau potable ou encore à l’électricité.

Sachez que nous n’oublions pas que la Côte d’Ivoire, tout comme l’Europe, a été frappée par des attaques terroristes, notamment à Grand-Bassam. Il s’agit là d’un fléau que nous ne pourrons pas résoudre seuls. Nous devons coopérer dans ce domaine, avec l’aide d’organisations régionales, comme la Cedeao ou l’Union africaine.

L’Europe et l’Afrique partagent le même défi également sur la gestion des flux migratoires. Il faut agir à la racine du problème en investissant plus et mieux dans le cadre d’une vraie diplomatie économique pour créer croissance et emploi.

La venue ce matin de la présidente de la République des Îles Marshall nous rappelle l’importance d’agir pour le développement durable et le climat. La Côte d’Ivoire subit aussi les effets du changement climatique, avec la sécheresse, des inondations ou encore l’érosion côtière. De plus, la jeunesse et l’emploi, la paix, la sécurité, les droits de l’homme ou encore la gestion des crises sont des domaines concrets que nous traiterons sans doute à la fin du mois de novembre dans votre pays, à Abidjan, lors du sommet Afrique-Union européenne.

Monsieur le Président, votre présence ici est très importante et nous nous réjouissons de vous compter parmi nous, aujourd’hui. Sachez, Monsieur le Président, que nous voulons regarder l’Afrique avec des lunettes africaines et non pas européennes.

Voilà pourquoi notre coopération est et sera cruciale pour la paix, pour la stabilité, pour l’engagement contre le terrorisme, contre l’immigration illégale et contre le changement climatique.

Monsieur le Président, encore une fois, un grand merci.



  Alassane Ouattara, Président de la République de Côte d’Ivoire. – Monsieur le Président du Parlement européen, cher Antonio Tajani, Mesdames et Messieurs les Députés européens, je voudrais tout d’abord vous remercier pour l’occasion que vous me donnez de prendre la parole, ce matin, devant le Parlement européen réuni en séance plénière.

C’est un honneur et un privilège pour moi, pour mon pays, d’être ici car, vous qui êtes les représentants élus de plus de 500 millions de citoyens européens, vous constituez, en raison de votre diversité culturelle, de vos engagements politiques ainsi que de votre grande expérience, un auditoire exceptionnel et prestigieux.

Je souhaiterais donc saisir cette occasion d’aborder avec vous les grands défis que l’Afrique doit relever au cours des prochaines décennies. Je vous parlerai ensuite de mon pays, la Côte d’Ivoire, qui est engagée sur le chemin de l’émergence, comme vous le savez.

Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les Députés, le 25 mars 2017, l’Union européenne a célébré, dans la Ville éternelle, le soixantième anniversaire de la signature des traités de Rome. Ces traités ont tracé les sillons d’une solidarité agissante entre des nations autrefois en guerre.

Les pères fondateurs du traité de Rome ont eu l’idée ingénieuse de mettre ensemble les ressources et les intelligences au service de l’édification d’un espace de paix, de sécurité et de prospérité partagées. L’Europe constitue en cela une source d’inspiration pour le monde, et plus particulièrement pour le continent africain.

Au moment où l’on observe, hélas, un repli identitaire dans plusieurs régions du monde, je suis convaincu qu’ici, dans cette noble assemblée, vous saurez puiser en vous l’énergie nécessaire à la poursuite de l’esprit de solidarité, d’ouverture et de paix prôné par vos devanciers.

Cette conviction se fonde sur le fait que depuis sa création, l’Union européenne n’a cessé de communiquer à l’humanité sa foi inébranlable en un monde de paix, de stabilité et de progrès. Le prix Nobel de la paix, qui vous a été décerné en 2012, en est bien sûr une remarquable illustration.

Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, l’avenir de l’humanité dépendra des politiques, des actes et des programmes que nous définirons ensemble, dans nos pays, nos continents et à l’échelle mondiale. En d’autres termes, le monde deviendra ce que nous voulons qu’il soit.

À cet égard, je voudrais relever aujourd’hui trois défis majeurs qui auront un impact important sur l’avenir de notre planète et sur les relations entre l’Europe et l’Afrique. Je sais que le président de la Commission, M. Juncker, a évoqué avec vous la question de la paix et de la sécurité, donc je ne voudrais pas le répéter.

Les trois défis dont je voudrais parler concernent le réchauffement climatique, les flux migratoires et l’expansion démographique.

Je commencerai par le réchauffement climatique.

Le 12 décembre 2015, les dirigeants du monde se sont réunis à Paris pour adopter un accord historique sur le climat. Cet accord, qui a été ratifié par la très grande majorité des États, y compris la Côte d’Ivoire (qui a d’ailleurs déjà déposé les instruments de ratification à l’ONU), constitue pour notre planète une occasion unique de contenir le réchauffement climatique dans des limites raisonnables.

Aujourd’hui plus que jamais, il est urgent de mettre en œuvre cet accord, afin que les effets néfastes du réchauffement climatique sur l’homme et l’écosystème soient maîtrisés.

À cet égard, l’Europe, comme cela a toujours été le cas face à de grands enjeux mondiaux, peut montrer la voie.

L’Europe doit, en particulier, continuer à mobiliser les opinions, les financements et les technologies indispensables à la transition énergétique afin que l’accord de Paris soit irréversible. Oui, l’accord de Paris nous a donné une occasion historique, nous devons maintenant en faire une réalité.

Aujourd’hui, au moment où je vous parle, des pluies diluviennes, qui sont les conséquences des perturbations climatiques, font des dégâts importants dans plusieurs régions de mon pays.

De même, de nombreuses régions en Afrique font face à des vagues de sécheresse d’une ampleur inouïe, qui causent la mort et la désolation au sein de plusieurs communautés et provoquent des déplacements massifs de populations.

Mesdames et Messieurs les Députés, je voudrais donc vous encourager à continuer de faire du climat une priorité, afin que s’arrêtent les tragédies que nous observons de par le monde.

Il existe en effet plusieurs possibilités de continuer de tracer les chemins vers une croissance verte qui utilise peu de CO2. Ces possibilités incluent une gestion rationnelle des ressources naturelles et des écosystèmes tout en tirant parti de leur valeur pour le développement économique.

Nous devons, ensemble, encourager la résilience au sein des communautés en réduisant toutes les formes de discrimination, notamment celles à l’égard des femmes.

Nous devons tous œuvrer à mettre en place des politiques de redistribution plus efficace et plus équitable de la richesse.

Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, le second défi que je voudrais aborder et auquel notre planète est confrontée est celui des flux migratoires non régulés et de l’emploi des jeunes.

Lors du sommet de La Valette sur la migration en novembre 2015, j’ai indiqué aux chefs d’État participants que les événements dramatiques qui causent la mort de milliers de personnes dans les eaux de la Méditerranée et dans le Sahel nécessitent davantage de solidarité et de concertation entre l’Europe et l’Afrique.

Pour ce faire, nous devons agir dans la durée et sur l’ensemble des facteurs à l’origine de cette situation.

À cet égard, il est urgent de ramener la paix et la sécurité dans la bande sahélo-saharienne et d’encourager une solution politique consensuelle au conflit en Libye.

Toutefois, il faut reconnaître que les conflits et la criminalité organisée n’expliquent pas à eux seuls les mouvements migratoires vers l’Europe constatés au cours de ces dernières années. À ces facteurs, il faut ajouter la pauvreté, je dirais même la misère, le chômage et le déficit de démocratie dans de nombreux pays.

C’est pourquoi, le lundi 12 juin 2017, lors de la conférence du G20 à Berlin sur un partenariat avec l’Afrique, nous avons suggéré la mise en place d’un plan qui aurait pour objectif de faciliter des investissements massifs en Afrique en vue de créer des emplois, notamment pour les jeunes. Cela contribuera à la réduction des flux migratoires illégaux vers l’Europe. Compte tenu de l’engagement de la chancelière allemande pour cette noble cause et de l’importance de cette perspective, beaucoup d’entre nous avons suggéré que ce plan puisse s’appeler le «plan Merkel».

Nous avons cependant fait remarquer que les mouvements migratoires intra-africains sont nettement supérieurs, en nombre, à ceux que l’on observe entre l’Afrique et l’Europe.

À titre d’exemple, la Côte d’Ivoire accueille près de 5,5 millions de ressortissants étrangers sur son territoire, soit une proportion de 26 % de sa population totale d’environ 24 millions d’habitants. Les transferts de cette diaspora africaine vers ses pays d’origine représentent chaque année près de 1 % du PIB de la Côte d’Ivoire. C’est dire à quel point l’hospitalité et la générosité ivoiriennes apportent une bonne contribution au développement des pays voisins.


Mon pays continuera de faire preuve de solidarité envers toutes ces populations. Il est donc important qu’il soit soutenu afin qu’il continue à créer des emplois lui permettant de demeurer une terre d’accueil et d’hospitalité.

Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, cette jeunesse africaine qui est tentée par l’aventure européenne est souvent victime de réseaux mafieux et d’organisations terroristes qui se nourrissent de leur vulnérabilité et de leurs frustrations. Nous devons donc agir envers ces jeunes en les éduquant, en les informant et en leur faisant prendre conscience qu’ils sont mieux en Afrique qu’ailleurs. Ils doivent également être traités dans le respect de leur dignité.

Nous devons garder en mémoire l’article premier de la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme, adoptée par l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies le 10 décembre 1948 à Paris, au Palais de Chaillot, je cite: «Tous les êtres humains naissent libres et égaux en dignité et en droit. Ils sont doués de raison et de conscience et doivent agir les uns envers les autres dans un esprit de fraternité.»

C’est dans cet état d’esprit d’ouverture à la coopération sur de nombreuses questions d’intérêt mondial que la Côte d’Ivoire exercera son mandat au sein du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies pour la période 2018-2019. À ce propos, Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, je voudrais remercier tous vos pays pour le soutien massif que vous nous avez apporté à l’occasion de notre élection au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies. Ce mandat, qui débutera le 1er janvier prochain, sera placé sous le signe de la paix, que les Ivoiriens ont érigée en seconde religion.

Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, le dernier défi que je voudrais évoquer est celui de l’expansion démographique.

Selon les projections de la Division de la population de l’ONU, la population mondiale, qui est d’environ 7,4 milliards d’individus actuellement, dont 1,2 milliard d’Africains, dépasserait 10 milliards en 2056.

Dans cet ensemble, l’Afrique connaîtra la croissance la plus forte, qui représentera 50 % de la croissance démographique mondiale d’ici 2050. Ainsi, l’Afrique pourra rattraper la population des régions les plus développées, telles que l’Amérique du Nord et l’Europe. Le Nigeria deviendra, en 2050, le cinquième pays le plus peuplé, devant le Brésil, les États-Unis, l’Indonésie et le Pakistan, et la République démocratique du Congo et l’Éthiopie remplaceront la Russie et le Mexique dans la liste des dix pays les plus peuplés au monde. C’est dire quelle sera la place de ces trois grands pays au niveau mondial dans quelques décennies.

Cette forte croissance sera encore plus prononcée en ce qui concerne les populations en âge de travailler. En effet, la population active en Afrique subsaharienne passera de 518 millions de personnes aujourd’hui à 1,3 milliard en 2050.

Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, l’Afrique, berceau de l’humanité, continuera, paradoxalement, d’être la région la plus jeune du monde jusqu’à la fin de ce siècle. Ce constat interpelle tous les dirigeants africains, mais aussi les dirigeants du monde entier. En effet, la stabilité de l’Afrique, mais aussi celle du reste du monde, dépendra de la manière dont sera traitée la question de la jeunesse au cours des prochaines décennies.

La prise en compte de l’expansion démographique dans les programmes de développement nécessitera de mettre un accent particulier sur le capital humain, notamment l’éducation, la santé et la formation professionnelle. Des investissements massifs devront par ailleurs être réalisés dans les infrastructures, y compris les grands projets sous-régionaux, les transports, l’électricité, l’éducation et la santé.

Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, je voudrais à présent vous parler des progrès accomplis par mon pays, la Côte d’Ivoire, qui, après plus d’une décennie de crise, est en paix aujourd’hui. Elle a aussi renoué avec la croissance économique.

Ces progrès sont d’abord le résultat de la mobilisation et de la détermination des Ivoiriens. Ils ont aussi été rendus possibles par l’importante contribution technique et financière de nos partenaires dans l’Union européenne, notamment dans le domaine de la gouvernance, de l’agriculture et de l’énergie.

Je voudrais donc saisir cette occasion de saluer et de remercier chaleureusement l’Union européenne pour son accompagnement et son soutien. Le partenariat avec la communauté internationale, et singulièrement l’Union européenne, a permis à la Côte d’Ivoire de réaliser des performances exceptionnelles. Au cours des six dernières années, le taux de croissance moyen de l’économie a été de 9 % par an. Les projections pour la période 2017-2020 s’établissent à environ 7 à 8 % par an. Le taux d’inflation a été contenu au-dessous de 2 % grâce à l’arrimage à l’euro, et le déficit budgétaire a été maîtrisé à environ 3 % du PIB.

Cette année, évidemment, la situation est un peu différente, en raison de la baisse draconienne, de près de 40 % depuis le début de l’année, du prix du cacao, dont nous sommes le premier producteur mondial. Néanmoins, nous continuerons de faire des efforts pour maîtriser le cadrage macroéconomique.

La Côte d’Ivoire demeure le premier producteur mondial de cacao et d’anacarde. Nous sommes également le premier producteur africain d’huile de palme et de caoutchouc.

La Côte d’Ivoire est l’un des premiers réformateurs dans le classement «Doing Business» de la Banque mondiale. Dans le domaine de l’énergie, la Côte d’Ivoire est en voie de devenir un hub énergétique en Afrique de l’Ouest, avec une capacité de 2 000 MW en 2016, qui passera à 4 000 MW en 2020.

Aujourd’hui, la Côte d’Ivoire dispose de l’un des réseaux d’infrastructures les plus denses et les plus diversifiés en Afrique, grâce à ses routes, ports et aéroports.

Enfin, la Côte d’Ivoire a fait des progrès notables dans le domaine de la réforme de la sécurité, y compris dans le désarmement, la démobilisation et la réintégration des anciens combattants, programme auquel l’Union européenne a contribué avec succès. Les récents événements ne remettent pas en cause cette bonne évolution car, aujourd’hui, l’indice de sécurité est au même niveau qu’à Genève ou à New York.

Ces réformes vont se poursuivre et s’intensifier afin de doter la Côte d’Ivoire de forces de défense et de sécurité qui pourront contribuer aux opérations de maintien de la paix.

Monsieur le Président, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, à quelques années de l’expiration, en 2020, de l’accord de partenariat de Cotonou et au moment où nous devons réfléchir à un nouvel accord entre l’Afrique et l’Europe, je voudrais suggérer quelques idées qui s’inspirent des relations exemplaires que la Côte d’Ivoire a entretenues avec l’Union européenne.

Ces relations doivent être franches, basées sur la confiance mutuelle et, bien évidemment, sur l’appropriation nationale. Elles doivent faire appel à des instruments de financement flexibles et tenir compte des mécanismes nationaux de gestion et de contrôle, qui pourraient être renforcés si cela est nécessaire. Bien entendu, nous aurons l’occasion d’aborder plus en profondeur ces questions d’une grande importance pour mon pays.

Pour terminer, je voudrais inviter tous les pays que vous représentez à prendre part au prochain sommet Union européenne-Afrique, qui se tiendra en novembre prochain à Abidjan. Cette importante rencontre, qui se déroulera dans la pure tradition d’hospitalité ivoirienne, sera l’occasion d’évoquer la coopération internationale nécessaire pour répondre aux nouveaux défis auxquels l’humanité est confrontée, notamment les questions liées à la jeunesse et au développement.

Monsieur le Président, je voudrais vous remercier à nouveau. Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, je vous dis un grand merci, et je remercie M. le Président Antonio Tajani pour son invitation.

Je suis impressionné par votre accueil chaleureux et par votre participation importante, qui m’ont donné l’occasion de vous présenter les défis auxquels nous faisons face, non seulement en Côte d’Ivoire, mais aussi dans tout le continent africain, et de vous parler de l’évolution de la Côte d’Ivoire.

Je vous remercie. Merci à chacune et à chacun de vous.



  Le Président. – Merci beaucoup, Monsieur le Président, pour votre discours.

Le Parlement européen sera un protagoniste du dialogue avec votre pays et avec l’Afrique.

Nous partageons les mêmes défis: chômage des jeunes, lutte contre le terrorisme, contre l’immigration illégale et contre le changement climatique.

Vous avez souligné l’importance de la croissance démographique. Voilà pourquoi l’Europe doit s’engager beaucoup plus chez vous si nous voulons résoudre nos problèmes et vous aider, en travaillant ensemble pour essayer de réduire le chômage et donner un espoir à tous les jeunes Africains. Nous avons le devoir d’empêcher que le rêve des jeunes Africains de vivre chez eux soit détruit à cause de différents problèmes.

Nous voulons être à vos côtés à tous, et le Parlement jouera un rôle très important dans ce domaine.

Merci encore une fois d’être ici avec nous. Vous avez ici des amis, et notre porte vous sera toujours ouverte.




  Beatrix von Storch (EFDD). – Herr Präsident! Ich beziehe mich auf Artikel 31 der Geschäftsordnung. Sie haben am Montag im Präsidium einen Bericht diskutiert, der das Gebäude des Parlamentes in Brüssel für so marode und nicht mehr terrorsicher hält, dass das Gebäude möglicherweise abgerissen werden soll. Dieser Bericht liegt vielen Zeitungen vor – nur uns Abgeordneten nicht.

Ich will gar nicht sagen, dass ich gegen den Abriss des Gebäudes bin, aber ich finde, als Mitglied dieses Hauses haben wir einen Anspruch, auch diesen Bericht einzusehen.


8. Balsuoti skirtas laikas
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

  Πρόεδρος. – Το επόμενο σημείο στην ημερήσια διάταξη είναι η Ώρα των ψηφοφοριών.


8.1. Išmetamų šiltnamio efektą sukeliančių dujų metinio kiekio sumažinimas siekiant vykdyti įsipareigojimus pagal Paryžiaus susitarimą (A8-0208/2017 - Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy) (balsavimas)

- Μετά από την ψηφοφορία:


  Adina-Ioana Vălean (Chair of the ENVI committee). – Mr President, I would like to ask colleagues to refer the matter back to the Committee for starting the interinstitutional negotiations. This is based on Rule 59(4.4).


(εγκρίνεται αίτημα αναπομπής σε επιτροπή)


8.2. Prašymas atšaukti Parlamento nario Rolando Pakso imunitetą (Darbo tvarkos taisyklių 150 straipsnis) (balsavimas)

8.3. Prašymas atšaukti Parlamento narės Mylène Troszczynski imunitetą (Darbo tvarkos taisyklių 150 straipsnis) (balsavimas)

8.4. Prašymas atšaukti Parlamento nario Jeano-Marie Le Peno (Jean-Marie Le Pen) imunitetą (Darbo tvarkos taisyklių 150 straipsnis) (balsavimas)

8.5. Prieštaravimas deleguotajam aktui: žalinimo išmoka (balsavimas)

8.6. Poreikis parengti ES strategiją siekiant pašalinti vyrų ir moterų pensijų skirtumą ir jo išvengti (A8-0197/2017 - Constance Le Grip) (balsavimas)

8.7. 2016 m. Komisijos ataskaita dėl Serbijos (A8-0063/2017 - David McAllister) (balsavimas)

8.8. 2016 m. Komisijos ataskaita dėl Kosovo (A8-0062/2017 - Ulrike Lunacek) (balsavimas)

8.9. 2016 m. ataskaita dėl buvusiosios Jugoslavijos Respublikos Makedonijos (A8-0055/2017 - Ivo Vajgl) (balsavimas)

8.10. Padėtis Kongo Demokratinėje Respublikoje (RC-B8-0397/2017, B8-0397/2017, B8-0398/2017, B8-0399/2017, B8-0400/2017, B8-0401/2017, B8-0402/2017) (balsavimas)

8.11. Tvarumo susitarimo įgyvendinimo padėtis Bangladeše (B8-0396/2017) (balsavimas)

  Πρόεδρος. – Η Ώρα των ψηφοφοριών έληξε.


9. Paaiškinimai dėl balsavimo
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

9.1. Išmetamų šiltnamio efektą sukeliančių dujų metinio kiekio sumažinimas siekiant vykdyti įsipareigojimus pagal Paryžiaus susitarimą (A8-0208/2017 - Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

Προφορικές αιτιολογήσεις ψήφου


  Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE). – Mr President, I fully support the rapporteur’s stance on amending the Commission’s proposals on climate action regulation implementing the Paris Agreement. The amended proposal focuses on long—term predictability and energy efficiency, and aims to provide sufficient flexibility for the Member States.

You know that, to achieve a proper implementation of the Paris climate change agreement, it is very important to think beyond the 2030 target, which is precisely what the amended regulation proposes by setting out a long-term objective towards at least 80 % greenhouse gas emissions reductions by 2050.

Although, I would be glad to see a bit more flexibility in terms of encouraging Member States’ contribution to climate action in terms of agriculture and forestry activities.


  Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Cóż, żyjemy w czasach, w których być może pierwszy raz w historii ludzkości decydujemy nie tylko o własnym losie, ale o losie, przyszłości nie tylko naszych dzieci czy wnuków, ale ludzi, którzy będą żyli za pięćdziesiąt czy sto lat na Ziemi. Niestety nie wszystkie kraje europejskie podzielają ten pogląd, co gorsza nie wszystkie kraje na świecie – w tym, wiemy od niedawna, także Stany Zjednoczone. Jest to natomiast państwo, które odpowiada za 15 % emisji CO2 w skali globu, zajmuje niechlubne drugie miejsce po Chinach, które emitują 30 % CO2. W sytuacji, w której się znaleźliśmy, powinniśmy więc chyba przemyśleć jeszcze raz strategię dochodzenia do celów z porozumienia paryskiego.


  Daniel Hannan (ECR). – Mr President, I am in favour of the Paris Agreement. I cannot help noticing the sudden change in tone, though, of its other supporters. A year ago, they were telling us that it was a bare minimum, that it was inadequate, and suddenly, the moment Donald Trump pulled out, it became central to the survival of human civilization. But we will leave that to one side. It seems to me sensible to have countries working voluntarily on this kind of issue.

What is not sensible is to defend it – as so many in this House have been doing – as an economic project, the idea that it is all about creating green jobs and so on. To see what is wrong with that argument, consider Frédéric Bastiat’s example of the broken glass. If somebody went round smashing windows, that would – on exactly the same argument – create lots of jobs, because there would be lots of jobs needed for glaziers, people to drive the new glass, people to install them and all the rest of it; but of course we can all see that we would still be worse off. If we are prepared to pay an economic price, fine – that is a perfectly valid convincing argument. But for heaven’s sake, let us not insult people’s intelligence by claiming that this is somehow going to boost global growth.


  Mairead McGuinness (PPE). – Mr President, what we are talking about is the contribution that agriculture, transport and construction have to make to climate change. The issue is how much of a contribution can be made, particularly by agriculture, because the Council conclusions of 2014 recognise the low mitigation potential of the sector and, indeed, the Paris Agreement talks about the food security issue and the vulnerability of agriculture to the adverse impacts of climate change.

I was concerned about the targets that Ireland, in particular, would have to reach under this agreement, but I supported the report because of the overall thrust of its direction: that all sectors have to contribute. I count on the negotiations to take out the most difficult aspects of this from an Irish point of view, so that we can keep forging ahead with a sustainable food supply chain, supplying our EU customers and global customers.


  Deirdre Clune (PPE). – Mr President, it is important that we meet the Paris objectives, particularly in light of the statements recently by President Trump, and I do not think anybody disputes our commitment under the Paris Agreement to binding annual greenhouse gas emissions and how we are going to reduce those. As a member of the Committee on Transport and Tourism, I was involved on behalf of the PPE in preparing our input into today’s important vote. But I think we should take note of the different positions that Member States have, the different structures of their economies and their varying capacity to meet those targets. I therefore supported amendments, that unfortunately were not accepted, seeking to ensure we have a more flexible and less punitive approach towards the greenhouse gas emissions reductions, and I acknowledge the many difficulties that many countries face after the financial crisis. The agricultural sector is particularly sensitive for Ireland and we have raised this objection today, but overall I support the report and its implementation as we aim to meet our Paris climate change objectives.


  Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Ja głosowałam przeciwko przyjęciu sprawozdania dotyczącego sektorów nieobjętych ETS, ponieważ konsekwencją przyjęcia proponowanych regulacji będzie pogłębienie dysproporcji rozwojowych pomiędzy państwami członkowskimi. Proponowane rozwiązania promują państwa bogatsze poprzez niesprawiedliwy przydział jednostek rocznych limitów emisji. Ponadto wyznaczenie punktu odniesienia na lata 2016–2018 jest niekorzystne dla państw biedniejszych. Aby zachować ciągłość polityki, konieczne jest wyznaczenie poziomu emisji, który rozpocznie się z końcem obecnego okresu, a więc w 2020 r.

Nie zgadzam się także z podniesieniem poziomu ambicji redukcyjnych poprzez wyznaczanie trajektorii dla ich obniżania od 2018 r. Jeśli zaś chodzi o proponowaną rezerwę dla mniej zamożnych państw członkowskich, to w minimalnym stopniu zrekompensuje ona ich dodatkowy wysiłek. Zalecam powrót do fundamentu polityki klimatycznej, jakim powinno być porozumienie paryskie.


  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, trebuie să spun că sunt lucruri bune în raport, amendamente pe care le-am votat, așa cum este de exemplu articolul 7 legat de asigurarea de stimulente pentru IMM-uri și pentru exploatații agricole de dimensiuni mici. Aș fi vrut să susțin acest raport în totalitate, dar trebuie să fim realiști: sunt foarte multe lucruri în raport care vor afecta în principal statele mai mici și cele mai puțin dezvoltate, așa cum sunt articole în care se prevăd exemplu introducerea de acte delegate suplimentare și nu știm ce vor conține aceste acte delegate. Cred că vor avea de suferit cetățenii care au cea mai mare nevoie de susținere.

Reducerea de emisii de gaze este o necesitate, dar țintele propuse trebuie să fie raționale și în concordanță cu posibilitățile fiecărui stat, pentru că și așa avem o criză a locurilor de muncă, și așa avem probleme cu disparități regionale și cu venituri pe cap de locuitor foarte diferite. Așadar, m-am abținut și sper ca acest raport să fie îmbunătățit, pentru că da, avem nevoie de o reducere de emisii, dar avem nevoie și de locuri de muncă și de venituri pe cap de locuitor mai mari.


  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Mr President, like my colleagues, I am totally in favour of the Paris Agreement and EU targets for 2030. However, we have a huge difficulty with the 2020 target setting, which was implemented here in Parliament. For that reason, I tabled a split vote on that. It means that rather than starting on actual emissions, we had to start with a target which was not reachable, was not practical and which will now probably cost the Irish taxpayer EUR 1 billion to purchase compliance. We are starting a non-compliance method.

This is not fair to us, and we have to make a stand on it and ensure that this is rectified in due course. It was only in the last minute, I think, that somehow the rapporteurs etc. got this point where Ireland and other countries are concerned. Starting in a non-compliant way, like we are, is like starting a 100 metres race where one person has to start 20 metres behind. It makes no sense, it is not fair, and it has to be amended. That is our biggest issue; we want that message to get across; we are totally in favour of reaching the 2020 targets otherwise.


  Marian Harkin (ALDE). – Mr President, it was a very difficult decision for me to abstain on this report and not to support it, because it contains many good proposals on the reduction of greenhouse gases. However, what has happened here is that we have let the best become the enemy of the good, in particular by setting a starting date of 2018 and not 2020, as proposed by the European Commission. The starting point is critical, and pushing it back to 2018 could, as my colleague Seán Kelly has said, ensure an additional liability of EUR 1 billion for Ireland, and I simply could not support that proposal, because it is a bad proposal. I think what we have done here is to run counter to the Paris Agreement and the October 2014 Agreement, which recognised the low mitigation potential of agriculture and that food production and food security are important elements in any proposal on climate change. I hope that in the negotiations the start date will be moved back to 2020 and we can get a good overall outcome.


  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Dovolte, abych vysvětlila, proč jsem v konečném hlasování podpořila stanovisko EP k návrhu nařízení o závazném každoročním snižování emisí skleníkových plynů.

Myslím, že je to důležitý signál EP právě v době, kdy Donald Trump ohlásil odstoupení Spojených států od Pařížské dohody. Tato legislativa vychází převážně z metodiky a principů nastavených předchozím rozhodnutím Rady a zároveň ze zkušeností získaných v minulém období. Jedná se také o určitá administrativní zjednodušení a posílení flexibility.

Já jsem hlasovala pro pozměňovací návrh tak, aby nebyl výchozí trajektorií pro snižování emisí rok 2018, což je návrh EP. Původní návrh Evropské komise byl rok 2021. Já souhlasím s výhradami, které zde přednesli kolegové z Irska, ale toto rozhodnutí může zvrátit Rada a doufám, že tak učiní.


  Peter Jahr (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Natürlich ist es wichtig und richtig, dass sich das Europäische Parlament zum Pariser Abkommen und zur Reduzierung der Treibhausgase bekennt – gerade in der jetzigen Zeit, wo sich die Vereinigten Staaten offensichtlich von dieser Vereinbarung wieder entfernen wollen. Trotzdem ist mir die Zustimmung nicht ganz leicht gefallen, und bei mir bleiben mindestens noch drei Wünsche offen.

Der erste Wunsch: Ich würde alle bitten, dass wir die europäische Landwirtschaft nicht als Problem, sondern als Lösung des Problems betrachten.

Zweitens wünsche ich mir bei allen unseren Beschlüssen eine globale Sichtweise. Es bringt überhaupt nichts, wenn wir in der Europäischen Union viele Verbesserungen erzielen und dann die schlimmen Dinge im Rest der Welt geschehen.

Und der dritte Wunsch: Natürlich sollten wir bei allen Dingen, die wir machen, darauf achten, dass es umsetzbar ist und auch unbürokratisch erfolgt, denn schlussendlich müssen es die Menschen und die mittelständischen Unternehmen dann auch anwenden können.


9.2. Poreikis parengti ES strategiją siekiant pašalinti vyrų ir moterų pensijų skirtumą ir jo išvengti (A8-0197/2017 - Constance Le Grip)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

Προφορικές αιτιολογήσεις ψήφου


  Jadwiga Wiśniewska (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! W Unii Europejskiej kobiety otrzymują średnio emerytury o 30 % niższe. Jest to spowodowane efektem skumulowania nierówności i barier. Tych barier, które na swoich ścieżkach zawodowych napotykają kobiety. Otrzymują one niższe wynagrodzenie za tę samą pracę, znacznie częściej niż mężczyźni podejmują pracę w niepełnym wymiarze czasu, korzystają z urlopów w związku z potrzebą łączenia życia zawodowego z życiem rodzinnym. Kobiety podejmują duży wysiłek społeczny, opiekując się dziećmi i członkami rodzin, co nie ma niestety ekonomicznego odzwierciedlenia w świadczeniach, które otrzymują. Kobiety nie mogą być ekonomicznie karane za pełnienie roli matki. Ich niedoceniony wkład w społeczeństwo ma wielką wartość. Dlatego zgadzam się, że istnieje pilna potrzeba podjęcia priorytetowych działań mających na celu wyeliminowanie luki emerytalnej. Uważam, że sprawozdanie było wyważone i jego zakres nadaje dobry kierunek zmian. Niestety znalazło się w nim kilka sprzecznych zapisów, dlatego wstrzymałam się od głosu.


  Urszula Krupa (ECR). – Panie Przewodniczący! Nie głosowałam za sprawozdaniem w sprawie potrzeby unijnej strategii mającej na celu wyeliminowanie różnic w emeryturach, gdyż Unia Europejska nie posiada kompetencji w dziedzinie krajowej polityki emerytalnej i powinna pozostawiać rodzicom wolność wyboru między życiem zawodowym a rodzinnym. Jednak wstrzymałam się od głosu z uwagi na problem dotyczący w szczególności matek, które rodzą i wychowują dzieci, co ma wpływ na wysokość ich emerytur. Stąd potrzeba wskazania państwom członkowskim kierunku wyjścia. Gdzie było to możliwe, składałam poprawki w celu zredukowania nierówności w wysokości emerytur, co w pewien sposób zostało w sprawozdaniu uwzględnione poprzez zachęcanie do wprowadzenia punktów składkowych oraz rent rodzinnych i wdowich jako wyrównania za określaną jako niewidoczna wartościową i nie do przecenienia działalność w postaci prac domowych i opieki nad członkami rodziny lub za formalne okresy opieki takie jak urlopy macierzyńskie.


  Tania González Peñas (GUE/NGL). – Señor presidente, me he abstenido en la votación de este informe porque no es posible prevenir y poner fin a la brecha de género en pensiones si no se atacan las causas profundas que están ayudando a incrementarla, como pueden ser las reformas que está proponiendo a la Comisión para debilitar los sistemas públicos de pensiones frente al segundo y tercer pilar, el incremento de la edad de jubilación y los años cotizados necesarios, o la actualización de la pensión vinculándola a la esperanza de vida y no al IPC.

Teníamos una oportunidad de oro con este informe. Sin embargo, la ponente, la señora Le Grip, decidió rechazar una buena parte de la opinión de la Comisión de Empleo, que hacía referencia a las causas estructurales de la discriminación laboral de la mujer que multiplica sus efectos llegada la edad de jubilación.

Al contrario, en lugar de analizar estas causas estructurales, el informe de la señora Le Grip pone un énfasis creciente en la importancia de las pensiones del segundo y tercer pilar o hace referencias negativas como, por ejemplo, que las mujeres viven más y se gasta, por lo tanto, más en ellas.

Este es el motivo por el que me he abstenido y considero que hay elementos fundamentales que están fuera del informe.


  Deirdre Clune (PPE). – Mr President, I supported the report on the need for an EU—wide strategy to end and prevent a gender pension gap against the background that we have of an ageing population and the gap that already exists in the labour market and wages between men and women. Women do need more financial security, particularly in their later years.

As we know, there is a wage gap of about 15% – or 14%, depending on the country – which manifests itself in terms of pension payments of 34%. So it needs to be addressed, and I am encouraged that the report manages to respect that there is a subsidiarity issue here but outlines a number of recommendations that need to be acted on. We need to look at statistical tools to clearly determine the reasons for the gap, focus on inequalities and the ability to make pension contributions and, of course, look at opportunities to create labour market conditions that are favourable for women to participate at work, also encouraging the Member States to look at repercussions and the way in which their pension systems are organised.

All in all, I think it is a balanced report, putting forward the need to ensure that we do have an EU strategy to address the gender pay gap.


  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, am susținut acest raport. Eu cred că este un raport important și, spre deosebire de ce spuneau unii colegi, faptul că este subsidiaritate, asta nu înseamnă că noi nu trebuie să fim preocupați, noi la nivel european. Raportul prevede foarte clar împărtășirea unor exemple de bună practică din alte țări.

Există decalaje, evident, între sistemul de pensii dintr-o țară și alta, dar aici vorbim de faptul că există decalaj între pensia femeilor și a bărbaților și s-a vorbit în raport despre cauză. De exemplu, faptul că femeile sunt mult mai adesea nevoite să-și întrerupă serviciul pentru creșterea copiilor și evident că atunci cotizația pentru pensie este mai mică și pensia va fi mai mică. Cred foarte tare că este nevoie să avem un asemenea raport, mai ales întrucât că raportul propune statelor membre să mărească investițiile, să mărească investițiile pentru serviciile dedicate copiilor, pentru că, sigur că, dacă vor fi în fiecare țară locuri unde copiii pot să crească în siguranță, mamele pot să-și continue cariera. De aceea, am susținut raportul și felicit raportarea.


  Ramón Jáuregui Atondo (S&D). – Señor presidente. Creo que es muy importante que hayamos votado este informe hoy, porque realmente toca una de las materias más inaceptables de nuestro mundo laboral y de nuestro mundo social. Que, en el siglo XXI, haya una diferencia del 40 % en las pensiones entre hombres y mujeres es sencillamente indecente.

Pero el origen de este problema está en gran parte en los salarios. Es decir, que lo grave es que esta brecha no se va a resolver en poco tiempo si los salarios entre hombres y mujeres no se igualan. Y, desgraciadamente, esto no está siendo así. Todavía hoy la diferencia salarial entre hombres y mujeres asciende aproximadamente, como media, a un 25 %, y esto da lugar a que las carreras de cotización estén lastradas por esta diferencia.

Creo que el informe está bien. Podría haber sido mejor. El Grupo socialista ha presentado más enmiendas. Algunas no han sido aprobadas. Con todo, es un paso adelante que queremos destacar.


  Marian Harkin (ALDE). –Mr President, I, too, was happy to support this report on the gender pension gap. In particular, I support the call for the Commission to include pension reforms in the country-specific recommendations, and these reforms should include measures that relate to women’s participation in the workforce: work—life balance and the care of children and dependants, because that will help to reduce the gender pension gap. The Commission’s own proposals on work-life balance, which include a directive on carers’ leave, on parental leave, and also on flexibility in the workplace, will help to ensure work-life balance, and that in turn will help to narrow the gender pay gap and the gender pension gap, which stand at approximately 14% and 34% respectively in Ireland. Crucially, I also support the need for measures to ensure that women’s pay and entitlements, including pensions, are in line with the principle of equal pay for equal work or work of equal value for men and women. That taken with the work-life balance, I think will help to make significant inroads into the gender pension gap.


9.3. 2016 m. Komisijos ataskaita dėl Serbijos (A8-0063/2017 - David McAllister)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

Προφορικές αιτιολογήσεις ψήφου


  Petras Auštrevičius (ALDE). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this report, and we can agree that Serbia, as an aspiring country to EU membership, has been committed towards the continuous reform process necessary for successful integration. Serbia has shown progress in terms of economic reforms and institutional reforms by continuing to implement the Stabilisation and Association Agreement.

However, there is still a lot to be done in terms of tackling corruption, ensuring judiciary independence and freedom of media and improving Serbia’s relations with all its neighbours, as well as establishing a properly functioning legal framework for the protection of the minorities in the country.

Moreover, I fully support the call on Serbia to take serious steps to align its foreign policy to the EU line, and In have serious questions on the real aims behind the so—called Slavic Brotherhood and whom exactly this brotherhood is directed against.


  Krisztina Morvai (NI). – Elnök Úr! Kedves délvidéki magyar testvéreink! Belekerült azért a szerbiai országjelentésbe néhány nagyon fontos és kedvező rendelkezés. Követelem azonban, hogy az Európai Unió ezeknek a végrehajtását folyamatosan ellenőrizze, és ellenőrizze persze a magyar kormány, mint anyaország is, és a délvidéki magyar közösség is.

Mikről van itt szó? Például, és szeretném, hogyha röpcéduláktól kezdve, Facebookon át, akár hangosbemondókig, a nyolcvan százalékban magyar Zentán terjesztenék ezeket a rendelkezéseket és felszólításokat. A nemzeti kisebbségek jogai és ezek védelme, előremozdítása az uniós csatlakozás alapvető előfeltétele, mondja az EU. Ismételten felhívja Szerbiát, hogy biztosítsa a kisebbségek védelméről szóló jogszabályok egész országban történő következetes végrehajtását, különös figyelmet fordítva a nemzeti kisebbségekkel szembeni megkülönböztetésmentes bánásmódra, 24. cikk. Többek között az oktatással, nyelvhasználattal, igazságszolgáltatással... (Az elnök megvonta a szót a képviselőtől.)


  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Не подкрепих този доклад, защото представлява една нереална и изкривена представа на случващото се в района на Западните Балкани и намесата на Сърбия в него, и затова не мога да се съглася с такъв подход.

На първо място искам да отбележа, че сръбската политика на асимилация на националните общности и опитите за влияние и потискането им, включително на българското признато малцинство в района на Западните български покрайнини, продължава. Продължава да се бави и писането и издаването на български учебници съгласно споразумение, което Сърбия подписа, а издадените такива са пълни с грешки и фалшифицират исторически факти.

Не мога да не отбележа, че сръбската държава продължава да работи за фрагментирането и разделянето на всички национални общности и продължава да се намесва във вътрешните работи на съседни държави. Последният пример са изборите в Косово.

Наскоро се навършиха сто години от сръбския погром в Босилеградско. По поръчка на местните хора в Западните български покрайнини беше изработена паметна плоча с имената на жертвите. Властите в Босилеград и Враня не позволиха тя да бъде поставена.

За мен пътят на Република Сърбия минава през изчистване на отношенията на страната и добри отношения на първо място със съседите ѝ.


  Zoltán Balczó (NI). – Elnök Úr! A Vajdasági Magyar Diákszövetség évek óta harcol azért, hogy az Újvidéki Egyetem Jogtudományi Kara a hatályos szerbiai jogszabályoknak megfelelően, tegye lehetővé a magyar nyelven történő felvételit. Ennek ellenére az egyetem megtagadja ezt a törvényben biztosított lehetőséget. A diákszövetség azt kérte az illetékes bíróságtól, hogy mondja ki, jogellenes a magyar nyelvű felvételi tiltása. Az újvidéki legfelsőbb bíróság megdöbbentő módon a hatályos rendelet ellenére elutasította a keresetet.

A történtek ismét fölvetik a kérdést: vajon mennyiben igaz a folyamatosan hangoztatott állítás, mely szerint Szerbia példaértékű nemzetiségi politikát folytat? Ez a jelenlegi, említett eset azt bizonyítja, hogy ez nem felel meg a valóságnak. A jelentésnek nem az uniós csatlakozáshoz szükséges jogszabályok meglétét, hanem azok gyakorlati érvényesülését kellene vizsgálnia. Nem ezt tette, ezért nem támogattam az elfogadását.


  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Já si myslím, že vedle kritiky Srbska bychom měli také ocenit jeho obrovské úsilí a pokrok na cestě k demokratizaci. Měli bychom ocenit jeho přístup třeba k migrační krizi, kde Srbsko bylo platným členem a snažilo se udělat maximum pro to, aby se snažilo zajistit pro lidi, kteří přes něj proudili, třeba základní zdravotní péči, hygienu, bydlení nebo stravu.

Měli bychom ocenit také Srbsko, které se snaží právě i vycházet vstříc různým menšinám. Vy jste tu již zmiňovali maďarskou menšinu, ale já můžu zmínit českou menšinu a česká menšina dlouhodobě se necítí v Srbsku utlačována. Srbsko povoluje český rozhlas, povoluje češtinu a myslím si, že Srbsko má nakročeno do EU, a já věřím, že EU bude vůči Srbsku velmi vstřícná.


  Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Mr President, Serbia’s path to the EU must be welcomed, but the problems have to be mentioned as well. Firstly, nationalism is often used for electoral purposes. Ahead of every general election, you send a train to Kosovo if it gives you votes. This practice is not unknown in other countries, but it has to stop since it obliges you to be nationalist even outside the election campaign. Secondly, Serbia wants to have two mothers: one the EU, and the other – stepmother – Russia. Therefore, the country has allowed Russia to take over an enormously large part of its energy infrastructure. The problem is, of course, that if Serbian foreign policy can be blackmailed by Russia through energy, the EU would be blackmailed as well.

I believe the enlargement is needed. I want to see Serbia in the EU, but we want a modern, non-nationalistic Serbia that does not get involved in the internal affairs of Bosnia or Kosovo, and a Serbia free to create and join EU foreign policy independent of Russia. I hope to see that Serbia joining the EU soon.


  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Já jsem podpořil tuto zprávu. Vnímám z mého pohledu velmi silný geopolitický zájem, aby se Srbsko přibližovalo k EU. Jsem přesvědčen, že pokud EU nebude aktivní vůči Srbsku a pokud necháme Srbsko tzv. na holičkách, pak zkrátka bude v Srbsku posilovat ruský vliv. To já považuji i z pohledu zájmu ČR, kterou zde zastupuji, za špatný postup.

Proto jsem tuto zprávu podpořil. Je samozřejmě třeba upozorňovat na problémy, které jsou v Srbsku. Je třeba upozorňovat na oblasti, ve kterých Srbsko ještě není připraveno na vstup do EU, ale je třeba také podporovat strukturální reformy, např. reformu justice, policie, větší boj proti korupci, proti závažným formám hospodářské trestné činnosti. To jsou věci, které ta zpráva kriticky popisuje. Je to podle mého názoru tak správné, ale neměli bychom zapomenout, že je v našem zájmu, aby se Srbsko dlouhodobě přibližovalo k EU.


  Csaba Sógor (PPE). – Elnök Úr! A Szerbiáról szóló jelentésében kellő fontossággal jelenik meg a kisebbségek tiszteletben tartásának és védelmének kérdése, külön kiemelve a nemzeti kisebbségek jogainak érvényesítésére vonatkozó cselekvési terv és a nemzeti kisebbségeket támogató alap létrehozásáról szóló rendeletet. Ugyanakkor kitér a nyelvhasználat, az oktatás, a közigazgatás, a helyi és regionális testületek, valamint a média és az egyházak kérdéskörére is. Kiemeli a szöveg azt, hogy megfelelő hangsúllyal kell kezelni a nemzeti kisebbségek kérdéskörét, továbbá a Vajdaság önállóságának és soknemzetiségű voltának fenntartása mellett is kiáll.

A nemzeti kisebbségek védelme kapcsán örömmel látnánk hasonló megállapításokat EU-tagállamok vonatkozásában is, hiszen a problémák nem oldódtak meg a csatlakozással, sőt, az EU-ban élő nemzeti kisebbségek mintha kevesebb figyelmet kapnának, mint a tagjelölt államok kisebbségei. Reméljük, hogy Szerbia esetében ez a következetes figyelem fennmarad a csatlakozás után is. Egyébként egy tagállam is, vagy egy csatlakozni kívánó ország is, amikor arról beszél, hogy példaértékűen tiszteletben tartják a kisebbségek jogait, ott mindig gond van.


9.4. 2016 m. Komisijos ataskaita dėl Kosovo (A8-0062/2017 - Ulrike Lunacek)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

Προφορικές αιτιολογήσεις ψήφου


  Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Mr. President, I welcome the enlargement process and Kosovo’s steps towards the EU, but in order to make these steps faster, Kosovo has to solve its biggest problem, illustrated by the election this weekend that I among others have observed. The reason for this snap election was said to be coalition governmental inability to make reforms. However, none of the questions that caused stalemate were put before the voters. So there is a risk we will see a continued stalemate. This deadlock is Kosovo’s biggest problem and it is indeed caused by the difficult government coalitions and their partners’ unwillingness to put Kosovo’s best interests in front of their party’s. This has to stop; we need to see speedy reforms, primarily on the fight against corruption, and questions like the demarcation line, the Association of Serbian Municipalities, etc. should not be used for political gain since they are in interest of Kosovars. Enlargement is needed, we want it to happen, but we all have to speed up the process.


  Ilhan Kyuchyuk (ALDE). – Mr President, I voted in favour of this report because it presents how much progress Kosovo has made, but I also warmly welcome the EU—Kosovo Stabilisation and Association Agreement that came into force last year, because it represents the very first step in the process of the integration of Kosovo into the EU. The Stabilisation and Association Agreement will help Kosovo to implement much—needed reforms and will create trade and investment opportunities. From this perspective, I call on the Kosovar authorities to continue to show clear political will and determination to implement the agreement, because the path towards European Union integration requires a strategic long-term vision and sustained commitment in the adoption of the necessary reforms.

In conclusion, I want to focus on the recent general election in Kosovo, where the Self—Determination Movement won. The future government should not fail to close the border demarcation deal with Montenegro and further complicate relations with Serbia. All political parties in the country have to create the conditions for a fruitful solution and a result—orientated dialogue with their neighbours.


  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Já jsem pro tuto zprávu hlasoval, ale samozřejmě můj postoj ke kosovské vládě, který je velmi kritický, i nadále trvá. Kosovo bohužel nedokázalo a nedokazuje nás přesvědčit, že dokáže bojovat s organizovanou kriminalitou, že třeba svoboda projevu a nepronásledování novinářů je něco, co vnímá tamní vláda, ať už ta minulá, tak už ta budoucí, jako jednu ze svých hlavních priorit.

Já si myslím, že je potřeba, abychom z EU tuto skutečnost velmi kritizovali. Evropská komise nedávno řekla, že umožní občanům Kosova cestovat do EU bez víza. My bychom měli říci ano, umožníme, ale až kosovská vláda a Kosovo provede určité reformy. A bohužel ta síla a ochota na straně Kosova je velmi malá.


  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Гласувах в подкрепа на този доклад, защото съм убеден, че Западните Балкани трябва да бъдат окуражени в техния път към Европейския съюз и НАТО, и защото трябва да бъдат изтръгнати от орбитата на влияние на съседни вредни и опасни за този регион и за всички държави – членки на Европейския съюз, сили.

В края на миналата седмица бяхме с колегата Селимович на наблюдателна мисия в Косово от името на Европейския парламент и ви уверявам, че изборите бяха проведени по начин, който вероятно е по-демократичен от изборите, които се провеждат в част от нашите държави по отношение на технологията. Разбира се, има много проблеми – проблеми с корупцията, проблеми с върховенството на закона, проблеми с функционирането на политическите партии и тяхното финансиране, но те трябва да бъдат ясно посочени и решавани един по един.

Искам да ви обърна внимание на факта, че в Косово се сблъскват интереси и влияния на много съседни държави. Това е Русия посредством Сърбия. Това, разбира се, е и Турция, която също има своите интереси на Балканите. Ние като европейски държави трябва да направим така, че Косово и неговите граждани да изберат своя път и той да бъде част от Европейския съюз.


  Jiří Pospíšil (PPE). – Já jsem podpořil také tuto zprávu, platí, co jsem říkal u předchozí zprávy. Je zkrátka třeba balkánské země přibližovat EU, nikoliv vytvářet bariéru.

U Kosova zde již někteří kolegové popsali problémy, které tuto zemi sužují. Já bych k tomu přidal ještě další problémy, jako je třeba narůstající islámská radikalizace. Mnoho obyvatel Kosova odchází v řadách Islámského státu bojovat do Sýrie. To já považuji za další problém, který je zde třeba zmínit, ale přesto všechno jsem rád, že vstoupila v platnost asociační dohoda dne 1. dubna 2016 a že tedy byl zahájen proces přibližování vůči EU.

Musíme být vůči Kosovu stejně jako vůči jiným kandidátským zemím kritičtí, ale kritičtí konstruktivně, tzn. s jasnou nabídkou, že pokud se situace zlepší a vyřeší, pak členství v EU tuto zemi nemine.


9.5. 2016 m. ataskaita dėl buvusiosios Jugoslavijos Respublikos Makedonijos (A8-0055/2017 - Ivo Vajgl)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

Προφορικές αιτιολογήσεις ψήφου


  Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Mr President, Macedonia was given EU candidate status in 2005, and it is time the country made progress on its way to the EU by implementing the needed reforms. In recent years, however, we have seen a decline in the stability of the institutions that maintain democracy: an independent media, the judiciary, the rule of law and minority rights. But the recent political crisis has only just finally come to an end. I sincerely hope that a new era in EU—Macedonia relations is about to start. I very much welcome the new government, which clearly demonstrates a pro—European orientation and commitment to the EU reform process. The EU also needs to remain a credible partner in this process. Twelve years have been lost, and the membership perspective has to remain in strong focus. I wish the new Macedonian Government the strength and decisiveness to take on the task of leading the country closer to the EU. That is why I strongly voted for this balanced report.


  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Подкрепих този доклад, защото въпреки многото проблеми в Република Македония тази братска за нас държава има своето място в европейското семейство. Трябва да подчертая, че според нас разширяването на Европейския съюз на Западните Балкани трябва да се случи, но, разбира се, са необходими и съответните промени.

Изразявам остро несъгласие със становището на г-н Хан, който критикува България и Гърция за това, че били против започването на преговорния процес. Но в доклада на г-н Вайгл точно е подчертано, че от огромно значение при приключването на преговорите е именно договорът за добросъседство и приятелство с България. Ние желаем да бъде спрян езикът на омразата от медии и институции, които създават изкуствен конфликт на Балканите.

Смятам, че трябва да подкрепим бъдещото приобщаване на Република Македония към европейското семейство и трябва да бъдат спрени фалшификациите и кражбите на история от страна на скопските историци. Смятам, че това трябва да се промени. Тогава, разбира се, Република Македония трябва да стане част от Европейския съюз.


  Илхан Кючюк (ALDE). – Гласувах за доклада, защото е време Македония да зачеркне този тежък период от своята история и да отвори нова страница в демократичното си развитие. С огромен ентусиазъм приветствам формирането на ново правителство в страната и желанието на новата власт да работи за бързото присъединяване към НАТО и Европейския съюз.

Не бива обаче да забравяме факта, че след дълъг етап на политическа нестабилност Македония има нужда от ускорени реформи, които да спомогнат за нормализирането на политическия и етническия климат в страната. Това е възможно само ако новото правителство служи в интерес на гражданите и се основава на принципите на прозрачност, равенство и върховенство на закона.

Премиерът Заев трябва да прояви необходимата политическа воля и отговорност, за да стартира така необходимите реформи, за да насърчи културата на толерантност и приобщаване между различните етнически, национални и религиозни общности.

Не на последно място, призовавам Европейския съюз да демонстрира силна политическа подкрепа за европейската перспектива на Македония, защото само така ще можем да съхраним мечтите на два милиона граждани живи.


  Μαρία Σπυράκη (PPE). – Κυρίες και κύριοι συνάδελφοι, καταψήφισα την έκθεση που αναφέρεται στην ενταξιακή πορεία της πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβικής Δημοκρατίας της Μακεδονίας, διότι είναι τουλάχιστον πολιτικά απαράδεκτο να επιχειρείται να αποδοθεί στην Ελλάδα η ευθύνη για το γεγονός ότι το Συμβούλιο δεν δίνει ημερομηνία έναρξης ενταξιακών διαπραγματεύσεων στα Σκόπια εξαιτίας της διαφοράς για το όνομα. Το ψήφισμα δεν λαμβάνει υπόψη τα γεγονότα που διαψεύδουν κατάφωρα αυτό τον ισχυρισμό. Σήμερα, έχουμε επίσκεψη του νέου Υπουργού Εξωτερικών της πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβικής Δημοκρατίας της Μακεδονίας στην Αθήνα. Από τις δηλώσεις της νέας κυβέρνησης, είναι προφανές ότι αναγνωρίζεται πως η πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας αυτοεγκλωβίστηκε στην αδιαλλαξία και τον αλυτρωτισμό που καλλιέργησαν οι ηγεσίες. Το ζήτημα της ονομασίας των Σκοπίων μπορεί να λυθεί μόνο στο πλαίσιο του Οργανισμού των Ηνωμένων Εθνών με αμοιβαία αποδεκτή ονομασία με την Ελλάδα, με μία ονομασία έναντι όλων. Ο ευρωπαϊκός δρόμος πρέπει να ανοίξει για την πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβική Δημοκρατία της Μακεδονίας υπό την προϋπόθεση ότι πληρούνται όλα τα κριτήρια της Κοπεγχάγης.


  Tomáš Zdechovský (PPE). – Já jsem tuto zprávu na rozdíl od své řecké kolegyně podpořil, protože vidím obrovský pokrok, který tato bývalá jugoslávská republika za poslední roky udělala.

Chápu postoj Řecka a chápu to, co dlouhodobě říká, nicméně nemůžeme blokovat a nadále prostě nevést dialog o tom, že Bývalá jugoslávská republika Makedonie by měla být součástí EU a že je potřeba tuto zemi nějakým způsobem, ať už politicky nebo přísliby členství, podpořit v jejím demokratickém procesu.

Já si myslím, že i v oblastech, kde EU měla poměrně řadu výhrad, třeba v oblasti migrace, ukázala právě Makedonie, že je platným a spolupracujícím členem Evropského společenství.


9.6. Padėtis Kongo Demokratinėje Respublikoje (RC-B8-0397/2017, B8-0397/2017, B8-0398/2017, B8-0399/2017, B8-0400/2017, B8-0401/2017, B8-0402/2017)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

Προφορικές αιτιολογήσεις ψήφου


  José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, caro Colega, votei favoravelmente esta proposta resolução sobre a situação na República Democrática do Congo porque entendo que a União Europeia não pode deixar de prorrogar a aplicação de sanções contra os responsáveis pelas graves violações dos direitos humanos e pela sabotagem do processo democrático na República Democrática do Congo.

A verdade é que a inação e o silêncio do Presidente Joseph de Kabila face a estas atrocidades contra o seu próprio povo e ao aumento de raptos e ataques contra trabalhadores e caravanas de ajuda humanitária são inadmissíveis.

Esta proposta de resolução que acabamos de votar hoje constitui mais um forte apelo ao Presidente Kabila para que, respeitando o entendimento alcançado com a mediação da Igreja Católica, convoque até ao final deste ano eleições presidenciais, assegurando, para tanto, as condições necessárias para que este ato eleitoral seja livre, transparente e credível.


9.7. Tvarumo susitarimo įgyvendinimo padėtis Bangladeše (B8-0396/2017)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

Προφορικές αιτιολογήσεις ψήφου


  José Inácio Faria (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, votei a favor desta resolução porque considero que a União Europeia, enquanto cliente de 60 % das exportações de roupa produzidas no Bangladesh, tem para com aquele país responsabilidades acrescidas na promoção de forma éticas de produção e de consumo sustentável.

Não esquecendo que o sector têxtil é um dos pilares económicos e sociais daquele país, que emprega diretamente quatro milhões de trabalhadores, a União Europeia deve apelar às empresas para que adotem códigos de conduta que efetivamente garantam os direitos sociais e laborais dos seus trabalhadores, incluindo o direito a remunerações e a condições de segurança dignas e justas, deve exortar as autoridades do Bangladesh para que cumpram as suas obrigações internacionais em matéria de liberdade sindical e deve apoiar todos os esforços das Nações Unidas para a criação de um tratado vinculativo que clarifique as obrigações das empresas no campo dos direitos humanos.

No passado dia 24 de abril comemorou-se o quarto aniversário da Rana Plaza, a terrível morte daquelas 1 138 pessoas, na sequência desabamento das oficinas de costura em que trabalhavam. Mostrou ao mundo a face oculta da terceirização das grandes marcas têxteis ocidentais e tornou impossível que continuássemos a fingir ignorar as condições de semiescravatura dos milhões de operários têxteis do Bangladesh.

Termino, Sr. Presidente, dizendo que é à memória desses mortos e de todos aqueles que todos os anos morrem em condições semelhantes que devemos prestar homenagem e agir em defesa dos seus direitos.


  Πρόεδρος. – Οι αιτιολογήσεις ψήφου περατώνονται.


10. Balsavimo ketinimai ir pataisymai (žr. protokolą)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

(Η συνεδρίαση διακόπτεται στις 14.15 και επαναλαμβάνεται στις 15.00)




11. Ankstesnio posėdžio protokolo tvirtinimas (žr. protokola)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

12. Asignavimų perkėlimas (žr. protokolą)

13. Pateikti dokumentai (žr.protokolą)

14. Deleguotieji aktai (Darbo tvarkos taisyklių 105 straipsnio 6 dalis) (žr. protokola)

15. Europos atnaujinimas, paremtas vertybėmis, įtvirtintas efektyviomis demokratinėmis institucijomis ir skatinantis klestinčią ekonomiką teisingoje ir darnioje visuomenėje (diskusija aktualia tema)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

  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.


16. Tolesni veiksmai Panamos dokumentų klausimu ir teisinės valstybės principo užtikrinimas Maltoje (diskusijos)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

  Der Präsident. – Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über die Erklärungen des Rates und der Kommission zu Folgemaßnahmen zu den Panama-Papieren und zur Rechtsstaatlichkeit in Malta (2017/2694(RSP)).




  Helena Dalli, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, (inaudible few words) Presidency of the Council. As you know, the fight against tax evasion, fraud and avoidance is a common EU goal that has been constantly highlighted by the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council and the Commission. Our Presidency has placed this issue amongst our top priorities for the Council’s agenda.

To summarise our achievements in a nutshell, let me mention the following: the Council has completed work on Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive 2, as well as on defining criteria to establish a list of non-cooperative jurisdictions.

Agreement has also been reached on double taxation dispute resolution mechanisms. All these lost years represent important cornerstones of EU action in the area of fighting tax evasion, fraud and avoidance. Going into more detail as regards the particular pieces of legislation, let me stress that Anti-Tax Avoidance Directives 1 and 2 provide for a comprehensive framework of anti-abuse measures aimed at ensuring that taxation will occur where value is created. As a result, the anti-base erosion and profit-shifting measures which have also been given an impulse by the G20 and the OECD are now translated in the EU into a binding instrument. In several aspects the Council went even further than the basic OECD recommendations.

Furthermore, the work of the Code of Conduct Group on business taxation is continuing at considerable pace. One of its current main tasks is to finalise the process of establishing the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes. We also reached an agreement last month on the directive on double taxation dispute resolution mechanisms, which will considerably enhanced tax certainty by making alternative dispute resolution mechanisms binding, faster and more efficient. Finally, transparency and exchange of information have also been considerably improved. Within just one year the Council revised the Directive on Administrative Cooperation twice. These revisions are aimed to ensure the obligation for multinational companies to report key tax information on the amount of revenue, on profit before income tax and on income tax paid in each country where they do business.

They also now allow tax authorities to access the information in relation to money laundering. I thank you very much for your attention.


  Joseph Muscat, Prime Minister of Malta. – Mr President, I would like to start by expressing my government’s solidarity with the British people on this morning’s fire and also our solidarity with our American colleagues following the shootings in Virginia just some time ago. Thank you for being so kind to invite me over to this debate. I will structure my intervention two-fold: I will start by, at the start of this debate, making some points on the progress on the rule of law which has been achieved in Malta over the past few years, then I will be looking forward into devoting most of the time later on into answering questions that colleagues will be putting over.

Let me refer to a few points on the rule of law at the beginning of this debate. To brief you on the improvements that have been made in my country over the past few years, one of the first bills which we presented as a government was that which removed the time-barring that existed on acts of corruption by politicians and those holding public office. We were the first government in Malta that introduced such legislation, which will hold all politicians and public officers to account, not only today but throughout our whole life-time, should any shred of evidence crop up linking any politician – past, present or future – to acts of corruption. As such, no politician will be able to escape the long arm of justice throughout their life-time. I believe that is a unique piece of legislation at EU level.

Another piece of legislation we put forward and enacted was the Whistleblowers Protection Act. This has been deemed by a number of Members of this House, like Benedek Jávor and Julia Reda – champions in the fight to protect whistleblowers – as a benchmark for other European Union Member States and a good basis for a future European whistleblowers directive. Since the law came into force in 2013, we had no less than 29 reports that have been lodged under the protection of the Maltese Whistleblowers Act.

Also, after years of damning reports by the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption (Greco) putting Malta on the blacklist of political party financing, we introduced an act regulating party financing, which was not only important but necessary and in our national interest. Our law was introduced in 2015 and led Greco to certify that Malta shifted from a country contravening the institution’s recommendations on fighting corruption to one of those in line with its main recommendations.

In 2016 we also change the method of appointment of members of the judiciary, becoming the first government to forgo such powers. The executive is now bound to make appointments to the bench from a pool of lawyers that have been previously approved by a judicial appointments committee, rather than having government appoint magistrates and judges directly, without the need of any prior consultation. The judicial appointments committee is made of eminent persons, including the Chief Justice, the Attorney General and the President of the Chamber of Advocates, amongst others.

Mr President, we did all this in just four years, but we intend to do even more. In fact, one of our pledges over the next five years is that of discussing the removal of any parliamentary immunity in Malta, introducing a transparency register at national level – following our work as presidency – to introduce a European Transparency Register, and the introduction of a new code of conduct for all those holding public office.

As I said in the beginning, I am not going to make a long introductory speech; I am interested in listening to the criticism and the points raised by the Members of this House – my former colleagues – and then I will answer accordingly.


  Pierre Moscovici, membre de la Commission. – Monsieur le Président, Madame la Présidente du Conseil, Monsieur le Premier Ministre, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, il y a un an, les «Panama Papers» s’ajoutaient aux scandales précédents et confirmaient l’existence d’un système d’évasion fiscale offshore d’ampleur mondiale.

Ces révélations ont suscité, à juste titre, une indignation publique et une condamnation politique. À l’époque, la Commission et moi-même vous avions fait une promesse, qui était de profiter de l’élan créé par ces révélations pour faire reculer l’évasion fiscale. J’ai tenu parole, la Commission a tenu parole, le Conseil nous a accompagnés.

Le président Juncker l’a souligné devant vous il y a deux semaines: nous avons réalisé des progrès sans précédent sur ce front en un temps record. Nous l’avons fait avec votre appui constant, exigeant, et ces succès sont donc aussi les vôtres.

Des révélations récentes concernant des systèmes fiscaux dans plusieurs États membres ne font que confirmer l’absolue nécessité de l’action que nous avons mise en œuvre et que nous continuons à mettre en œuvre pour que la fiscalité dans l’Union européenne et dans le monde soit plus transparente, plus juste, plus efficace.

Le paysage qui émerge, aujourd’hui, à l’issue de ces deux ans d’activisme en matière fiscale est profondément refaçonné. La coopération automatique entre États membres sur les rescrits fiscaux et sur les informations fiscales des multinationales est aujourd’hui la règle. Le secret bancaire a disparu en Europe, y compris chez nos voisins hors de l’Union européenne.

Nous avons créé un filet de protection contre l’évasion fiscale avec l’adoption de directives sur la lutte contre l’évasion fiscale (ATAD 1 et ATAD 2).

Nous disposons désormais de mesures contraignantes pour lutter contre les formes les plus courantes d’optimisation et de planification fiscales agressives, ainsi que d’une nouvelle stratégie extérieure pour que la bonne gouvernance fiscale soit également respectée au-delà de notre marché unique.

Le chemin parcouru, vous le voyez, est absolument considérable. En l’espace d’un an seulement, nous avons proposé le renforcement des règles sur la lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux, relancé le projet d’assiette commune consolidée pour l’impôt sur les sociétés, obtenu l’accord du Conseil sur les procédures de règlement des différends fiscaux – merci à la présidence maltaise –, et lancé le processus pour créer une liste européenne de paradis fiscaux – nous y avons également bien travaillé avec le ministre des finances Edward Scicluna.

La transparence des informations sur les bénéficiaires effectifs constitue une priorité cruciale pour lutter contre le blanchiment d’argent, la corruption et l’évasion fiscale. Nous avons proposé d’améliorer l’accès aux informations sur les bénéficiaires effectifs en Europe et nous poussons cette priorité au niveau international.

Avec votre indispensable appui, l’Europe devrait aussi avoir bientôt un mécanisme de publication d’informations pays par pays, avec l’idée que les multinationales rendraient publics leurs activités, leurs gains et l’impôt payé pays par pays, en Europe.

Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, Madame la Présidente du Conseil, Monsieur le Premier ministre, ces progrès doivent à présent être confortés et approfondis.

Il est temps de passer à l’étape suivante: quelle est-elle?

Premièrement, je proposerai de renforcer nos moyens de défense contre les abus en matière fiscale: ce sera l’objet de ma proposition sur les intermédiaires, que je sais très attendue par cette assemblée. Certains de ces intermédiaires, les banques, les avocats, les conseils, les consultants – il ne s’agit pas de mettre ces professions en accusation –, encouragent, dans une partie de leurs activités, les abus, en tirent un profit ou les facilitent.

Les «Panama Papers» ont mis en lumière le rôle central de l’optimisation fiscale. La commission PANA, qui travaille ici au Parlement européen de manière remarquable, met aussi l’accent sur ce point.

Faire refluer l’évasion fiscale implique de faire la lumière sur ce secteur.

Ma proposition sera fondée sur des principes simples – transparence, coopération, échange d’informations – que nous avons mobilisés lors de nos précédentes propositions. Vous les connaissez bien à présent.

Avec cette initiative, les arrangements transfrontaliers d’optimisation fiscale devront être portés à la connaissance des États membres bien avant qu’ils ne puissent affecter leurs recettes fiscales, et ainsi les administrations fiscales seront en position de détecter ou de bloquer tout abus éventuel.

D’autre part, même si ce n’est pas le cas pour Malte, beaucoup de scandales récents en matière d’évasion fiscale ou dans d’autres domaines ont été révélés grâce au courage des lanceurs d’alerte. Ils ont mis en péril leur carrière, leur mode de vie, leur liberté parfois. Ils doivent être protégés. La Commission étudie les pistes d’actions possibles en vue d’une initiative dans ce domaine. Je sais que le Parlement européen le souhaite.

La deuxième initiative que je prendrai s’attaquera à la fraude à la TVA: c’est un enjeu majeur. Cette fraude représente, pour la TVA transfrontalière, 50 milliards d’euros de pertes par an pour nos Trésors publics. La tâche n’est pas terminée, nous avons fait des efforts ces deux dernières années. Ce Parlement en a parfaitement conscience. Une étude récente de la commission PANA révèle qu’Europol aurait identifié 388 dossiers dans les «Panama Papers» qui seraient connectés à des opérations de fraude à la TVA. On parle ici d'une fraude massive, portée qui plus est par des réseaux criminels et servant peut-être au financement du terrorisme.

Aujourd’hui, la fraude à la TVA, pour ainsi dire, c’est un jeu d’enfant, c’est ce qu’on appelle la fraude carrousel. Les failles du système TVA combinées à la facilité déconcertante de drainer les fonds détournés vers des comptes bancaires hors de l’Union européenne rendent cette ressource fiscale extrêmement vulnérable à la fraude, et c’est le cas en particulier, je l’ai dit, pour les opérations transfrontalières.

La solution que nous allons proposer, c’est d’aller vers un régime définitif de TVA, en laissant les opérations intra-Union européenne être traitées exactement comme les transactions nationales dans l’État membre de destination à travers un guichet unique, ce qui permettra de réduire drastiquement la fraude transfrontalière mais aussi de simplifier les obligations de TVA pour les entreprises, parce que, bien sûr, c’est une mesure de simplification qui permet aux entreprises de travailler de manière plus efficace.

Dans ce contexte, je souhaite aussi vous annoncer que des actions importantes sont en préparation pour lutter contre la fraude à la TVA, donc dans le domaine de la justice pénale européenne, après la finalisation de la nouvelle directive sur les infractions portant atteinte aux intérêts financiers de l’Union européenne, qui incrimine également la fraude à la TVA.

Le 8 juin dernier, nous sommes parvenus à un accord politique du Conseil sur la création – et c’est majeur – du Parquet européen en coopération renforcée, soutenu par 20 États membres et que d’autres pourront rejoindre plus tard.

J’espère pouvoir compter encore une fois sur le soutien sans faille du Parlement européen pour cette initiative. J’ai coutume de dire que nous sommes vraiment du même camp dans ce combat, que je sais très largement transpartisan et partagé sur tous les bancs de cette assemblée.

En effet, ces initiatives viennent compléter les instruments que nous avons mis en place ensemble depuis deux ans pour faire reculer la fraude et l’évasion fiscales, ce qui reste un objectif partagé. Cela contribuera à ce que l’Union et ses États membres continuent d’être à l’avant-garde de cette bataille pour une fiscalité plus juste, qui est une bataille mondiale menée dans le cadre du G20 et de l’OCDE.

Enfin – et j’en termine là –, il est important que la justice puisse faire son travail en toute sérénité et en toute indépendance, et vous comprendrez donc que je ne puisse faire aucun commentaire sur les enquêtes en cours, qui sont du ressort de la justice.

Voilà, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Premier Ministre, Madame la Présidente du Conseil, ce que je voulais vous dire au sujet de notre combat toujours renouvelé contre les abus en tous genres en matière fiscale.

Je remercie encore une fois le Parlement de son soutien qui nous est indispensable à tous les instants dans ce très difficile, mais très important dossier.


  Manfred Weber, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mr President, I welcome you, Prime Minister Muscat, and first of all as a democrat I want to congratulate you on your re-election. There was strong, tough, democratic competition in Malta, you won, and I wish you all the best in the interest of the country and in the interest of our European Union.

In the interest of the European Union you showed that you are from time to time ready for change, ready to rethink your own position. I bring to our mind again that you were not previously in favour of Malta becoming a member of the European Union. Today you know that membership is important for Malta and contributes to the interests of Malta. Malta is benefiting from this and today it is obvious that this is a success story. This example shows that you are ready to rethink your position from time to time.

But in today’s debate, whose subject is the Panama papers linked to Malta, the question is not so much what we are doing against fraud and what we are doing for the rule of law; the most important question is: why is there still a minister in your cabinet, the only minister in the European Union, who is named on the Panama list? That is the substance of the debate today. That is what we want to ask you, because we have a lot of discussion points where can really work together for the future of Europe, but that is the substance of the debate. You won the election, but the questions are still on the table and what we ask from you, in your capacity as today’s President of the European Council, as the presidency of the Council of the European Union, is clarification of this open question.

You said a lot about what you did on paper on legislation to guarantee the rule of law in Malta. I was hoping that you would come back today to Strasbourg to the European Parliament and could show us what the result of this legislation is, what are you doing to create really strong and independent structures, and what the outcome of this is. Legislation, what is on paper, is one thing, but implementation is something else. What does this mean in reality? What is the outcome of these activities? I did not think that you showed a real readiness to give us an opening, an inside look into what is happening in your party, in your government. I would ask you to do so. I think that is a chance for you, in your second approach here in the Parliament, to clarify these points. Democracy means that people must have full trust in their institutions. That is the base for democracy, and that is what we fight for.

(Applause from the PPE Group)


  Jeppe Kofod, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, I would first of all like to congratulate Prime Minister Muscat on his victory in the election, which was very impressive indeed.

The Panama Papers have given rise to a number of scandals in EU countries. Some are open-and-shut cases, while others are merely hearsay and conjecture. In a democratic society built on the rule of law there is only one response to such allegations: where there are allegations, there must be investigation and, where there is investigation, there must be a conclusion, a judgement and a ruling. In the specific case of Malta, so far only two of these are present: the accusations and the formal investigation, which is well underway.

This being the case, the plenary chamber of the European Parliament is not the proper forum to deal with these accusations. I ask my honourable colleagues whether they really question the very foundation of democracy in Malta, a Member State that has recently achieved a 92% voter turnout and is a sound democracy. As a co-rapporteur of the PANA Committee, I am perhaps the keenest to get to the bottom of all cases linked to the Panama Papers and I will insist on having facts, not merely accusations. I refuse to be drawn in to questioning a fundamental societal pillar, the rule of law in Malta, even before the ongoing formal investigation is completed.

However, I do seriously question if the EU as a whole is capable of responding effectively to the revelations of the Panama Papers. Vital EU anti—tax evasion measures continue to be held up in the Council. If we are to make any positive difference at all in the fight against tax fraud, tax evasion and tax havens, we must channel all of our efforts into building European solutions. As such, I ask the Members of this Parliament who take the floor whether they are ready to reform the Code of Conduct Group to ensure public scrutiny. Can you help to bring your own governments to responsibility for the actions taken by this group? I think this is very important. We also need to do more at a European level. Together with my former co—rapporteur, Michael Theurer, in the TAXE 2 report, I ask for the Union Tax Policy Coherence and Coordination Centre to strengthen our fight against tax evasion and tax fraud in the EU. We also want to see a Tax Europol that can bridge the gap between national authorities in these highly complex international tax cases.


  Bernd Lucke, im Namen der ECR-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, meine Damen und Herren! Wir haben in der Tat viele Fragen bezüglich der Vorwürfe, die gegenüber Malta und der maltesischen Regierung geäußert werden. Aber es gibt auch Fragen, die wir an das Europäische Parlament richten müssen, zum Beispiel die Frage, warum diese Debatte jetzt nach den Wahlen stattfindet. Es hat ja den Vorschlag des Panama-Ausschusses gegeben, den Premierminister von Malta vor den Wahlen einzuladen. Und was wäre denn demokratischer, als dem Volk, das in Wahlen seine politische Meinung äußert, die Gelegenheit zu geben, auch die Fakten zur Kenntnis zu nehmen, die Befragung der maltesischen Regierung durchzuführen, bevor das Volk sich ein Urteil bildet?

Man muss an die Konferenz der Präsidenten die Frage richten: Warum wurde denn diesem Vorschlag des Panama-Ausschusses nicht Folge geleistet? Warum haben wir hier meines Erachtens gegen elementare demokratische Prinzipien verstoßen, indem wir erst jetzt eine Debatte führen, nachdem die Wahlen gelaufen sind? Ich glaube, es ist kein gutes Beispiel für Demokratie, das wir hier gegeben haben, und da sollten wir uns vielleicht auch einmal selbstkritisch an die Nase fassen.


  Petr Ježek, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, I do not mean to import Maltese internal politics here but I was a member of the former Touch 1 and Touch 2 committees, now I am a co-rapporteur on the PANA Committee and therefore I have some issues to raise.

The PANA Committee had a mission to Malta and many intermediaries named in the Panama papers are based in Malta; and also their possible ties to politically exposed persons there are very worrying. On the face of it, it seems EU law has somehow been implemented but its enforcement, strong and independent institutions including the Financial Intelligence Unit, and more generally the rule of law, are questionable.

In Brussels it seems Malta is fighting EU efforts to move towards more transparency, be it within the anti-money laundering directive, country by country reporting, or a common consolidated corporate tax base. This cannot imply anything other than it has a lot to hide.

It has nothing to do with the size of the country, but I am glad that the EU was reformed in the way that it now has a permanent president of the European Council. I am afraid that if you, Prime Minister, presided over the European Council now it would weaken the standing of the European Union.


  Fabio De Masi, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Die Regierung Maltas und damit die aktuelle EU-Präsidentschaft wird in der Öffentlichkeit bedauerlicherweise mit krimineller Energie in Verbindung gebracht.

Kabinettsmitglieder tauchen in den Panama Papers auf, EU-Visa werden an chinesische Geschäftsleute verhökert, mit dem Rabattsystem können Unternehmen Steuersätze auf fünf Prozent der Gewinne drücken. In meiner Heimatstadt Hamburg nutzen Kreuzfahrtschiffe gar die maltesische Flagge und deutsches Steuerrecht, um die Steuern auf null zu drücken. Malta ist ein Paradies für Geldwäsche der italienischen Mafia. Ohne diplomatische Floskeln: An dem Geld, das Malta schützt, klebt daher auch Blut.

Gleichwohl haben die Malteser die sozialdemokratische Regierung bestätigt. Das überrascht nicht; es gab ja keine realistische Alternative – auch die Konservativen in Malta haben ihr Sündenregister. Im Wahlkampf mit dem Finger auf Malta zu zeigen, aber in Brüssel vor Steuertricks und Geldwäsche einzuknicken, wäre allerdings zu billig – so etwa Konservative und Liberale, die mit Ausnahmeregelungen beim country-by-country reporting kürzlich verhinderten, dass Konzerne lückenlos über Gewinne und gezahlte Steuern Land für Land berichten müssen.

Die EU muss jetzt liefern, auch gegen Malta. Rat und Kommission müssen mit uns Schlupflöcher in der Geldwäscherichtlinie, etwa für Scheindirektoren von Briefkastenfirmen, schließen. Die schwarze Liste der Steueroasen muss auch um EU—Staaten wie Malta erweitert werden. Wir brauchen Quellensteuern für unkooperative Staaten. Europa braucht Glaubwürdigkeit, keine faulen Deals mit der Steuermafia.

Und ich möchte Sie, Herr Muscat, fragen: Werden Sie sich dafür einsetzen, dass wir zum Mehrheitsprinzip in der code-of-conduct group kommen? Und werden Sie vor dem Panama Paper-Untersuchungsausschuss, dessen stellvertretender Vorsitzender ich bin, erscheinen? Es ging Ihnen eine Einladung des Vorsitzenden zu. Werden Sie das nachholen?


  Sven Giegold, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Mr President, first of all, our group asked for this debate because we are seriously concerned with the state of the rule of law in Malta. We have found that the Financial Intelligence Unit has investigated several cases of serious wrong-doing in the field of money laundering, as well as in the field of bank licensing and doubtful procedures in banks. These have unfortunately not led to the opening of prosecution processes. These three known reports of the Financial Intelligence Unit have leaked to the media, but still prosecution processes seem not to be on the way and therefore, we call on the Police Commissioner to immediately open respective prosecution procedures.

Secondly, for the financial institutions involved, there should be consequences. There is a financial supervisor and there is something peculiar in Malta because the head of the financial supervisor MFSA, Joseph Bannister, is at the same time the Vice President of Malta Finance. There is a strong conflict of interest between the role of supervisor and that of the Development Authority which brings financial investment to Malta. We think the supervisor should take action against Pilatus bank and next year BT, to look at their licenses after the findings in the Panama Papers as well as in the reports of the FIU.

Furthermore, we believe that the key persons who were involved in the Panama Papers, including Mr Schembri as well as Brian Tonna and Kazimi as well as Mr Zammit who was found in the Swiss Leagues, should appear before the Panama Papers committee; so far they have failed to do so. Reuters and Der Spiegel have revealed lax supervision in the online gaming sector.

Lastly, it is imperative that a thorough investigation be started. We have written today to the Commission to start investigations regarding Treaty violation procedures concerning money laundering legislation and bank licensing practices. It is high time for Malta to defend its reputation. Your island needs to be based on the thorough rule of law; and you can do it, you have in your hands to really reveal to the public the truth about all these things and have fair and tough investigations. These are not replaced by elections.


  David Coburn, on behalf of the EFDD Group. – Mr President, until the end of June, Malta holds the incumbent Presidency of the Council of the European Union. For many politicians, it seems to be a good moment to attack this small republic. This debate is linked to the Panama Papers committee working on tax avoidance, tax evasion and money laundering. The Maltese financial services sector has come under increasing pressure from abroad, especially after the reappointment of Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi in the Maltese Government – both of them appear in the Panama papers. Nevertheless, it is not the European Parliament that should interfere in the investigation of a sovereign nation state. Many MEPs in this House are exploiting this debate to push forward their agenda to ban economic competition between countries. By using outdated buzz words like ‘fair tax competition’ and talking about a ‘level playing field’, these EU federalists are trying to cover up their real aspirations – creating a big supranational taxation union. This debate shows to the people of the UK why it is so important for Britain to leave the EU by way of a hard Brexit, which means no membership of the single market, no membership of a political union, and no membership of this socialist taxation union.


  Barbara Kappel, im Namen der ENF-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, hohe Ratspräsidentschaft! 5 % Wirtschaftswachstum, 4,7 % Arbeitslosigkeit und eine Staatsverschuldung von 58,3 % im letzten Jahr – das hat Malta zu einem der Top Performer in der Europäischen Union gemacht, und das wird wahrscheinlich auch ein Grund sein, warum Sie, Herr Ministerpräsident, von den Wählern wieder bestätigt wurden. Ich gratuliere Ihnen dazu.

Die Panama Papers warfen allerdings ein Schlaglicht auf den Finanzplatz Malta, und die Malta-files runden dieses Schlaglicht ab. Die gute makroökonomische Performance Maltas basiert aber in erster Linie auf den Einnahmen aus den Finanzdienstleistungen. Das umfasst auch die erheblichen Steuervorteile, die sich zum Beispiel aus der Sechs-Siebtel-Regelung über die Rückerstattung von Gewinnsteuern ergeben. Gemeinhin wird Malta als Steueroase bezeichnet, wobei Malta weder auf der Blacklist der OECD noch der FATF aufscheint. Der Panama-Untersuchungsausschuss war in Malta und hat festgestellt, dass die Aufklärung von Steuerflucht und Geldwäsche behindert wird.

Allerdings haben Sie im Rahmen der Ratspräsidentschaft sehr gute Arbeit geleistet zum Thema Bekämpfung der Steuerflucht, insbesondere für mehr Transparenz, und ist es Ihnen gelungen, das OECD-Abkommen für die Bekämpfung der Steuerschlupflöcher, das BEPS-Abkommen, zu unterzeichnen. Dafür gebührt Ihnen Dank. Das ist ein guter Schritt und ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung.


  Λάμπρος Φουντούλης (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, κύριε Επίτροπε, κύριε Πρωθυπουργέ, η διαφθορά αποτελεί μια μεγάλη πληγή της Ευρωπαϊκής Ενώσεως και, φυσικά, δεν αφορά μόνο τη Μάλτα. Στη συγκεκριμένη περίπτωση, έχουμε πράγματι τα ονόματα δύο στελεχών της μαλτεζικής κυβερνήσεως στα περίφημα «Panama papers». Αρχικά, αυτό δεν αποδεικνύει τίποτα παραπάνω εκτός από πιθανή φοροαποφυγή. Πράγματι, θεωρώ αναγκαίο η δικαιοσύνη στη Μάλτα να ερευνήσει την υπόθεση και, αν αποδειχθούν παρανομίες, να τιμωρηθούν οι υπαίτιοι. Όμως αυτό δεν είναι υπόθεση του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, το οποίο δεν είναι σε θέση να παριστάνει τον δικαστή. Ειδικά, μάλιστα, από τη στιγμή που πολλές υπόνοιες και υποψίες σχετικά με τη διαχείριση των οικονομικών αφορούν μέλη του. Επιπλέον, ας λάβουμε υπόψη μας πως ο λαός της Μάλτας επέλεξε πάλι την ίδια κυβέρνηση με σημαντική μάλιστα πλειοψηφία. Δεν αντιπροσωπεύουν τον λαό οι διάφορες υποκινούμενες και μη ελεγχόμενες Μη Κυβερνητικές Οργανώσεις ή η φερόμενη ως κοινωνία των πολιτών, αλλά αντίθετα, ο λαός εκφράζεται στις εκλογές. Τέλος, σε μια Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση που σαν επικεφαλής της Επιτροπής έχει τον πρώην Πρωθυπουργό του Λουξεμβούργου, καλύτερα να μην κατηγορούμε τους άλλους για φοροαποφυγή.




  David Casa (PPE). – Aktar minn sena ilu, permezz tal-Panama Papers, inkixfu pjanijiet ta’ korruzzjoni fuq skala kbira u ħasil ta’ flus min-nies li jokkupaw karigi għolja fil-Gvern Malti.

Bħalissa f’Malta qed isiru numru ta’ investigazzjonijiet kriminali. Il-Prim Ministru ta’ Malta reġa’ ngħata ċans ieħor mill-elettorat, u dan aħna nirrispettawh. Imma l-vot tal-ġimgħa li għaddiet ma jaħfirx id-dnubiet tal-politiċi korrotti. It-tieni ċans tal-Prim Ministru ma tantx beda fuq nota tajba. Fil-kabinett tiegħu reġa’ appunta nies korrotti u li jaħslu l-flus.

Issa l-Prim Ministru għandu għażla: jew li jibqa’ mniżżel fl-istorja bħala l-Prim Ministru korrott ta’ Malta, jew jista’ jagħżel li jirranġa t-taħwid. Jekk jagħżel dan, jien ser inkun hemm biex ngħinu. Ngħinu jerġa’ jibni r-reputazzjoni ta’ Malta. Ngħinu jiddefendi s-settur finanzjarju tagħna.

Prim Ministru, tħalli lil ħadd jattakka, pereżempju, il-whistleblower tal-FIAU. Qegħdin hawn illum biex nitolbuk ma tarmix it-tieni opportunità li għandek. Jien inħobb lil Malta.

U għax inħobb lil Malta ser nibqa’ niġi hawn nitkellem kontra l-korruzzjoni. Jien inħobb lil Malta u għax inħobb lil Malta ser nibqa’ nitkellem meta l-istituzzjonijiet tagħna jkunu dgħajfa. Prim Ministru, għandek tieqa żgħira ta’opportunità biex tillimita l-ħsara li ħloqt. Użaha. Ara fiex ġibt lil pajjiżna.

Prim Ministru tibqax tapprova l-korruzzjoni, iżda nappellalek biex ilkoll flimkien, aħna u intom, naħdmu biex neqirdu l-korruzzjoni u l-kriminali li għandna f’pajjiżna.


  Alfred Sant (S&D). – Mr President, Members of this Parliament wishing to criticise the Maltese Government might say it has adopted policies with which they disagree. Yet under Dr Muscat’s administration, the Maltese economy has reached unprecedented growth rates, at the top of the EU league. It is delivering prosperity to all segments of the Maltese population; reforms have been implemented very quickly on social liberalisation, on LGBT rights, on access to education, on the reduction of poverty. Progress has been rapid. The government has declared it will correct any mistakes made. Critics of the Maltese administration have no basis to claim that the rule of law is being undermined. That rule is as alive and well in Malta as anywhere else in the EU. Currently, four magisterial inquiries are investigating allegations of improprieties in public management. They are proceeding in total independence, in accordance with the rule of law. The Maltese Prime Ministers has committed to respect their conclusions. Some might dislike the fact that Malta is excelling in financial services, yet the sector operates in full conformity with EU and OECD rules. Individual cases are being wrongly generalised by people in this Parliament. The grounds for this debate are non-existent. If they are given credence, future statements we might make about the rule of law anywhere will risk becoming undermined and devalued.

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


  Csaba Sógor (PPE), blue-card question. – Mr Sant, over a year ago you expressed your view that Minister Mizzi should resign. How do you feel about the fact that he has been reinstated after the Maltese elections?


  Alfred Sant (S&D), blue-card answer.(inaudible) for a prime minister to respect the verdict of the people. I note that this has been done in this case as well.


  Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner (ECR). – Arvoisa puhemies, kun harvalukuiset tutkijat ja kansalaisaktivistit pitivät ääntä veroparatiiseista, laittomasta veronkierrosta ja laillisesta mutta kyseenalaisesta veronvälttelystä kymmenisen vuotta sitten, se leimattiin suoraan haihatteluksi. Tänään ei kukaan ajattele näin, ja se on hienoa.

PANA-tutkintavaliokunnan tyyppisten elinten suurin arvo on siinä, että ne kirittävät sekä EU:n komissiota että jäsenmaita parantamaan toimintaansa ja tekemään kunnianhimoisempia aloitteita. Olemme PANA- ja TAXE-valiokunnissa tentanneet lukuisia valtiovarainministereitä, muita poliitikkoja sekä kansainvälisten järjestöjen ja yritysten edustajia, mukaan lukien myös Malta.

Tapahtunut kehitys on esimerkki siitä, että maailmaa voidaan muuttaa, kun saadaan mukaan oikeat ihmiset, riittävät resurssit ja vahva tahto muutokseen. Tätä työtä täytyy tukea myös tulevaisuudessa kaikilla tasoilla. Toivon, että käynnistettyjä hankkeita pystytään seuraamaan ja arvioimaan. Tässä myös median, tutkijoiden ja kansalaisjärjestöjen työllä on erittäin suuri arvo.


  Michael Theurer (ALDE). – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, Herr Premierminister! Die TAXE-Berichte haben ganz eindeutig gezeigt: Seit vielen Jahren ist bekannt, wo Steuerschlupflöcher herkommen: durch die Kombination von überkomplexen nationalen Steuersystemen. Die konnten nicht geschlossen werden. Die Finanzminister, die Regierungschefs wissen seit vielen Jahren von diesem Problem, aber sie konnten sich nicht einigen.

Mit Panama kommt jetzt ans Tageslicht, dass das vielleicht einen ganz anderen Grund hat: weil nämlich Vertreter des Showbusiness, auch hochkarätige Sportler und zum Teil möglicherweise auch Politiker an diesen Geschäften beteiligt sind. Jedenfalls steht der Verdacht im Raum, und deshalb ist es nicht gleichgültig, was in diesen Panama Papers steht. Deshalb wollen wir das hier als Parlament auch aufklären, denn wir verabschieden Gesetze gegen Steuervermeidung und Steuerhinterziehung und vor allem auch gegen Geldwäsche – das ist EU-Recht. Und dann hat man den Eindruck, dass die nicht umgesetzt werden.

Was macht dann die Kommission? Naja, die wendet sich an die nationalen Regierungen. Aber wenn dann vielleicht Minister in den Panama-Papieren auftauchen, dann besteht ja der öffentliche Verdacht, dass die Regierung deshalb nicht handelt, weil einige Beteiligte davon selber profitieren können. Das ist doch eine schreckliche Situation – da muss doch aufgeräumt werden! Das ist ja dann so, als wenn die Beagle Boys, die Panzerknacker, im Grunde genommen mit dem Schutz vor Einbrechern beauftragt werden.

Deshalb haben die Bürgerinnen und Bürger ein Recht darauf zu erfahren: Sind tatsächlich Regierungsmitglieder in Malta betroffen? Wann kommt endlich eine unabhängige Untersuchung? Wird der Rechtsstaat hier durchgesetzt, wenn die Namen genannt sind? Wenn vielleicht sogar die Frau des Premierministers hier in der Öffentlichkeit als letzte Berechtigte genannt wird? Dann muss hier dringend dafür gesorgt werden, dass entweder gezeigt wird, dass an den Vorwürfen nichts dran ist – dann ist es ausgeräumt –, oder aber der Rechtsstaat muss entsprechend zur Wirkung gebracht werden. Und die Kommission, Herr Präsident, ist hier auch gefordert, denn ansonsten macht sie sich zum Komplizen.

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


  Alexander Graf Lambsdorff (ALDE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Präsident! Nein, ich habe eine Frage an den Kollegen Theurer. Das hat zu tun mit dem Europäischen Staatsanwalt. Ist es zutreffend – das frage ich jetzt als Mitglied des Untersuchungsausschusses –, dass Malta sich dem Europäischen Staatsanwalt nicht unterworfen hat, und wie bewertest du das? Warum ist es offenbar der maltesischen Regierung nicht möglich oder warum ist sie nicht willens, die Unterstützung für die Behörden zu leisten an Stellen, wo gegen die finanziellen Interessen der Europäischen Union verstoßen wird? Ist das ein ernstes Problem, und wenn ja, was soll man tun?


  Michael Theurer (ALDE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Kollege Lambsdorff! Das Europäische Parlament fordert seit vielen Jahren die Einrichtung einer Europäischen Staatsanwaltschaft, damit eben auch Betrugsdelikte von Seiten der Europäischen Union grenzübergreifend in den Mitgliedstaaten geahndet werden können. Es gibt jetzt im Zusammenhang mit der verstärkten Zusammenarbeit einen ersten Gang von einigen Mitgliedstaaten. Nach den mir vorliegenden Informationen hat sich aber Malta bisher nicht bereit erklärt, die Europäische Staatsanwaltschaft zu unterstützen und ebenfalls einzuführen. Aber hier müsste dann der Premierminister erklären, warum Malta diesen Europäischen Staatsanwalt, den das Europäische Parlament seit vielen Jahren fordert, nicht unterstützt.


  Eva Joly (Verts/ALE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Premier ministre maltais, vous pensez avoir répondu aux accusations de corruption pesant sur votre entourage en convoquant des élections anticipées dans votre pays. Mais une réélection ne permet pas d’écarter les soupçons. Seule une enquête sérieuse de l’autorité de poursuite le peut.

Vous engagez-vous, ici, à garantir de véritables enquêtes policières indépendantes? De la même manière, se cacher derrière l’appartenance à l’Union européenne pour réfuter le fait que Malte puisse être un paradis fiscal n’est pas une réponse sérieuse. Comment qualifier alors un pays qui fait perdre chaque année 2 milliards d’euros de recettes fiscales aux autres États membres, d’après les révélations des «Malta Files»?

Tant que les États membres ne seront pas pris en compte dans la liste noire européenne des paradis fiscaux, non, Monsieur Muscat, faire partie de l’Union européenne ne suffira pas à écarter la qualification de paradis fiscal. Il est temps que nos gouvernements prennent conscience des dégâts causés par ces pratiques fiscales.

Le ministre français de l’économie, Bruno Le Maire, ne semblait pas non plus en avoir pris la mesure, puisqu’il a considéré comme tout à fait légal le fait que Renault et PSA éludent 119 millions d’euros d’impôts en installant des filiales à Malte. Non, ce que certains appellent de l’optimisation fiscale est en réalité de l’évasion fiscale par abus de prix de transfert, et est donc frauduleux.


  Mario Borghezio (ENF). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Presidente Muscat, le elenco due o tre argomenti che emergono dai Malta Papers: emergono i traffici della 'ndrangheta, della mafia calabrese, emergono i nomi dei più grossi personaggi del clan di San Luca, protagonista del traffico mondiale di cocaina, emergono traffici di armi, emerge un personaggio come Mohsen Rezaian, un personaggio di rilievo internazionale nel traffico di armi, tra l'altro affiliato a Hezbollah, con due società, l'America Holding e la Serafiner Trading, entrambe di diritto maltese.

Non sono parole generiche. Sui giornali si parla di La Valletta oggi – una città e un paese che ho imparato ad amare in questo semestre – come di una seconda Tripoli. Questo è un atto d'accusa, è una vergogna, al centro di tutti i traffici di armi e di quant'altro fra Italia e Libia, il peggio che ci sia. Siete coinvolti e non vi siete fatti mancare neppure i traffici delle ONG che favoriscono i traffici dei clandestini, come denunciato ultimamente persino dalla guardia libica. E lei ci viene a parlare genericamente di impegni? Lei avrebbe dovuto venire qua a dirci che cosa sta facendo contro queste realtà, non queste accuse generiche, queste realtà, documentate con nomi e cognomi, emerse dall'inchiesta di questi ...

(Il Presidente interrompe l'oratore)


  Steven Woolfe (NI). – Mr President, the Panama Papers have given rise to many scandals and corruption, and it is quite right that we create laws to prevent such waste and deal with those scandals. So why doesn’t the Commission deal with the biggest scandals of all: the waste of the European Union of the taxpayers of Europe? Take, for example, the Parliament building in Brussels, built in 1993 for EUR 1 billion, and now we are told today that it’s potentially about to fall down and needs rebuilding for EUR 393 billion. Or the new Wilfried Martens building built for EUR 125 million – 15% more than ordinary buildings of the type would have been built. The European house of history: EUR 60 million. The parliamentary building: EUR 422 million. And now we have our own MEPs’ cocktail bar for EUR 1.9 million as well – there is the scandal, ladies and gentlemen. Thank goodness we in Britain are going to leave the European Union, so that we don’t have to deal with those costs and waste anymore.


  Werner Langen (PPE). – Herr Präsident! Herr Premierminister, Sie haben gesagt, welche Fortschritte Sie in den letzten vier Jahren in der Rechtsstaatlichkeit gemacht haben. Was nutzen diese Fortschritte auf dem Papier, wenn der demokratische Selbstreinigungsprozess in Ihrer Regierung nicht funktioniert, wenn Sie Herrn Mizzi erneut als Minister berufen haben, ohne die Konsequenzen zu ziehen, ohne eine Untersuchung?

Dann kann ich nur sagen: Das tut mir leid – Sie, als ehemaliger Kollege, haben auch zu verantworten, dass das Parlament, der Untersuchungsausschuss – ich nehme den Finanzminister aus, aber von den anderen, deren Namen aufgetaucht sind – in extremem Maße ignoriert wurde. Wir haben auf unsere Fragen vom November keine Antwort erhalten. Wir haben keine Antwort bekommen auf unsere Einladung. Herr Schembri hat auf der Straße in Malta ein Kuvert aus dem Büro des Ministerpräsidenten überreichen lassen.

Das ist ein Umgang mit dem Parlament, den ich von einem ehemaligen Parlamentarier nicht für möglich gehalten hätte! Und Sie sind Vorsitzender des Rates in diesem Jahr – also, eine solche Rats-Ignoranz gegenüber dem frei gewählten Europäischen Parlament ist mir bisher noch nicht begegnet. Da müssen Sie in Ihrem eigenen Land aufräumen!

Wir werden dahinter bleiben, wir werden darauf bestehen, dass Ihr eigener Fall aufgeklärt wird – da können Sie lachen. Wir werden darauf bestehen, dass das nicht durchgeht, und das Panama-Untersuchungskomitee wird – wenn nichts geschieht, wenn Sie da so weitermachen wie bisher – auch der Frage nachgehen, ob bei dieser Wahl Stimmen gekauft wurden, wie in Malta öffentlich behauptet wird.

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


  Nuno Melo (PPE), Pergunta segundo o procedimento "cartão azul". – Meu caro Deputado Langen, é presidente da Comissão Panamá Papers. Por minha solicitação, esta comissão chamou o Secretário de Estado português, Rocha Andrade, a Bruxelas. Nessa audição, o Secretário de Estado não esclareceu sobre um acordo secreto para retirar o Panamá da lista negra e confessou não ter pedido um parecer à autoridade tributária para retirar da lista negra os offshores, paraísos fiscais, de Jersey, Man e Uruguai.

Principalmente, depois desta omissão, soube-se em Portugal que havia um parecer negativo quanto à retirada do Uruguai da lista negra nacional. Ou seja, este é um facto muito importante, um esclarecimento que não foi dado, que foi negado à comissão pelo Secretário de Estado português, Rocha Andrade. Eu já requeri novamente que o Secretário de Estado português, Rocha Andrade, comparecesse na missão a Portugal da Comissão Panamá Papers. Como presidente da Comissão Panamá Papers pergunto-lhe se considera ou não importantes estes novos esclarecimentos? Pessoalmente, considero-os muito importantes.


  Werner Langen (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Kollege! Wir haben über die Frage der schwarzen Liste auch mit dem Kommissionspräsidenten diskutiert. Er hat gesagt: Bis Jahresende wird die vorgelegt, aber er hofft, dass kein einziger Mitgliedstaat oder keine einzige Jurisdiktion innerhalb der EU darauf sein wird. Diese Aussage werden wir nicht akzeptieren.

Es gibt 33 Steuerparadiese innerhalb der Europäischen Union. Und einige Mitgliedstaaten haben Wert darauf gelegt, dass sie außen vor bleiben, und haben dafür auch andere Staaten herausgenommen, wie Uruguay. Dieses System werden wir überprüfen, und nach meiner Überzeugung muss das Steuererstattungssystem von Malta für ausländische Firmen in diese Liste aufgenommen werden.


  Miriam Dalli (S&D). – Interessanti kif il-Partit tal-Popolari Ewropej, li tagħhom il-Partit Nazzjonalista Malti huwa membru, ressqu s-suġġett għad-dibattitu biex jagħtu l-impressjoni li l-prinċipju legali tad-dritt ma jeżistix f’Malta.

Qed jippruvaw jitfgħu lil Malta fl-istess keffa tal-Ungerija mmexxija minn membru tal-familja politika tagħhom. Li mhux qed jgħidu huwa li l-Partit Nazzjonalista li jagħmel parti mill-Popolari Ewropej għamel ġimgħat sħaħ jagħmilha ta’ prosekutur, ta’ ġurat, ta’ imħallef, jgħid lil min se jitfa’ l-ħabs u lil min irid ineħħi għaliex ma jaqbilx magħhom. Jagħmel pressjoni fuq l-istituzzjonijiet u jimmina lill-istess istituzzjonijiet. U jibqa’ għaddej b’allegazzjonijiet bla bażi li smajt jiġu ripetuti hawnhekk.

Għalija, dik hija l-attitudni ta’ min ma jemminx fil-prinċipju bażiku tar-rule of law. Ir-realtà hi li kellu jkun Gvern Laburista biex neħħa l-preskrizzjoni għall-politiċi b’akkużi ta’ korruzzjoni, li introduċa l-liġi għall-finanzjament tal-partiti u li daħħal liġi li tipproteġi lill-whistleblowers. Gvern li ma jħarisx il-prinċipju tad-dritt ma jdaħħalx dawn il-miżuri.


  Monica Macovei (ECR). – Domnule președinte, Panama Papers au dezvăluit și au declanșat un scandal de corupție în care este implicat inclusiv premierul Maltei, prezent aici cu noi în sală. Scandalul de corupție trebuie investigat până la capăt, la fel ca toate scandalurile de corupție și evaziune fiscală pe care Panama Papers le-au dezvăluit. Pentru lupta împotriva corupției, evaziunii și spălării banilor, este obligatoriu să eliminăm toate acțiunile la purtător din toate statele membre, inclusiv din țara mea, România. Acțiuni la purtător sunt cecuri în alb, nu conțin numele proprietarului, nu lasă urme, nu există control și sunt anonime. Când acțiunile se mută dintr-o mână în alta se schimbă și proprietarul, fără urme. Repet, prin spălarea de bani, circa trei trilioane de dolari sunt pierduți în fiecare an în lume, din care doar 1% sunt recuperați. Suntem datori să-i recuperăm pe toți, pentru oameni.


  Nils Torvalds (ALDE). – Herr talman! Vi har under tidigare diskussioner kring Malta försökt att också visa lite förståelse för landet. Förståelsen bygger på att det kan vara ganska svårt att hitta en fungerande ekonomi om man är liten sten mitt ute i Medelhavet och det inte finns ett stort förråd av naturresurser att använda. Samtidigt är vi lite oroade just nu av den process vi ser i samband med penningtvättsdirektivet. Vi har hållit på i samband med penningtvättsdirektivet att försöka hitta regler som ska hålla, och då visar det sig att det maltesiska ordförandeskapet inte riktigt klarar av att fatta klara och enkla beslut om den verkliga ägaren. Den centrala punkten i våra försök att hitta kryphålen i beskattningspolitiken handlar om att vi hittar den verkliga ägaren. Om Maltas ordförandeskap inte vågar ta upp den frågan väcker det misstankar – misstankar som handlar om att det inte alltid sköts på det sätt som det borde skötas på. Det finns också andra indicier. En annan fråga som kommer upp i penningtvättsdirektivet handlar om vem som är en politiskt utsatt personlighet och den frågan har inte heller skötts.


  Gilles Lebreton (ENF). – Monsieur le Président, l’Union européenne cherche à se présenter comme l’Europe des valeurs. Elle n’est que l’Europe des affairistes.

Nous avions déjà Jean-Claude Juncker, grand architecte de l’évasion fiscale, à la tête de la Commission, nous avons maintenant Malte, paradis fiscal, à la tête du Conseil européen. C’est assez savoureux quand on sait que, pour redorer son blason, le Parlement européen a créé depuis un an une commission d’enquête sur le scandale des «Panama Papers», au sein de laquelle j’ai l’honneur de siéger.

Une enquête menée par un réseau international de journalistes vient de révéler que Malte, petit État de moins de 500 000 habitants, prive ses partenaires de l’Union de deux milliards d’euros de recettes fiscales par an. Face à ce scandale, l’Union ne fait rien!

Je l’accuse de laisser délibérément des multinationales, des banques et des responsables politiques bénéficier de cette évasion fiscale. J’appelle les Européens, et plus particulièrement les Français, à ouvrir les yeux sur la véritable nature de l’Union.


  Dariusz Rosati (PPE). – Mr President, during our work in the committee of inquiry on the so—called Panama Papers, the word ‘Malta’ has come up very often. I would like to say to the Prime Minister that this was mostly in the context of very worrying information about high officials from his country being involved in various activities that raise suspicion of being linked to money laundering and corruption. Given this information, we decided to organise a fact—finding mission to Malta, during which we met with representatives of intermediaries as well as with journalists and some government officials.

Prime Minister, unfortunately, your Chief of Staff, Mr Schembri, whose name appeared in the Panama Papers, refused to meet with us, while another member of your Cabinet, whose name was also exposed in the Panama Papers, Minister Konrad Mizzi, failed to convince us of his innocence. We find it absolutely unacceptable that a high government official from an EU Member State refuses to appear before the parliamentary committee of inquiry to testify. Moreover, we also find it very worrying that you, as Prime Minister, have not suspended both Mr Schembri and Minister Mizzi from their government duties until the legal investigation in their cases is completed.

The failure to do so, Prime Minister, has seriously undermined the credibility of your country and yourself personally at the crucial time when Malta holds the Presidency of the European Union. It has also sent a bad signal to European public opinion. I am sure you agree with me that winning elections does not allow you or your government to sweep such problems under the rug. Here in this House, we all expect that you will make sure that an honest investigation into these two cases will take place without delay.


  Ramón Jáuregui Atondo (S&D). – Señor presidente. Los papeles de Panamá no han puesto únicamente en cuestión a Malta. Quiero empezar por recordar que son muchos los países, los entramados, los bancos, los asesores fiscales, los abogados que están relacionados con los papeles de Panamá.

Es importante, sin embargo, que recordemos que este país, Malta, tiene la firme voluntad de trabajar por la transparencia y por la cooperación leal en la lucha contra la evasión fiscal. Esto es lo que nosotros pensamos de usted, señor Muscat. Nosotros tenemos confianza plena en su trabajo. Le respetamos, le felicitamos por su triunfo y esperamos que, efectivamente, Malta sea uno de los países punteros en esta lucha por la justicia fiscal y por la lucha contra los paraísos fiscales.

Pero, señorías, no hablamos solo de Malta. Porque quiero recordar que se han cruzado cuarenta mil personas, relacionadas con la Unión Europea, con los papeles de Panamá y la OLAF ha decidido investigar a varias personas. Por ejemplo, a la antigua comisaria Kroes o, por ejemplo, al actual comisario Cañete, por sus relaciones con los papeles de Panamá. Hablemos claro.

No acusemos solo a Malta, sino que exijamos ejemplaridad y exijamos, efectivamente, una investigación plena de los responsables. Porque, ciertamente, también la Comisión, también la Unión Europea tienen que dar credibilidad suficiente a su trabajo y no acusar únicamente a un país, sino ponernos todos al frente de una lucha que debemos librar todos juntos.


  Ангел Джамбазки (ECR). – Няма съмнение, досиетата „Панама“ са един от най-големите скандали, на които сме били свидетели през последните години. Впечатляващо е, че отнема повече от година, за да бъдат изяснени твърденията за корупция на високо ниво.

С обвиненията през април миналата година главно към Вас, уважаеми министър-председател, както и към Вашия началник-щаб, министър на енергетиката и членове на Вашето семейство, забелязваме, че това важно досие се проточва изключително дълго. Това мога да го видя и като член на комисията за досиетата „Панама“. Още повече, че в момента Вашата страна е председател на Съвета на Европа по време на текущото разследване.

Очевидно е и е видимо възпрепятстването от страна на ключови държавни органи в малтийската политическа и правоприлагаща сфера, както се съобщава най-вече в местните медии. Само девет месеца след като Вие, съвместно с „Прозрачност без граници“, подписахте изявление относно подход за борба с корупцията и нулева толерантност, „Прозрачност без граници“ заяви в официално съобщение от 9 август 2016 г., че Малта трябва да се изчисти от корупцията преди да се отправи към Съвета на ЕС следващата година.

Такъв случай на корупция в Европейския съюз трябва да бъде изяснен възможно най-бързо.


  Roberta Metsola (PPE). – Għal min verament iħobb lil Malta mhux ta’ pjaċir li llum ninsabu hawn f’din id-diskussjoni. Il-Gvern seta’ evita dan kollu imma ma riedx. F’pajjiżi hemm diversi inkjesti maġisterjali li qed isiru fuq esponenti ewlenin tal-Gvern li huma involuti f’allegazzjonijiet ta’ ħasil ta’ flus f’kontijiet sigrieti.

Hawn min, għaliex hekk jaqbillu biex isikkitna, jgħid li jekk tiddefendi lil pajjiżek, tkun qed tittradixxi lil Malta. Min jgħid hekk, żbaljat. Inkunu qed nittradixxu lil Malta jekk niddefendu lil min jipproteġi lil dak li qed jiġi investigat. Jiena kburija li jiena Maltija u kburija li niddefendi lil pajjiżi f’Malta u anke hawnhekk.

Jien ukoll kontra min qed juża dak li ġara bħala skuża biex idgħajjef is-settur tas-servizzi finanzjarji f’Malta. Il-ħażin li għamlu dawn in-nies m’għandhomx jeħlu bih il-ħaddiema u s-servizzi finanzjarji. Għalhekk, jiena nappella, li fuq naħa, għandna nibqgħu impenjati li nsaħħu l-istituzzjonijiet ewlenin tagħna f’pajjiżna, inkluż dawk li jgħassu kontra attivitajiet illegali, u fuq in-naħa l-oħra, għandna nirreaġixxu għal kull min juża dak li għamel il-Gvern bħala skuża fuq is-suċċess li kisbet Malta f’dan is-settur fis-snin li għaddew.

Bil-kliem kulħadd jista’ jgħid li huwa Ewropew imma dak li għandu jiddefinixxina bħala Maltin u Ewropej huma l-valuri tagħna kif inwettquhom. Li niddefendu u naħdmu fl-interess ta’ pajjiżna hu obbligu tagħna u juri l-kobor tagħna, għaliex il-kobor tagħna ma jiġix mill-pożizzjoni jew id-daqs ġeografiku imma mill-ħila tagħna li nwettqu l-valuri Ewropej.

Jiena nwiegħed li, flimkien mal-kollegi tiegħi, ser nibqa’ dejjem niddefendi lil pajjiżna u lil dak li nemmnu fih, kullimkien.


  Marlene Mizzi (S&D). – Dan id-dibattitu li qatt ma missu sar hu instigat biss għal skop partiġjan bil-ħsieb li jimmina x-xogħol tal-Gvern Malti u jtebba’ isem Malta. Qegħdin niddiskutu affarijiet ta’ Stat demokratiku li misshom jiġu indirizzati internament u mingħajr indħil.

Qegħdin niddiskutu wieħed mill-Istati Membri li l-aktar għamlu suċċess ekonomiku, fejn id-demokrazija u r-rule of law qatt ma kienu dubjużi. Waqt li għall-Panama Papers hemm il-PANA Committee, id-dibattitu tal-lum huwa biss skuża meskina biex din il-Kamra tinkludi aġenda partiġjana ta’ nies li, kull meta tkellmu bl-iskop li jattakkaw ‘il-Gvern, għamlu kemm setgħu deni lil pajjiżhom, speċjalment waqt li Malta għandha l-presidenza. Nies li stqarru li jistħu li huma Maltin.

L-iskop ta’ dan id-dibattitu mhux veru biex niddiskutu r-rule of law. Tant hu hekk, li dawn riedu li dan id-dibattitu jsir qabel l-elezzjoni ġenerali biex b’hekk jieħdu vantaġġ politiku partiġjan. Dawn huma tattiċi tal-mistħija, tattiċi tal-bullying. Malta hi pajjiż demokratiku, progressiv u ta’ suċċess. Pajjiż żgħir imma nazzjon kbir. Tippruvawx tkunu bullies magħna għax ma nħallukomx.


  Markus Ferber (PPE). – Herr Präsident, liebe Kolleginnen, liebe Kollegen! Nachdem ich auch das besondere Vergnügen hatte, im TAXE-1-, TAXE-2- und im Panama-Untersuchungsausschuss sein zu können, muss ich doch feststellen, dass es sehr, sehr schwierig ist, in dieses Kartell des Schweigens, das der Rat leider auch mit Unterstützung der Kommission aufgebaut hat, Licht zu bringen und Informationen zu beschaffen.

Erstens: Herr Kommissar, Sie haben mir einen Brief geschrieben, es gäbe in der Europäischen Union keine Steueroasen. Dieser Brief hat in meinem Büro einen Ehrenplatz bekommen, und ich schaue ihn mir immer wieder sehr gerne an, weil die tägliche Arbeit auch im Untersuchungsausschuss zeigt, dass das Gegenteil der Fall ist.

Und, Herr Premierminister, es ist doch interessant, dass ein Land wie das Ihrige wirklich das Who is Who der europäischen Wirtschaft im eigenen Land ansiedeln kann, ohne dass da groß Produktion stattfindet. Auch das sind interessante Dinge, die wir in TAXE-1 und TAXE-2 aufbereitet haben.

In Panama geht es darum, wie individuelle Steuerpflichtige ihre Vermögen vor der Besteuerung in Sicherheit bringen. Und dass selbst maltesische Staatsbürger in hoher Verantwortung die maltesischen Steuersätze fürchten, ist ja doch ein beredtes Beispiel für das, was da stattfindet.

Das Ganze wird noch dadurch gekrönt, dass die Zusammenarbeit mit dem Rat – Entschuldigung – unter aller Kanone ist. Wir haben jetzt gelernt, welche Möglichkeiten des Einschwärzens von Dokumenten es gibt, als wir die Unterlagen anschauen wollten. Manche schwärzen ganze Seiten, manche schwärzen Absätze, manche schwärzen Worte. Aber wir kriegen keine Informationen, wir bekommen nur schwarze Seiten.

Sehr geehrter Herr Premierminister, da hätten Sie viel tun können, um mehr Glaubwürdigkeit in Europa zu schaffen. Wer Wirtschaftswachstum nur auf dem Rücken anderer Staaten schafft, der handelt nicht rechtmäßig.

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


  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), Kékkártyás kérdés. – Elnök Úr! Mindenekelőtt hadd mondjak egy szót Miniszterelnök úrnak is, hogy magyar képviselőként, magyar állampolgárként irigylem az ön problémáit. Ugyanis mindazok a vádak, amik egyébként a korábbiakban elhangzottak, meg Ön is utalt rá. Tisztelettel kérdezem, hogy ugyanezt a beszédet Ön hajlandó lenne-e Orbán Viktornak is elmondani, aki százszorosát követi el mindazoknak, amivel most a máltaiakat vádoljuk?


  Markus Ferber (PPE), Antwort auf eine Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Also, auch bei intensiver Lektüre der Panama-Papers ist der Name Orbán nicht auffindbar gewesen. Deswegen kann ich ihm die Fragen nicht stellen.


  Paul Tang (S&D). – Mr President, we are having a debate and there is not a lack of opinions and even accusations, but there is a lack of facts. I have been part of the PANA delegation to Malta; we had discussions, but it was very difficult for us also by the nature of this mission to uncover this fact. I think the European Parliament, before entering this debate should get the facts, and take itself seriously by gathering facts and not just have opinions and accusations – that is not enough.

Let me talk about one topic. This is the opportunity where we do have facts and a lot of evidence – the evidence for tax competition. We now see for example that small firms pay 30% more taxes than large corporations: that is a fact. Malta has, to put it in a neutral way, a very different tax system, with the ultimate tax burden of about 5% in many cases. There is nothing wrong with being different and having a different tax system, but I would implore the Prime Minister to join the investigation into loopholes that are unintended and join international cooperation to close these loopholes. I expect that from Malta. I would also implore the Prime Minister, especially as he is from the social democratic family, that he join efforts to introduce the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base, because that is the European response for making the tax system efficient and fair and I also count on Malta on this.

As I said, there is nothing wrong with being different, but I hope the Maltese Prime Minister will join with the European Parliament and fight for fair and efficient taxation in Europe.


  Paulo Rangel (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Primeiro-Ministro, Senhor Comissário, penso que é preciso sublinhar três pontos a este respeito.

O primeiro é que é vergonhoso o que se passa em Malta há muito tempo e, portanto, em particular, a forma como isto veio a público, através dos Panamá Papers, mostra que nós não podemos manter, no espaço da União Europeia, este tipo de regulação que dá azo a manobras menos transparentes.

Em segundo lugar, devo dizer que não é apenas Malta e, portanto, nós temos de combater esta competição fiscal ao nível de toda a União Europeia e, por isso, a harmonização fiscal é uma prioridade porque há vários outros sítios que se prestam a este tipo de práticas menos transparentes.

E, finalmente, dizer aqui que me associo por completo àquele grito ou àquele manifesto do meu colega Nuno Melo, quando em Portugal, de forma totalmente ilegal, se retiraram da lista negra dos offshores a Ilha de Man, Jersey e o Uruguai. Portanto, queria também dar nota disto porque isto deve ser investigado pela Comissão Panamá Papers.


Intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»)


  Nuno Melo (PPE). – Senhor Presidente, não é normal um membro de um governo de um Estado omitir informação relevante de uma comissão de inquérito do Parlamento Europeu, mas foi isso que fez o Secretário de Estado português Rocha Andrade. Não explicou um acordo secreto para retirar o Panamá da lista negra num tempo em que fazia parte de um governo. Confessou não ter pedido parecer à Autoridade Tributária portuguesa para retirar três offshores de uma lista negra contra a legislação nacional e omitiu um parecer negativo das Finanças que era contra a retirada do Uruguai da lista negra.

Exatamente por isto, solicitei do Presidente da Comissão de Inquérito que o Sr. Secretário de Estado Rocha Andrade pudesse, na próxima missão a Portugal, ter uma nova oportunidade e esclarecer aquilo que omitiu no Parlamento Europeu. É importante saber como é que, contra a lei, contra pareceres das Finanças, se retiram da lista negra offshores em Portugal. Sobre isso, espero que compareça na próxima missão a Portugal.


  Ana Gomes (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, vai manter Keith Schembri e Konrad Mizzi, ambos expostos nos Panama Papers, no seu Governo? Se sim, vai continuar vulnerável, apesar de ter ganho eleições. E o pior é que vulnerabiliza, assim, mais a reputação do seu país, já abalada por assentar prosperidade e desenvolvimento em indústrias de serviços financeiros e de eGaming que servem a criminalidade organizada e servem a corruptos do mundo inteiro para branquear capitais e fugirem a pagar impostos.

Ainda recentemente, o semanário Expresso, publicado no meu país, Portugal, expôs a forma como o seu país é utilizado por pessoas politicamente expostas e empresários para criarem empresas de fachada que servem de plataforma para disfarçar a origem ilícita do património e, a partir de Malta, investirem no sistema financeiro europeu, beneficiando de chorudos benefícios fiscais.

O programa de venda de cidadania e de residência para pessoas ou empresas, que vem publicitado na revista da Air Malta, é a ilustração do esquema descarado de dumping fiscal e de facilitação de branqueamento em que, desgraçadamente, Malta não está sozinha entre os Estados-Membros da União Europeia.

Temo que, no relatório da Comissão de Inquérito sobre os Panama Papers, Malta não se destaque por trabalhar por valores europeus, nem, muito menos, valores socialistas e trabalhistas, mas sim por parecer e ser um paraíso fiscal europeu, entre outros. Temos que acabar com eles.


  Τάκης Χατζηγεωργίου (GUE/NGL). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, στη ζούγκλα όλα τα ζώα είναι ίσα, αλλά το λιοντάρι είναι λίγο πιο ίσο. Δεν υπάρχει κανένας που δεν μπορεί να καταγγείλει ότι δεν πρέπει να επιτρέπεται ο παράνομος χρηματισμός, είτε αυτό αναφέρεται στη Μάλτα, είτε στην Κύπρο, είτε σε οποιοδήποτε άλλο κράτος. Αλλά να μην «πετάξουμε το μωρό μαζί με τη μπανιέρα». Σε μια συζήτηση στην επιτροπή για τα «Panama papers», που είμαι μέλος, λέχθηκε ότι μια εταιρεία φυλάει παράνομο χρήμα σε 60 σημεία στον πλανήτη και βρήκαμε ότι μόνο σε ένα σημείο κρύβει 70 δισεκατομμύρια. Και τον μέσο όρο να βάλεις, βγάζεις 1 τρισεκατομμύριο, και δεν ασχολήθηκε κανένας με αυτό το ζήτημα. Ένα τρισεκατομμύριο σώζει την παγκόσμια οικονομική κρίση και ταΐζει όλο τον ανθρώπινο πληθυσμό που πεινά. Λοιπόν, να εξεταστεί και η Μάλτα, να εξεταστούν και άλλα κράτη, να εξεταστεί και το Jersey και το Guernsey, γιατί η απομόνωση δίνει την εντύπωση ότι δεν είμαστε καθαροί στο πώς αντιμετωπίζουμε το ζήτημα.


  Romana Tomc (PPE). – Lahko sprejmemo tisoč zakonov, pa z njimi ne bomo preprečili korupcije. Lahko imamo tisoč institucij, pa te ne bodo odkrile kriminala. Vse je odvisno od tega, ali so zakoni pisani za izbrance, ki na ta način celo legalizirajo svoja dejanja.

In ali so institucije, ki naj bi bile neodvisne, zares neodvisne?

Afera Panama Papers je zbudila veliko pozornosti in kar nekaj vrzeli za davčne utaje smo zaprli zaradi tega, vendar to je seveda šele začetek. Vsak dan se pojavi kakšna nova afera.

Samo nekaj dni nazaj je izbruhnila tudi afera v zvezi z največjo slovensko banko, za katero obstaja sum, da je sodelovala pri pranju iranskega denarja.

Vsi govorimo o vladavini prava, tudi premier Muscat, in obsojamo korupcijo. Dobro bi bilo seveda, da ne bi samo govorili, ampak bi se tega tudi držali.


  Juan Fernando López Aguilar (S&D). – Señor presidente. Hace un rato debatíamos aquí, en este Pleno del Parlamento Europeo, sobre una Europa basada en valores, la que echamos de menos cuando vemos los incumplimientos en materia migratoria, cuando vemos la falta de unión para hacer frente al populista en jefe Donald Trump cuando se retira del cambio climático con una diplomacia humanitaria que dé una respuesta humanitaria a la crisis, pero también cuando luchamos contra la evasión fiscal y contra el fraude fiscal.

Primer ministro Muscat: por supuesto, saludamos su compromiso.

Pero, comisario Moscovici: es muy importante que los trabajos de la Comisión de Investigación sobre Blanqueo de Capitales y Elusión y Evasión Fiscales no se centren ni en Nevada ni en Hong Kong, sino en la desigualdad tributaria aquí, en la Unión Europea, dentro de la Unión Europea. Porque las resoluciones fiscales, el papel de los abogados, de los asesores fiscales y de los bancos están pidiendo a gritos un esfuerzo de armonización fiscal en Europa y desde Europa.

Por eso, la comisión de investigación tiene que empedrar el camino hacia una nueva legislación que acabe con las lagunas, los agujeros legales y los muchos trucos que permiten que los defraudadores se sigan saliendo con la suya.


  Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Úr! Engedjék meg, hogy egy pillanatra visszautaljak a korábbi kérdésemre kapott válaszra. Valóban, itt most Málta van a porondon, ezzel együtt szerintem ez a vita azért mégiscsak az Európai Unióról kell, hogy szóljon. Azok a jelenségek, amiket mi itt most szóvá teszünk, ezek Európa nagyon sok országában vannak, és elképesztő milliárdokat von el az európai fejlődéstől, az európai adófizetőktől. Én éppen ezért tartom nagyon-nagyon fontosnak, hogy ennek a mai vitának legyen az a fontos tanulsága, hogy nem csak egy országot kinézünk, és akkor ott minden vádat el lehet mondani, hanem az egész problémát összességében kell kezelni, mert amint mondtam, hogy Orbán Viktor Magyarországon százszor annyi disznóságot csinál, mint amit itt vádként egyébként a teremben hallottunk, ez tény. Például az állampolgársági program, amit Orbán kormánya folytat kizárólag és szigorúan offshore műveletek tárgya. Na, ezek azok, amiket nem hagyhat egy európai közösség.


  Doru-Claudian Frunzulică (S&D). – Mr President, I welcome the fact that the PANA inquiry committee in the European Parliament has been taking the Maltese case seriously and organised a fact-finding mission to Valletta in February 2017. It seems that on the one hand the Maltese tax system is in line with current international EU standards as regards harmful tax competition, but that, nonetheless, the system provides for advantages, making it highly attractive for business and wealthy individuals to settle there. Moreover, a high number of intermediaries from Malta were involved in the Panama papers, with some intermediaries having worked with politically-exposed persons.

It is regrettable that Keith Schembri refused to appear to be before PANA, and that institutions in charge of implementing and enforcing rules as regards tax fraud and money laundering were highly politicised. This must be condemned by all means.

And the other side, last but not least, allow me to praise the successful activity of Malta leading the EU Council.


(Fin de las intervenciones con arreglo al procedimiento de solicitud incidental de uso de la palabra («catch the eye»))


  Pierre Moscovici, membre de la Commission. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Premier Ministre, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, merci de m’avoir invité et d’avoir invité la Commission à participer à ce débat, qui m’a donné l’occasion de rappeler tout ce que la Commission et l’Union ont fait pour rendre la fiscalité plus transparente, plus efficace et plus juste dans l’Union européenne.

La Commission est au courant, bien sûr, des liens établis entre les «Panama Papers» et Malte, qui font l’objet d’enquêtes judiciaires à Malte. La raison pour laquelle nous ne nous sommes pas prononcés est très simple, c’est que la Commission ne peut pas commenter des enquêtes en cours. Il y a un principe qui existe dans toutes nos démocraties: celui de la séparation des pouvoirs et de l’indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire, que nous ne pouvons évidemment pas remettre en cause.

M. Giegold a déclaré qu’une lettre a été envoyée aujourd’hui à la Commission. Celle-ci en prendra connaissance et y répondra.

Je veux simplement insister sur trois points. Le premier, c’est que plusieurs d’entre vous nous ont expliqué que nous avons une vision restrictive des paradis fiscaux lorsque nous considérons qu’il n’y a pas de paradis fiscaux dans l’Union européenne. Cela ne signifie en rien que nous ignorons qu’il peut y avoir des problèmes et des pratiques dommageables dans l’Union européenne, qui font l’objet d’enquêtes, mais un paradis fiscal, c’est autre chose, si nous voulons raisonner en toute rigueur. Pourquoi? Un paradis fiscal, c’est un pays qui ne respecterait pas les normes internationales et, au-delà, les règles en matière de transparence et de lutte contre l’évasion fiscale qui sont maintenant inscrites dans le droit européen. J’ai parlé de leadership européen parce que, grâce à l’action déterminée que nous menons, le droit européen va bien au-delà des normes internationales. Tous les pays européens ont d’ailleurs adopté ces règles de droit. Ils les mettent tous en œuvre et ils montrent qu’ils ont la nécessité et la volonté de respecter ces engagements.

Il y a eu aussi plusieurs mécanismes, que j’appellerai le soft law, comme la mise en place d’un code de conduite sur les pratiques dommageables en matière fiscale. Il est donc absolument nécessaire de prendre des mesures fortes pour lutter contre les pratiques fiscales injustes dans l’Union. Mais qualifier pour autant tel ou tel État membre de paradis fiscal en soi n’est pas, selon moi, une démarche intellectuellement satisfaisante ou rigoureuse. Par conséquent, la Commission ne la proposera pas.

En ce qui concerne l’action contre le blanchiment d’argent, la Commission considère que la transparence et l’accès à l’information sur les bénéficiaires effectifs sont des points très importants pour lutter contre le blanchiment d’argent et contre l’évasion et la fraude fiscales. La Commission défend sa proposition, parce que nous la considérons comme proportionnée et équilibrée entre, d’une part, la nécessité de doter les autorités d’instruments nécessaires pour lutter contre la fraude fiscale et le blanchiment d’argent et, d’autre part, l’efficacité, qui est aussi indispensable.

Enfin, je réponds notamment à M. Ferber, qui affiche les lettres que nous pouvons lui adresser. Je lui en enverrai d’autres qui, j’espère, seront également affichables et qui seront également suivies d’effets. Sur les demandes d’accès aux documents, la Commission, à travers ses différentes directions générales, notamment DG TAXUD, DG JUST et DG FISMA, travaille dur – je le dis aussi au président Langen – pour accéder aux demandes légitimes de la commission PANA (commission d’enquête chargée d’examiner les allégations d’infraction et de mauvaise administration dans l’application du droit de l’Union en matière de blanchiment de capitaux, d’évasion fiscale et de fraude fiscale) concernant l’accès aux documents.

Monsieur le Président, vous pouvez porter témoignage que nous avons déjà remis des centaines de documents à cette commission, avec laquelle je me réjouis de pouvoir travailler dans les meilleures conditions. En particulier, je vais citer deux choses. À l’étape où nous sommes, plus de 850 documents ont été chargés sur la plateforme internet ouverte dans le cadre de la commission PANA. En outre, pas moins de 697 autres documents confidentiels (dont 375 pour la DG TAXUD, dont j’ai la responsabilité) ont été procurés à la commission PANA dans une chambre de lecture sécurisée. On comprendra qu’on doit aussi respecter un certain nombre d’informations personnelles sur des contribuables. En tout cas, il ne nous revient pas de les rendre publiques. Mais je veux que cette action de transparence soit menée jusqu’au bout, et vous savez bien – je m’adresse ici aux députés au Parlement européen – que s’il y a des lacunes, ici ou là, ce n’est pas le fait de la Commission, mais davantage celui des États membres, qui doivent également coopérer.

Voilà ce que je voulais dire dans le cadre de ce débat dont je mesure l’importance. Ce débat ne doit esquiver aucune situation. Il doit respecter en même temps la séparation des pouvoirs et doit faire justice aux États membres et à leur action pour intégrer de nouvelles réglementations européennes dans leur propre droit national. Il doit également continuer une lutte ardente, sans faiblir, contre la fraude et l’évasion fiscales.

Nous avons obtenu, au cours des dernières années, des résultats extrêmement importants. D’ailleurs, nombre d’affaires dont nous parlons sont des affaires qui découlent de failles ou de lacunes dans la législation précédente. Elles ne pourraient pas se reproduire à l’avenir. Ce n’est pas une raison pour ne pas considérer qu’il faille aller jusqu’au bout des enquêtes, mais c’est une raison pour la Commission de poursuivre son action législative en la matière jusqu’au bout et de demander aux États membres de ne pas faiblir, de ne pas faillir et d’être à nos côtés dans ces avancées que votre Parlement, je le sais, soutient et promeut avec nous, et même plus ardemment que nous.


  Joseph Muscat, Prime Minister of Malta. – Mr President, I expect some of you would be expecting me to be angry after this debate. Actually I am not: I am very happy to be here; I consider this as a natural second home for me, and I do understand the spirit of this debate. I do understand the political narrative of it all. So allow me to reply in kind and to be tongue and cheek in my replies and very candid and very open in the way I try to address the concerns that you have put forward.

I do understand, as a politician, the timing of the debate, and I do appreciate that a majority in this House did not agree to the fact that such a debate takes place during an electoral campaign. This is a much more serene setting for such a debate. I welcome, first of all, Mr Weber’s wishes. I thank him for his contribution to our campaign back in Malta. He said that the only politicians mentioned in the Panama Papers were Maltese – I am sorry, it is not true. We have a Commissioner from the EPP family who is mentioned in those papers – his own family. No one is saying anything about that.

(Mr Langen, I have not interrupted you: please listen to me, hear me out.)

No one said anything about that, so I do believe that that was the first incorrect fact. But, really and truly, there are three ways in which this debate has gone: there is the debate on the Panama Papers, there is the debate on the issue of taxation, and there is then an outright lie that has been said.

Let’s start with the debate on the Panama papers, with many Members asking why there is not an investigation. I think Ms Metsola said quite clearly: there are four investigations taking place in court by independent judges, and they will decide whether there is room for prosecution. There already has been a commitment that, if there is such room for prosecution, resignations would be in order. I am amazed that this basic fact was not taken into consideration. There are four independent judicial investigations taking place. That is the most basic fact that, I am sorry, quite a number of Members got wrong. I do believe the problem is that most of the time, Members and colleagues are sourcing their facts simply from the social media and not trying to dig little bit deeper to try to ascertain the veracity of fact.

Secondly, I do believe, and I do bring to your attention, the fact that some of the conclusions that you were referring to were really and truly denied by the same independent institutions that are being quoted, including the Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit. I must say that I will keep on mentioning a number of facts that I think need to be ascertained. Let me start with our tax system. Malta’s imputation tax system is quite unique in Europe, that’s true. It has not been invented or put in during the past 4 or 10 years. It has been there since World War II. It has been scrutinised by the Commission prior to our joining the European Union more than 11 years ago. It is OECD-compliant. Some might not like it; some might say it is competitive. The fact is that it has undergone all levels of scrutiny by all organisations.

I also believe that there are two ways in which we can go on the taxation element. On one I agree with this House, and I will show how, in practice, we as a government and also as a presidency have gone to lengths not only not to obstruct the advancement of dossiers in this area but actually to conclude dossiers that are quite thorny: ATAD II – the anti-tax avoidance directive, the second recast; BEPS – the erosion of profits, profit shifting. These are all issues that have been concluded or where progress has been achieved under the Maltese Presidency. I think that is a fact that should be taken into consideration.

I must also stress the fact that our government and also as a whole, we are part of the OECD exchange of information. Some mentioned the ‘Malta files’. There is nothing secret. The people who have companies back at home are publicly available on the internet. The only exercise that was made was a consolidation of elements where, instead of searching a company, one searches a name. I invite you to take a look at the Tax Justice Network’s Financial Secrecy Index. You will find at least five Member States – and not necessarily the usual suspects – who are ranked lower than Malta when it comes to secrecy and transparency. We have done away with banking secrecy more than a decade and a half ago. We are not the last people to come to join this fight against avoidance and evasion. The point where we disagree is where Member States should not be let and left to decide their own tax levels. That is something that I totally disagree with the majority of this House about. I might remain in a minority on this, but that is something that I believe is fundamental and is also fundamental for a number of other Member States, irrespective of the composition of our economy. It is not true that our economy is dependent on financial services: that shows a lack of knowledge about the structure of the smallest Member State’s economy. Maybe it is not too much important for some of you over here, but if you look at the basic numbers, our main exports are microchips. In almost all your mobile phones, you will find a microchip proudly made in Malta. We are not a mailbox economy; we are an economy that produces value added. Trying to put a caricature of all this – I can accept it in a tabloid, but really and truly, I expect a more informed debate in such a House.

Let me move on to some other issues. I said the independence of institutions, but also the way in which we source our information and the way in which we direct debates. Yes, quite a number of you relied on reports that were on media. None of you – I am surprised – referred to the Moneyval reports. I believe that we all trust Moneyval. It is an institution that is not political. It is an institution that sees each and every jurisdiction, makes recommendations and is very tough. Moneyval has a positive report about our country.

FSAP – let’s refer to the facts. It is not about who tweets and who posts on the internet. It is about experts telling us what to do in the same way that Greco, the Council of Europe, told us: ‘you guys don’t have a system of party financing, we don’t know who is financing your political parties’. Guess what? We introduced the system. Guess what? We are now totally compliant with the system and we are implementing it. It is not a law just there for the sake of being there. Unfortunately the opposition does not like it, but fortunately enough we are all compliant with it.

Which brings me to some other points which I would like to make, which is really the third point, which some of you have referred to. I am really sorry that Mr Langen is no longer here, or at least I do not see him. Some people in this House have referred to a story – a totally outright lie – that has been directed against me, my wife and my family, namely that I have some sort of structure – account, funds – that I took from some contract: this is an outright lie. Whenever I ask someone to tell me the source of all this, everyone points at the same blog and report, which is unsubstantiated. And you know what? We respect so much the rule of law that, as Prime Minister, I went to court and I asked the court – an independent institution, where I have already as Prime Minister divested myself of the right enjoyed by my predecessors to nominate people to the bench (but now people come to the bench after being vetted by independent lawyers and prosecutors) – to appoint a magistrate to investigate these allegations. I said more than that; I said that, not only if there is some evidence that is put forward but if there is a shred of truth, I will immediately resign. I put myself on the line, for the simple reason I know it is totally untrue. Those who made the allegations, I asked them: ‘would you want to pledge your political career if what you are saying is false?’ No, they did not take up the challenge. Maltese people judged also based on this fact. What politician would pledge his whole career totally on one statement, on one assertion? I do not even bat an eyelid doing that, because I know I am saying the truth. I marvel at the idea that some extremely knowledgeable Members of this House have taken this thing, this fake news, and repeated it here just like that.

So my point to Mr Langen and to some colleagues is: why aren’t you coming to the PANA Committee?’ I said about a month, a month and a half ago, I am coming to the PANA Committee. If you do not get this basic fact right, I am sorry, please check your press reviews or fire the people who are making them for you. I said I would be coming. I said I would be coming once the judge comes out with the independent investigation – one of the four independent investigations – to be able to present to the PANA Committee not what the Prime Minister of Malta is saying, but facts ascertained by the judiciary. And I am amazed that such a basic fact has been overlooked when there is such – what I deem to be – a serious debate, or which should have been a serious debate.

I will conclude, Mr President. The second part of the topic for discussion is the rule of law. Let me take some time to say what we do back at home about the rule of law. May I remind you, The Economist classifies Malta as one of the few countries which is a full democracy. Some other Member States are not full democracies, but I will not judge them.

What have we done? First of all, we have a totally independent National Audit Office that criticises government whenever it deems needs to criticise the government; a government that, when it has reports, takes corrective action. We have an ombudsman, who is critical of all institutions and of all governments, irrespective of which party forms that government; a Public Service Commission that is made up of representatives from all sides of the House. We have an independent judiciary which, even during the last legislature, decided that the opposition should have two extra seats; we disagreed with that ruling, but we said: yes, we will implement that ruling, because we observe the rule of law. We have an Attorney General, who was not changed after the election. We kept the same Attorney General who was nominated by the previous government, and now this person of high integrity gets attacked because some people in the opposition do not like the way in which he is giving advice. We have the Chair of our Financial Services Regulatory Authority, who was appointed by the previous administration. We kept him in office.

We have removed time-barring on issues of corruption. I mentioned a number of other facts, such as the removal of parliamentary immunity, and very soon the implementation of a commissioner for public standards. We will be having, for the first time, hearings in our Parliament for appointing regulators. We have enacted a Freedom of Information Act. We have relaxed media laws in a way that now they are one of the most, if not the most, liberal in Europe. Not only did we not put constraints on journalists, we have even relaxed the way in which journalists are required to put forward issues related to sources. And we have removed criminal libels in order to prevent journalists from being put in prison – laws that have been there even after we joined the European Union, and we managed to remove them.

In doing all this, then, we managed to achieve success, and I do believe that there might be some people who are not too keen on our economic success and social success. We not only have the best-performing economy in the Eurozone – and that is not because of financial services and gaming alone, it is about tourism, manufacturing, the services industry; it is about the honest, busy people that go to work each and every day. We have increased our pensions; we have increased the minimum wage; we have introduced universal free childcare; we have put Malta from number 20-whatever on the ILGA list for LGBTIQ rights to number one in Europe.

This is prosperity with a purpose; this is the sort of debate I would love to have in this House. I do not have a problem in having the debate that we just had. I do hope that, when I appear in front of the PANA Committee with the facts – and I assure Mr Langen that I will appear in front of the Committee; I am not a Volkswagen that says one thing but does another – I keep my word. I will be here to present facts, and those facts, hopefully, will show how misguided some colleagues, unfortunately, have been. Having said that, I love this institution and I will continue to stick up for this institution.


  Helena Dalli, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, I mentioned earlier the ongoing efforts in the Council on the different files in the area of the fight against tax evasion, fraud and avoidance, and I can assure you that in the weeks before the end of our presidency we will do our utmost to achieve all the progress possible on these files. I am also confident that our Estonian colleagues will pursue this work in the coming months in this area, which is a priority for the Council.


  El Presidente. – Se cierra el debate.

Declaraciones por escrito (artículo 162 del Reglamento)


  Clara Eugenia Aguilera García (S&D), por escrito. – Los llamados papeles de Panamá han puesto de relieve por un lado que las normas europeas por exigentes que sean, no bastan sin la cooperación de países terceros, en concreto por la plena adopción de estándares más fuertes en el marco de la OCDE, y por otro la existencia de complejos esquemas de planificación fiscal agresiva y elusión en la que participan al alimón jurisdicciones terceras, como es el caso de Panamá, y determinados Estados miembros, como Holanda, Luxemburgo y Malta. Así, es típico crear una sociedad sin actividad económica real en Panamá, Gibraltar o un país similar, y después abrir la cuenta bancaria donde se encuentran los activos de dicha sociedad en Luxemburgo. El intercambio automático de información, y los registros de sociedades con identificación de los beneficiarios finales son instrumentos fundamentales en la lucha contra la elusión, pero también necesitamos normas que controlen a los intermediarios, asunto en el que la Comisión está trabajando, y poner fin a la planificación fiscal agresiva por el lado de la demanda, es decir, la llamada especialización de determinadas jurisdicciones, incluyendo Estados miembros, en la creación y registro de sociedades y en la gestión de grandes fortunas.


  Marco Valli (EFDD), per iscritto. – Per anni l'UE ha sempre chiuso un occhio sulla presenza dei paradisi fiscali al suo interno, nei quali sono state trasferite ingenti risorse, a danno di altri paesi europei, spesso gli stessi, su cui veniva imposto un duro regime di austerità. Tra il 2012 e 2015, Malta avrebbe sottratto ad altri paesi UE circa EUR 14 miliardi in mancato gettito fiscale, grazie a un sistema fiscale distorsivo, basato su un'aliquota effettiva sui profitti d'impresa del 5% e l'assenza di tassazione su interessi e royalty. I Panama Papers avevano rivelato collegamenti tra personalità del gabinetto del Primo Ministro maltese, tuttora in carica, e alcune società clienti di Mossak Fonseca. Eppure, l'UE continua ad ostacolare l'adozione di ambiziose misure di trasparenza e di contrasto alle pratiche fiscali dannose, a partire dall'indispensabile lista nera dei paradisi fiscali all'interno dell'Unione, al fine di realizzare una reale cooperazione per contrastare la grande elusione internazionale e la criminalità finanziaria. Dai "Malta Files" emergono ora ulteriori criticità, legate al riciclaggio di denaro sporco, proveniente da attività mafiose, realizzato attraverso alcune società registrate sull'isola; nonché il ruolo di Malta come crocevia per il traffico illegale di armi. Uno scandalo legato alle persistenti lacune della legislazione anti-riciclaggio, su cui, Commissione e soprattutto Consiglio, non intendono fare concreti passi avanti.


  Paloma López Bermejo (GUE/NGL), por escrito. – El debate de hoy podría titularse: «Papeles de Panamá y Estado de Derecho en España», pues Panamá es uno de los paraísos fiscales favoritos de la derecha española. Ministros y exministros del PP, como los señores Rato y Soria, aparecen en los Papeles. Incluso el fiscal jefe de Anticorrupción, favorito del actual ministro de Justicia, tuvo que dimitir cuando la prensa reveló sus sociedades panameñas. Según el Gestha, la dejadez de Hacienda permite que tres de cada cuatro delitos fiscales queden sin investigar. Y dados los lazos del actual Gobierno del PP con corruptos y corruptores, nada cambiará si la UE no toma cartas en el asunto. La UE pierde hasta 237 000 millones al año por la evasión fiscal a Panamá, un 3,4 % de su gasto público, del dinero para hospitales, escuelas y viviendas que los ricos esquilman a la clase trabajadora. Por ello le pido que no sea cómplice y que actúe catalogando de una vez a Panamá como paraíso fiscal.


  Evelyn Regner (S&D), schriftlich. – Die Panama Papers haben einiges aufgedeckt: Briefkastenfirmen, Geheimniskrämerei und Gewinnverschiebungen über fragwürdige Unternehmenskonstrukte. Im Untersuchungsausschuss haben wir aber vor allem auch gelernt, dass wir Europa gar nicht verlassen müssen, um Offshore-Konstrukte, Briefkastenfirmen, Geldwäscherei und aggressivste Steuerplanung zu finden. Bevor wir unseren Blick also nach Panama werfen, müssen wir auch dringend bei uns selbst aufräumen. Vorschläge für Steuergerechtigkeit liegen bereits auf dem Tisch, etwa die öffentliche länderweise Berichterstattung von Multis. Anstatt die Lehren aus Panama zu ziehen, wollen die Konservativen Panama aber lieber wieder verhüllen. Am Montag haben die konservativen Kräfte den Vorschlag für Public CBCR, also echte Steuertransparenz, mit ihren Emmentaler Amendments stark verwässert. ECR, ALDE und die EVP sind Protektionisten der globalen Multis. Der Kampf für echte Steuertransparenz geht aber weiter, und ich erwarte mir Unterstützung im Plenum und im Rat. Es darf nicht sein, dass sich alle über Panama & Co echauffieren, aber nicht handeln, wenn konkrete Vorschläge auf dem Tisch sind.


17. Europos strateginių investicijų fondo įgyvendinimas (diskusijos)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

  El Presidente. – El punto siguiente en el orden del día es el debate sobre el informe de José Manuel Fernandes, en nombre de la Comisión de Presupuestos, y de Udo Bullmann, en nombre de la Comisión de Asuntos Económicos y Monetarios, sobre la ejecución del Fondo Europeo para Inversiones Estratégicas (2016/2064(INI)).


  José Manuel Fernandes, relator. – Senhor Presidente, queria saudar os Caros Colegas e as Caras Colegas que aqui estão, também a Comissão, e dizer que o FEIE, o Fundo Europeu de Investimentos Estratégicos, está a cumprir os objetivos na janela de investimentos e inovação. Está de acordo com o plano traçado na janela das pequenas e médias empresas. Vai mesmo ao de lá das melhores previsões.

A prova é que já foram mobilizados na União Europeia mais 190 000 000 de euros e foram apoiadas mais de 420 000 pequenas e médias empresas. É desta forma, promovendo o investimento, que conseguimos mais emprego, que conseguimos, em simultâneo, também mais competitividade para a nossa economia, sem nunca esquecer a coesão social, económica e territorial.

No entanto, o Fundo Europeu de Investimentos Estratégicos não tem a visibilidade que merecia face aos resultados que tem produzido. É necessário melhorar a comunicação, é necessário também melhorar a visibilidade deste Fundo.

A prova do sucesso é que, já hoje, estamos a negociar o alargamento do Fundo Europeu de Investimentos Estratégicos a 500 000 000 de euros e a sua extensão até 2020. Isto não significa que este fundo, a sua execução e, nomeadamente, a execução por parte de um ator essencial que é o Banco Europeu de Investimento não possam e não devam ser melhorados.

Desde logo, conhecendo os projetos que não são pré-selecionados, e aqui há uma atitude que pode ser discriminatória no Direito, mas uma atitude que se encontra no poder do Banco Europeu de Investimento. É importante que se tenha conhecimento, no mínimo, dos projetos que não foram introduzidos no sistema, dos projetos que não foram pré—selecionados.

É também importante e essencial termos uma melhor distribuição geográfica, um melhor equilíbrio geográfico, no que diz respeito aos projetos. Também é importante que haja uma diversificação setorial. Os pequenos projetos não podem ser excluídos deste fundo que exige proatividade dos territórios e aí a execução de plataformas de investimento é essencial para este objetivo, para poderem englobar pequenos projetos.

Também a necessidade de termos plataformas para os projetos transfronteiriços é algo que tem de ser atendido. A união digital é importante, a união da energia é essencial e também desta forma, para além de promovermos o mercado interno, para além de promovermos a interconetividade e a eficiência, estaríamos a contribuir para objetivos de toda a União Europeia.

Este fundo é um fundo adicional, é um fundo também ele complementar, mas é importante e as plataformas são um meio onde tal pode ser concretizado, para que possa ser melhor utilizado, em conjunto com os Fundos Estruturais, os fundos, nomeadamente, da política de coesão. É importante que o aspeto adicional seja reforçado e seja respeitado.

É ainda essencial que as regiões menos desenvolvidas e as regiões que estão, por exemplo, em dificuldades possam ter a sua situação económica tida em conta na seleção dos projetos.

Por fim, o advisory hub é essencial para promovermos melhores projetos para ajudar a estruturar plataformas de investimento.

Termino, agradecendo a todos os grupos políticos, a todos os relatores-sombra, o trabalho que tem sido executado e, de uma forma especial, ao correlator Udo Bullmann.Temos feito um trabalho no sentido de promovermos o crescimento, de promovermos e melhorarmos a competitividade da União Europeia e de darmos melhor qualidade de vida aos cidadãos. E vamos continuar com este objetivo em mente.


  Udo Bullmann, Berichterstatter. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, meine werten Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Ich kann diesen Dank erwidern an José Manuel Fernandes, meinen Ko-Berichterstatter, an alle Schattenberichterstatterinnen und —berichterstatter, wie auch an die vielen fleißigen Hände und Köpfe im staff, die an unserer Arbeit beteiligt sind.

Wir haben die Gesetzgebung zu EFSI sehr schnell durchgezogen. Wir sind jetzt befasst mit einer legislativen Beratung für den neuen Vorschlag der Kommission – auch das werden wir effizient und schnell durchführen. Aber wir müssen uns bei dieser Gelegenheit natürlich auch mit einem Resümee, mit einem Fazit auseinandersetzen: Was haben wir erreicht? Was muss noch erreicht werden?

Zunächst einmal: Warum überhaupt dieser Fonds für strategische Investitionen? Die Kommission sagt uns: 200 bis 300 Milliarden pro Jahr fehlen in der europäischen Investitionspolitik. Wir haben eine Investitionslücke insbesondere bei Transport, insbesondere bei Breitbandnetzen und bei erneuerbaren Energien. Wir, das Europäische Parlament, die Fraktionen, die hinter diesem Beschluss stehen, den wir gefasst haben, wollen uns nicht damit abfinden.

Wir glauben an die Zukunft der europäischen Wirtschaft. Wir wollen den Jugendlichen, die in vielen Ländern viel zu oft und viel zu häufig arbeitslos sind, eine Chance geben. Es muss ein nachhaltiges Wachstum geben. Wir wollen die Konversion in die Zukunft der Wirtschaft schaffen. Deswegen müssen wir diese Investitionslücken schließen.

Ja, wir stehen zu diesem Programm. Ja, wir unterstützen das Programm. Aber wir wollen schauen: Wo sind noch Defizite auszumerzen? Wo können noch Verbesserungen vorgenommen werden? Wir müssen uns fragen: Was ist erreicht worden? Ja, die Volumina fließen, die Zahlen sind gut. Aber finanzieren wir wirklich die Projekte, die wir finanzieren wollen? Oder ist nicht zu häufig auch eine Situation gegeben, in der Projekte finanziert werden, die ohnehin Kapital bekommen – seien es private oder öffentliche Finanziers, die dahinter stehen?

Warum gibt es immer noch zu wenige Partnerschaften – Partnerschaften, die kleine und mittlere Projekte unterstützen, Partnerschaften mit regionalen Förderbanken, mit nationalen Förderbanken, die über Know-how verfügen, das wir dringend benötigen? Kommt das Geld wirklich in den Regionen an, wo wir es am meisten brauchen? Oder sind nicht die Regionen bevorzugt, die bereits eine intakte Infrastruktur haben – eine Infrastruktur der Beratung, eine Infrastruktur der Projektplanung – und deswegen vielleicht weniger auf unser Geld angewiesen sind? Entsteht bereits die positive Dynamik, die wir uns in den Modernisierungssektoren wünschen? Oder geben wir vorrangig Geld aus, damit Geld ausgegeben wird?

Das sind kritische Fragen, um die wir uns nicht herumdrücken dürfen, und deswegen unterstreicht unser Bericht die Vorzüge, das Erreichte. Er macht aber auch klar, wo die Defizite sind. Wir wollen eine klarere Definition der Zusätzlichkeit erreichen. Wir wollen, dass die Instrumente zur Auswahl der Projekte geschärft werden und, bitte schön, auch so angewendet werden, wie sie in der ersten Legislation verankert sind. Wir wollen mehr Transparenz. Wir wollen mehr Kooperation. Und wir haben das Gefühl, das Gewicht des Europäischen Parlamentes ist erforderlich, um diese Ziele besser zu erreichen.

Wir setzen auf die Kooperation, natürlich insbesondere auf die Kooperation mit der Kommission, die wir unterstützen, aber auch mit dem bevorzugten Partner, der Europäischen Investitionsbank – auch hier wollen wir erreichen, dass die Zusammenarbeit noch besser wird. Und wir wollen den Rat davon überzeugen, dass wichtige Schritte im Hinblick darauf unternommen werden müssen.




  Marian-Jean Marinescu, Raportor pentru aviz Comisia pentru industrie, cercetare și energie. – Doamna președintă, așa cum s-a spus, în prezent se negociază EFSI 2. Cred că este pozitivă această prelungire, însă cred că colegii noștri care negociază în acest moment trebuie să țină cont de concluziile acestui raport de implementare.

Sunt într-adevăr rezultate bune, însă trebuie să ținem cont totuși și de unele lucruri: sumele prezentate ca realizate nu cuprind realitatea, adică banii care au ajuns la beneficiari. Plafoanele de credit date la bănci nu cred că au ajuns încă la beneficiari și trebuie ținut cont de acest lucru: doar 60% din bani sunt bani privați. Deci trebuie să existe mai multă transparență în ceea ce privește aceste sume, în ceea ce privește motivele de refuz. EFSI nu trebuie să înlocuiască granturile, EFSI trebuie, împreună cu fondurile structurale, să contribuie la investiții și este nevoie de mult mai multă promovare a EFSI în toate statele membre.


  Inés Ayala Sender, ponente de opinión de la Comisión de Transportes y Turismo.

Señora presidenta. La verdad es que ha sido difícil evaluar el FEIE 1 después de tan solo un año y medio.

Aun así, con todos los estudios y evaluaciones, hemos visto que aunque los resultados cuantitativos eran, en principio, positivos, sin embargo se mantenían insuficiencias sustanciales en la calidad de los proyectos, en la no clara prueba de adicionalidad de los mismos, en su concentración geográfica, en la falta de determinados sectores o incluso en la falta de transparencia en la selección.

En el caso del transporte, nos hemos encontrado con una paradoja bastante cruel, puesto que del Mecanismo «Conectar Europa» se sacaron 2 200 millones —es decir, más del 25 % de lo que era el FEIE 1— y, sin embargo, en los proyectos que se han conseguido solo hemos encontrado un 13 % de proyectos para el transporte. Y lo que es peor: en la propuesta del FEIE 2 resulta que la Comisión —y no es usted, señor Moscovici, ya lo sé— llega con un «no carreteras para nada».

Por lo tanto, querríamos que en el FEIE 2 se tenga en cuenta que si se nos sigue exigiendo dinero de los transportes, que haya por supuesto un interés específico para la adicionalidad de los proyectos del MCE.


  Dominique Riquet, rapporteur pour avis de la commission des transports et du tourisme. – Madame la Présidente, nous avons soutenu, bien sûr, l’initiative du Fonds européen pour les investissements stratégiques (EFSI), et l’on constate que cette initiative est globalement un succès.

C’est un succès parfait dans les petites et moyennes entreprises pour le Fonds européen d’investissement (FEI).

C’est également un succès quantitatif, mais nous avons quelques remarques et, au titre de la commission des transports et du tourisme (TRAN), comme ma collègue vient de le dire, quelques déceptions.

En effet, le transport a été considéré, pour la partie infrastructure, comme un élément essentiel, doté d’ailleurs d’un pourcentage minimum.

Ensuite, on a considéré que qualitativement, ces projets devaient avoir une valeur européenne ajoutée. Or, on peut constater qu’à la fois la quantité et la qualité n’y sont pas et qu’à ce titre, le transport est d’autant plus frustré qu’il a fait l’objet d’une ponction, cela vient d’être dit, sur un mécanisme de fonds qui, lui, fonctionne parfaitement, qui est d’ailleurs déjà épuisé par son succès, à savoir le mécanisme pour l’interconnexion en Europe. Je ne veux pas croire d’ailleurs que l’on ira jusqu’à le ponctionner une deuxième fois.

Je veux conclure en disant que la Banque européenne d’investissement (BEI) n’est pas une banque. La BEI, c’est d’abord une institution de l’Union, et à ce titre, l’additionnalité, la garantie des premières pertes et l’appui aux politiques européennes doivent être reconsidérés; cela sera – je pense – l’objet du règlement EFSI 2, qui porte nos espoirs.


  Pierre Moscovici, membre de la Commission. – Madame la Présidente, Mesdames et Messieurs les députés, chers rapporteurs, il y a exactement un an, la Commission était ici pour discuter avec vous de l’examen à mi-parcours du plan européen d’investissement, le plan Juncker, et pour annoncer aussi son intention d’étendre ce Fonds européen pour les investissements stratégiques.

À cette époque, nous avons constaté que nous avions à peu près 65 projets: des projets d’infrastructures et des projets d’investissements industriels qui avaient déjà obtenu des financements de l’EFSI. En complément de ceux-ci, et, de manière encore plus importante, 185 accords ont été conclus entre le Fonds européen d’investissement et des banques intermédiaires, entre ce Fonds et des banques privées, tout ceci pour financer des petites et moyennes entreprises.

Aujourd’hui, on peut dire qu’on va beaucoup plus loin, avec 224 projets et 275 accords avec des intermédiaires. Aussi, je suis fier de dire, au nom de Jyrki Katainen, que l’EFSI est maintenant bien sur les rails pour remplir ses promesses d’investissement, car il s’agit bien de combler le déficit d’investissement en Europe.

Il y a, je crois, un consensus très large sur le succès et sur l’utilité de l’EFSI. Les deux dernières années, il a démontré qu’il était un instrument puissant pour soutenir l’investissement dans l’Union européenne. Ont déjà été mobilisés 194 milliards d’euros d’investissement total dans les États membres, qui bénéficient à 420 000 petites et moyennes entreprises ou start-up. Le Groupe BEI, que je veux saluer, a soutenu des projets et des petites entreprises dans de nombreux secteurs et de nombreuses régions dans, évidemment, tous les pays de l’Union; tout ceci au profit de la croissance et de l’emploi en Europe.

I am also pleased to inform you that some of the shortcomings or imbalances rightly singled out in your report have in the meantime been reduced. EFSI now covers – that was of course of high importance – all EU 28 Member States. Compared to GDP, the investment mobilised currently is highest in Estonia, Spain, Bulgaria, Portugal and Finland, which balances the initial geographic concentration. Investment platforms are developing, even if in the beginning slower than we would have hoped for.

But of course, more needs to be done, and we are determined to make EFSI a success for everyone and everywhere. In your report you point to a potential contradiction between the quantitative and the qualitative goals of EFSI. Here, let me again refer to the statement the Commission made in this Chamber last year that demonstrates how much we are in the same logic and how much we share the same concerns. The main issue in this is to focus on addressing market failure. The main issue is not to make it larger. One thing on which we have to be very careful is to provide financing for new innovations which will strengthen sustainable development of our economies in social and environmental terms, for instance financing through investments which will promote the circular economy. Here I quote the speech of last year: ‘Honourable Members, dear colleagues, three main issues are identified as falling short of expectations in your implementing report: additionality, transparency and geographical diversification’. These are precisely the items we decided to address through the EFSI 2.0 Regulation. I am therefore pleased to perceive a large convergence of views between the Commission and the European Parliament on the areas for improvement. Though divergences appear in the means put forward to overcome EFSI’s initial weaknesses or defects, most of them relate to the level of ambition for EFSI 2.0.

The Commission does not believe that this is the time for a complete overhaul, because it would cost time and also damage investor confidence – but we are not looking for a quick fix either. You can be assured that the Commission does not put quantity over quality – I insist on that – and is as vigilant regarding the appropriate use of the EU guarantee as the European Parliament. We share the same view. It is precisely because we consider the improvements in terms of additionality and transparency so important that we want them to be implemented as quickly as possible. While we might disagree on some proposals for the immediate way forward, let me underline that the Commission looks with great interest at some of the medium-term reflections you formulate for a potential EFSI 3.0.

La Commission accueille très favorablement l’appel du Parlement pour des propositions qui aillent plus loin afin de voir comment nous pouvons, de manière permanente, soutenir l’investissement en Europe, le relancer, le doper et le muscler.

Tout cela démontre que le Parlement européen a une ambition, un engagement pour ce plan d’investissement, le plan Juncker.

Je veux vous assurer, à toutes et à tous, que vos réflexions, vos rapports seront une source de réflexions, une source d’actions, une source de pensées dans le cadre de nos propres pensées et réflexions sur le futur cadre financier pluriannuel, qui sera notre tâche très importante.

À mon sens et au sens de la Commission, il est tout à fait crucial que le prochain budget de l’Union européenne soit un budget avant tout centré sur l’investissement, parce que l’investissement est la clé de l’innovation et que l’innovation est aussi la clé de notre avenir commun.


  Emmanuel Maurel, rapporteur pour avis de la commission du commerce international. – Madame la Présidente, le commissaire Moscovici vient de le dire, il peut y avoir des désaccords entre nous, des différences d’appréciation, mais je pense qu’à ce stade, chacun s’accorde d’abord pour reconnaître le bien-fondé d’un grand plan d’investissement dans une Union européenne qui continue à souffrir d’un déficit chronique d’investissement public et privé. Je rappelle que nous sommes 15 % en deçà du niveau de 2008.

C’est vrai que nous voudrions enrichir l’EFSI. Il y a bien sûr l’intensification de la diversité thématique (je pense notamment aux questions de transition écologique) et il y a la dimension régionale des projets financés: je continue à croire qu’il est anormal que la Grèce n’ait encore qu’un accès limité à ce fonds.

Au nom de la commission du commerce international (INTA), dont j’étais rapporteur pour avis, je voudrais souligner deux points. Le premier concerne les petites et moyennes entreprises. C’est vrai que le volet du fonds consacré au financement des PME a bien fonctionné, mais nous voudrions qu’il y ait aussi une mission d’aide à l’internationalisation des petites et moyennes entreprises.

Le deuxième point porte sur la conditionnalité fiscale, et je remercie les rapporteurs d’y avoir été sensibles. Un certain nombre de porteurs de projets ont été liés à des paradis fiscaux, ce qui, à mon avis, va à l’encontre de la doctrine fiscale extérieure de l’Union. Il serait opportun d’y remédier.


  Hannu Takkula, talousarvion valvontavaliokunnan lausunnon valmistelija. – Arvoisa puhemies, on erittäin hyvä, että tätä ESIR-ohjelmaa on lähdetty toteuttamaan. Mutta aivan niin kuin täällä on noussut esille, tätä ohjelmaa pitää tehostaa. Meillä on ollut jonkun verran investointipulaa. Erittäin tärkeää on juuri tämä alueellistaminen.

Täytyy muistaa, että tämän ohjelman tarkoitus on tuoda lisäarvoa ja tukkia tavallaan niitä aukkoja, jotka ovat nyt syntyneet muiden ohjelmien kautta, eli synnyttää lisäarvoa ja sitä kautta nostaa eurooppalaista osaamista ja eurooppalaisia innovaatioita. Kansainvälistymisaspekti on tässä erittäin tärkeä asia.

Kun täällä on puhuttu määrä- ja laatusuhteista, niin ilman muuta meidän täytyy mennä laatu edellä. Mutta niin kuin sanoin, toivon mukaan kuitenkin tämä laatu ei vain keskity johonkin päin Eurooppaa, vaan se voisi palvella laajasti koko Euroopan unionin aluetta. On erittäin tärkeää, että nämä investoinnit tuovat pitkällä ja keskipitkällä aikavälillä uutta lisäarvoa koko eurooppalaiseen kenttään.


  Romana Tomc, pripravljavka mnenja Odbora za zaposlovanje in socialne zadeve. – O pripravi mnenja na Odboru za zaposlovanje smo se osredotočili predvsem na vpliv EFSI na zagon delovnih mest, kar je predvsem pomembno za regije, kjer je zaposlenost nizka in kjer je te depopulacija visoka.

Izpostavili smo tudi pomen dostopnosti EFSI za majhna in srednja podjetja in seveda moramo zagotoviti, da bodo lažje dostopala do finančne podpore. Pa ne le to, pomembno je tudi svetovalno okolje, predvsem v tehničnem oziru.

Prav tako smo poudarili, da ko gre za EFSI, v ospredju ni regionalni oziroma sektorski pristop, in predlagali okrepljeno sodelovanje s strukturnim skladom. Pomembno pa je tudi, da imamo ves čas na voljo podatke o uspešnosti izvajanja EFSI, kajti samo preko evalvacije so mogoče nadaljnje izboljšave.

Za konec pa naj povem oziroma poudarim še to, da nobeni napori na ravni EU ne bodo dovolj, če države članice ne bodo storile vse, kar je v njihovi moči na nacionalni ravni.


  Nicola Danti, relatore per parere della commissione per il mercato interno e la protezione dei consumatori. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, il Fondo europeo per gli investimenti strategici rappresenta sicuramente una delle iniziative politiche che maggiormente hanno caratterizzato l'attuale Commissione. Possiamo affermare che il Fondo è stato avviato con successo e ha ottenuto risultati concreti, contribuendo al rilancio degli investimenti in Europa in una fase particolarmente difficile.

La commissione per il mercato interno ha sottolineato l'importanza che il Fondo garantisca una maggiore addizionalità, sia vocato a sostenere progetti con alti livelli di rischio e garantisca un efficace coordinamento con gli altri fondi. Il Fondo può essere uno strumento importante per il miglior funzionamento del mercato unico e da qui sottolineiamo la necessità di rafforzare il terzo pilastro per rendere il contesto normativo dell'Unione europea più certo, omogeneo e favorevoli agli investimenti. I progetti nel settore delle infrastrutture, della banda larga, dell'alta velocità e delle piattaforme del digitale dovranno essere centrali per far crescere la nostra economia e per completare il mercato unico.


  Mercedes Bresso, relatrice per parere della commissione per lo sviluppo regionale.

Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, la commissione REGI ritiene che molti siano gli aspetti positivi di EFSI, tra cui le risorse immobilizzate, il supporto concreto a moltissime imprese e cittadini sui territori, la riattivazione di canali di finanziamento che avevano sofferto la crisi facendo crollare gli investimenti in molte parti d'Europa.

Abbiamo anche presentato alcune proposte per migliorarlo e per migliorarne l'impatto sull'economia reale, per esempio tramite una migliore sinergia e un coordinamento più efficace con i fondi strutturali. Riteniamo che la politica di coesione rimanga la principale fonte di investimento europeo e che dovrà essere preservata e aggiornata. La politica di coesione lavora però per programmi, mentre EFSI lavora per progetti. Quindi riteniamo che entrambi potranno ottenere risultati ancora più importanti se sarà fatto in modo che possano lavorare coerentemente insieme anche tramite piani integrati coprendo meglio tutto il territorio europeo.

È importante anche ricordare il lavoro positivo delle banche nazionali d'investimento che hanno molto aiutato le piccole e medie imprese, soprattutto nel supporto tecnico e amministrativo.


  Jill Evans, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on Culture and Education. – Madam President, the lack of awareness of EFSI is a problem. I know this very well from my constituency in Wales. It is a particular issue in the cultural sector, a sector which makes an increasing contribution to the economy. This report recognises that sectors such as social infrastructure, health and education are under-represented, receiving only 4% of approved EFSI financing. Culture and education represent a tiny percentage of that 4%.

I am pleased that the Commission has already announced that it is frontloading the Creative Europe Guarantee Facility through EFSI. But concern was expressed in the Committee on Culture and Education that funding had been diverted away from the Horizon 2020 budget and, despite being assured that the money would still reach the university sector through EFSI, this has not happened. So that must be put right and the funding restored.


  Brian Hayes, on behalf of the PPE Group. – Mme President, today in Ireland a new Irish taoiseach was elected, Leo Varadka, and I want to wish him every success. One of the key issues he has highlighted for Ireland is this investment gap, which is so evident across many Member States but especially in Member States that have gone through a financial crisis – a gap of about 20% in Ireland. I want to agree with Commissioner Moscovici when he said very clearly that EFSI must be a success for every Member State in every part of our European Union, and we must do much more to promote the opportunities that EFSI can advance in economies right the way across the European Union.

In Ireland, because of this investment gap, we need to do much more in drawing down funds and lending opportunities from EFSI. Last year about EUR 800 million was lent by the EIB to Ireland, but only a small percentage of that was in EFSI. I believe the Irish government should set a very clear target of being able to get lending opportunities of over EUR 5 billion over the course of the EFSI plan for new lending opportunities in Ireland, and I also think we should look again at how we use the pillar banks to obtain lending opportunities to small businesses, especially in Ireland. The key aspect of EFSI, its genius, is the idea that we can underscore and underwrite the risk factor that frequently does not allow investment to go into new business and to new lending opportunities. That is what makes EFSIs so useful, and that’s what we need to continue to support for jobs, investment and growth.


  Eider Gardiazabal Rubial, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta, ha pasado ya año y medio desde que aprobamos este plan de inversiones y yo creo que es un buen momento para hacer balance y, sobre todo, para aprender para el futuro y mejorar esa segunda parte del plan, que ya tenemos encima de la mesa.

No se puede negar que el plan está funcionando y que se han movilizado, hasta la fecha, 195 000 millones de euros. Pero no nos podemos deslumbrar por la cantidad, sino que también la calidad es importante. Y, en este caso, hay muchas cosas que son susceptibles de mejorarse. Por ejemplo, la verdadera adicionalidad de los proyectos, porque, en ciertos casos, no está del todo claro que ese criterio se haya cumplido y hemos visto algunos proyectos con el sello FEIE que nos dejan muchas dudas de si no se podían haber financiado en los mercados.

Se tiene que mejorar también la complementariedad con otros fondos y también tenemos que delimitar claramente los objetivos para que no haya ni competencia ni duplicidades con otras partidas como Horizonte 2020 o COSME. Necesitamos también mayor transparencia en la valoración de los proyectos, porque a veces no conocemos por qué sí o por qué no se ha financiado un proyecto. Y esta transparencia nos permitiría, además, poder valorar la verdadera adicionalidad de los proyectos.

Hay que mejorar también la distribución geográfica y, sobre todo, la sectorial, fomentando las inversiones en infraestructuras sociales. Tenemos que asegurar una mejor participación de los bancos nacionales y regionales de promoción, porque su conocimiento en el terreno es esencial. Tenemos que adaptar también los instrumentos financieros a las necesidades de los proyectos con productos financieros de mayor riesgo, como la financiación subordinada o instrumentos de mercado de capital.

Y, por último, hay que desarrollar plenamente el centro de asesoramiento, porque es uno de los pilares del plan. Tiene que ser proactivo, tiene que salir a buscar promotores y tiene que incidir en los sectores y en los países donde de verdad se necesita más la utilización de este plan de inversiones.

En definitiva, para el futuro, más, sí, pero mejor, también.


  Roberts Zīle, ECR grupas vārdā. – Priekšsēdētāj! Mani gandarī Eiropas Parlamenta izvērtējums par EFSI I, kurā nav tikai veiksmes stāsts, bet arī norādījumi uz trūkumiem, par ko jau šeit tika minēts. Šis ģeogrāfiskais disbalanss ir acīmredzams. Komisāra kungs minēja, ka nupat šī situācija mainās un tas ģeogrāfiskais disbalanss pazūd, bet, ja mēs pavērtējam pēdējā laikā EIB apstiprinātos projektus, īpaši infrastruktūras jomā, tad Austrumu un Centrāleiropas valstīs jūs pamatā redzat, ka publiskā nauda simtprocentīgi aizvieto šo riska naudu, kas bija domāta privātā nauda, īpaši transporta projektos, jo tur nav neviena eiro privātās naudas, kas nāk šajos projektos — tā ir pašvaldību nauda tiešā vai netiešā veidā.

Un visbeidzot — ja mēs pārāk, manuprāt, idealizēsim šo EFSI pieeju un mēģināsim nākošajā septiņu gadu daudzgadu budžetā aizvietot Kohēzijas fonda principu, grantu principu ar šo EFSI principu, tad mēs radīsim ļoti lielas atšķirības Eiropas Savienības nākotnē — lielākas, nekā tās ir tagad.


  Nils Torvalds, för ALDE-gruppen. – Fru talman! Till den gemensamma europeiska kulturskatten hör berättelsesamlingen som går under namnet Tusen och en natt, och den finns på alla tänkbara europeiska språk. I den samlingen av sagoberättelser hittar vi också trollformeln ”sesam öppna dig”. Det var väl avsikten att Efsi-fonden skulle framstå som ”sesam öppna dig” för att avhjälpa det investeringsunderskott som drabbat Europa. Nu vet vi inte riktigt; vi ser att ekonomin går uppåt, men vi vet inte riktigt hur det hänger ihop, om det var Efsi som öppnade här eller om det var någonting annat. Här skulle vi egentligen behöva en hyggligare bedömning.

Det som stör oss lite i det här sammanhanget är också beslutsprocessen. Om man har en beslutsprocess som kräver enhällighet råkar man ut för risken att den dummaste, den mest ignoranta eller den lataste i ledningsgruppen dikterar besluten. Därför tror jag inte att beslutsprocessen så som den utformades var bra.

Den andra frågan vi har råkat ut för handlar om riskbedömning. Här tror jag att en del av ledningsgruppen också hamnat på dåliga vägar. Vi vet att tyska motorvägar kan vara mycket riskfyllda, men riskfylldheten beror inte på investeringarna utan på hur man kör där. Men ännu en gång tillbaka till berättelsen om Tusen och en natt. Berättelsen där de magiska orden ”sesam öppna dig” finns, det är berättelsen om Ali Baba och de 40 rövarna, men nu är det på det sättet att rövarnas antal inte är 40, rövarnas antal är 28. Under hela den här processen har medlemsländerna visat total oförmåga att riktigt förstå hur det här går till. Om de läste den europeiska kulturskatten skulle de ha en lite bättre förutsättning.


  Liadh Ní Riada, thar ceann an Ghrúpa GUE/NGL. – A Uachtaráin, cé go gcuirim fáilte roimh infheistíocht chun fostaíocht a chruthú, táim buartha go bhfuil an baol ann go mbeidh EFSI 2 chomh lochtach leis an gcéad cheann. Anois agus sinn ag lorg geallúint ar tuairim is 10 mbilliún breise as an mbuiséad, cé hiad na daoine is mó a bhainfidh buntáiste as so? Cinnte tá na focail chearta á n-usáid: infheistíocht níos mó i dtíortha go bhfuil geárchéim eacnamaíochta acu, an plean a bheith trédhearcach, díriú ar na gnéithe sóisialta. Ach an bhfuil an baol ann nach bhfuil iontu ach focail? Cá bhfuil an luach sóisialta? Bhí deis againn difríocht a dhéanamh anso ach tá ag teip orainn an difríocht sin a dhéanamh. Ag sodar i ndiaidh na hinfheistíochta príobháidí, ag freastal ar thíortha go bhfuil na hacmhainní acu chun an ciste a riaradh agus gan ach 4% don chiste ag dul i dtreo gnéithe sóisialta.

Má táimid dáiríre i dtaobh aghaidh a thabhairt ar fhadbanna dífhostaíochta, éagothromaíocht shóisialta, géarchéimeanna tithíochta agus aire a thabhairt don ghlúin óg, caithfear treo nua ar fad a chur i bhfeidhm. Ní féidir bheith ag díriú ar son an mhionlaigh amháin, beidh buiséad laghdaithe againn gan dabht tar éis Brexit agus an baol ann nach mbeidh sé inbhuanaithe. Tugadh gealltanas sa chéad EFSI go mbeadh infhestíocht ar fáil do chomharchumainn shóisialta; bhí sé seo mar aidhm agus do theip glan air. Níl sé seo sásúil. Ní haon ionadh is dócha nach bhfuil aon mhuinín ag an pobal insan Eoraip seo ná i gcóras na mbanc. Brabús do na bodairí móra agus an tsochaí ag díol go daor as.

Mar sin, cathain a bheidh Eoraip shóisialta á cruthú againn? Is é an nualiobrálachas atá i réim go soléir anso agus táim anois ag glaoch ar thacaíocht do na comharchumainn shóisialta sin arís.


  Bas Eickhout, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, it is great to see that everyone now agrees that Europe has an investment gap and that we need an investment programme to work on that. That is very good. I am also happy that the Commission changed to a more realistic tone when we discussed the Juncker investment plan. A year ago it seemed that the Commission was selling it as a success, no matter what. It is good to see that there are still some issues that we need to solve, because if you look at the additionality, is EFSI really supporting those projects that otherwise would not have happened? If you look at the geographical imbalance, is it really going to those regions where there is an investment gap? If you look at the scoreboard use, is it really that those projects that score well on sustainability and jobs get the higher scores? It has all been very unclear until now. That is why we are now also working on improvement to the legislation: it is great to have a nice initiative report where the text is good, but in the end it is the legislation that counts, and we are in the trialogues. We are not there yet, so let us change it: EFSI is important, but needs to deliver better.


  Marco Valli, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io credo che il programma EFSI invece non sia riuscito a colmare quello che è il gap degli investimenti dell'Unione europea, proprio perché c'è una crisi fortissima della domanda e questo è legato ai vincoli che sono stati introdotti nei nostri trattati, che andrebbero rivisti.

A proposito, a breve ci sarà la discussione sull'introduzione, nel regolamento UE, del Fiscal Compact, e bisognerebbe andare contro questa introduzione, proprio perché incentiverebbe delle politiche d'austerità depressive per l'economia e depressive per gli investimenti. Abbiamo bisogno di più investimenti pubblici.

Sul Piano Juncker, nello specifico, analizziamo come molti dei progetti abbiano avuto uno scarso impatto dal punto di vista ambientale, economico e sociale. Mi spiace, non c'è questa addizionalità che la Commissione ha promesso perché, andando sul sito di EFSI, vediamo come molti dei progetti siano in infrastrutture ad alto impatto di CO2, quindi raffinerie, gas e autostrade, e quindi mi chiedo anche come i Verdi possano sostenere questo tipo di progetti.


  Jean-Luc Schaffhauser, au nom du groupe ENF. – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, lorsque nous avions lancé ce projet, en 2012, d’une agence d’investissement, nous avions le souci de régler le problème de la disparité Nord-Sud par la création monétaire. Non pas par la récession et le chômage, mais en injectant de la véritable monnaie dans des projets rentables. Permettre au Sud de créer plus de richesses pour qu’il ne soit pas obligé de rétablir ses comptes par la récession et le chômage.

Alors, il faudra quand même qu’on m’explique comment, avec 21 milliards, on fait 315 milliards et comment on a réglé le problème, ce qui est aujourd’hui absolument indispensable, de la croissance de l’activité et de l’emploi en France, en Espagne, en Italie, mais aussi dans quelle mesure il y a eu un résultat positif?

Il faut mettre en place une agence d’investissement, il faut investir de la véritable monnaie. Ainsi, les 1 400 milliards avec lesquels on a acheté des bons du Trésor auraient plutôt dû être investis dans l’économie réelle.


  Λευτέρης Χριστοφόρου (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, πιστεύω ότι αξίζουν σήμερα συγχαρητήρια δύο αγαπητοί και εκλεκτοί συνάδελφοι, ο φίλος José Manuel Fernandes και ο κύριος Udo Bullmann, που θεωρώ ότι, με την μαχητικότητά τους, αλλά και με την σωστή δουλειά τους μαζί και με την Επιτροπή, με τον κύριο Juncker, μπορούν να θεωρηθούν ότι είναι και στυλοβάτες αυτού του σημαντικού επενδυτικού εγχειρήματος της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, που θεωρώ ότι είναι το μεγαλύτερο επενδυτικό εγχείρημα από την ίδρυση της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης. Για όσους θεωρούν και αφήνουν αμφιβολίες για αυτό το σχέδιο, ένα έχω να πω: οι αριθμοί είναι συγκλονιστικοί. 190 δισεκατομμύρια, σήμερα, επενδύσεις με προοπτική 500 δισεκατομμύρια το 2020, ήδη 420.000 μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις με ό,τι αυτό συνεπάγεται σε απασχόληση, σε ανάπτυξη, σε δημιουργία προοπτικής και δυναμικής για την οικονομία και με πολλές άλλες θετικές ενέργειες που ουσιαστικά εμπερικλείουν τη δυναμική εκείνην που όλοι εμείς αναζητούσαμε. Θα ανέμενα από τους επικριτές να ακούσω και μια άλλη, διαφορετική πρόταση. Ποιο είναι το άλλο, διαφορετικό, οραματιζόμενο επενδυτικό σχέδιο για την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση; Πιστεύω ότι αυτό το επενδυτικό σχέδιο, αυτή τη στιγμή, εξυπηρετεί τους στόχους και τους σκοπούς τους οποίους η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση έθεσε ως προτεραιότητες. Όμως, μπροστά σε αυτούς τους αριθμούς, πρέπει να εκφράσω και τη λύπη, γιατί δεν υπήρξε η ευκαιρία και η δυνατότητα όλα αυτά τα εκατομμύρια να φτάσουν και στη μικρή μου πατρίδα, την Κύπρο, ούτε ένα ευρώ. Για αυτό, θα καλέσουμε τον κύριο Επίτροπο, τον κύριο Moscovici, μαζί με τον κύριο Katainen, να επισκεφθούν την Κύπρο και να δώσουν το μήνυμα ότι αυτό το επενδυτικό σχέδιο θα φτάσει και στη δική μου την πατρίδα. Θα μπορέσουν και εκεί να γίνουν επενδύσεις, που είναι τόσο πολύ αναγκαίες.


  Pedro Silva Pereira (S&D). – Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, o Fundo Europeu de Investimento Estratégicos tem dado, sem dúvida, um contributo positivo para superar o grave défice de investimento que se regista na economia europeia. O grupo socialista que reivindicou este instrumento vê naturalmente com satisfação o progresso feito. Mas, ao fim de ano e meio, tem de reconhecer-se que o Plano Juncker, apesar das recentes melhorias, está ainda muito aquém das necessidades e, sobretudo, foi muito mal distribuído.

Os dados disponíveis revelam ainda uma elevadíssima concentração geográfica que beneficia as economias mais poderosas e está a agravar ainda mais a divergência no interior da União Europeia. Isso acontece, sobretudo, nos projetos de investimento em infraestruturas e inovação, que concentram quase dois terços do apoio do investimento em três Estados-Membros.

Este é um problema muito sério, que precisa de ser corrigido, com a revisão das regras, dos critérios e dos procedimentos. O Plano Juncker só será um projeto verdadeiramente europeu se se transformar num instrumento a favor da convergência na Europa e, para isso, muita coisa ainda vai ter de mudar.


  Stanisław Ożóg (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Półtora roku po wprowadzeniu EFIS można powiedzieć, że wyniki jego działania są dość satysfakcjonujące. Jednak nie tak do końca. Zdecydowanie większy nacisk należy położyć na jego komplementarność z innymi funduszami europejskimi. Ta komplementarność da szansę na większy wzrost gospodarczy. Słusznie też zauważono w projekcie rezolucji, że wsparcie z EFIS nie jest równomierne, dlatego należy podjąć działania, ażeby te niekorzystne zjawiska wyeliminować. Ma to szczególnie duże znaczenie dla krajów słabiej rozwiniętych. Chcę wierzyć, że w krajach tak zwanej nowej Unii EFIS w realny sposób pomoże wdrożyć projekty o wyższym stopniu ryzyka i wzmocni unijną politykę spójności oraz proces wyrównywania szans gospodarczych między naszymi krajami i regionami, co przecież od lat pozostaje jednym z priorytetów polityki społeczno-gospodarczej Unii.


  Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE). – Madam President, first of all I would like to thank the two rapporteurs, Mr Bullmann and Mr Fernandes, for the huge amount of work they have done. I hope we will be able to finish it in the next few weeks.

I hope that the new EFSI projects will be chosen more on their merits than on their proximity to political power because we have had some experience in some countries where this was the case. We should not repeat this mistake as there is the possibility that EFSI will have a real impact on the economy. I am also happy to see that we are going into a more decentralised form of EFSI. I hope that we will continue the path of new associations in this spirit.

I will conclude by saying that taking decisions closer to the people and the real economy seems to be the best way to make a real success of EFSI.


  Miguel Viegas (GUE/NGL). – Senhora Presidente, o Fundo Europeu para os Investimentos Estratégicos representa, hoje, o espelho das contradições existentes no seio da União Europeia: uma contradição entre os grandes objetivos proclamados pela Comissão Europeia e pelo Conselho e a falta de meios financeiros para promover a recuperação económica e a coesão territorial. Desta forma, em vez de um amplo plano de investimento público destinado a estimular o investimento privado, avançou-se com este Plano Juncker que não responde aos verdadeiros desafios do presente e do futuro.

Nada nos move contra o investimento privado. O que criticamos é esta promiscuidade destas parcerias público-privadas onde o privado investe e fica com os lucros, enquanto o público assume os riscos e as perdas eventuais.

Este plano tem pouco mais de um ano de existência. As avaliações disponíveis confirmam as críticas que realizámos, seja no aspeto adicional, seja na repartição geográfica automática.

Estamos, portanto, perante uma operação de transferência direta de fundos públicos para o setor privado, sem qualquer controlo democrático e cuja repercussão no défice de investimento permanece por provar. Em Portugal, para além do empréstimo do BEI de 50 000 000 de euros à Câmara de Lisboa, nada temos de palpável no terreno.

Prolongar este plano e alargar o seu âmbito para outras áreas como a defesa é reincidir no mesmo erro. O problema não se irá resolver implementando mais uma apertada direção central nas escolhas do investimento privado. Coloquemos, antes, o nosso conhecimento e a nossa experiência ao serviço de um plano de investimento público, ao serviço da coesão, do desenvolvimento e da qualidade de vida das populações.


  Jordi Solé (Verts/ALE). – Señora presidenta, el Fondo Europeo para Inversiones Estratégicas es una buena idea cuya implementación debe mejorar. En el informe, que creo que es un buen informe, hemos señalado en qué aspectos, y uno de ellos es la selección de proyectos, porque nos hemos encontrado con alguna sorpresa, y pondré un ejemplo concreto.

Bankia fue elegida en octubre del año pasado para llevar a cabo un proyecto de mejora de su plataforma digital por 50 millones de euros.

Bankia, una entidad financiera que fue presidida por el exministro Rato —para quien la Fiscalía pidió ayer cinco años de cárcel por haber ocultado a los inversores la quiebra de la entidad—, que fue rescatada con dinero público con un coste estimado de 12 000 millones de euros, marcada por el escándalo de las tarjetas «black» —con las que sus consejeros se apropiaron de hasta 2,7 millones de euros—, que ha sido condenada por la venta de preferentes a una anciana con Alzheimer.

¿Ustedes creen que una entidad con un pasado reciente así merece la confianza del BEI y de la Comisión? ¿Que merece más apoyo público?

Esta no es la manera de generar confianza entre las instituciones europeas y una ciudadanía que ha visto cómo a algunos bancos, gestionados de manera inepta e incluso ilegal, la crisis les ha salido muy barata.


  Gabriel Mato (PPE). – Señora presidenta, el FEIE es el elemento central del plan de inversiones de la Comisión y aunque ya ha cumplido casi dos años y está dando sus frutos, no debemos conformarnos.

Confío en que los objetivos marcados por la Comisión —objetivos ambiciosos, sin duda alguna— se cumplan y se logren movilizar, hasta 2020, los 500 000 millones de euros previstos en inversiones adicionales en la economía real.

Hasta hoy se han financiado todo tipo de proyectos —energía, transporte, digital, agricultura, medio ambiente, eficiencia energética, I+D+i, infraestructuras...—, pero a mí me gustaría destacar uno de ellos. Hablo de Canarias, una región ultraperiférica de Europa que necesita de todo nuestro apoyo y también necesita que el FEIE pueda adaptarse a sus peculiaridades, y hablo de un proyecto: la línea de autobús —«guaguas» decimos nosotros— de Las Palmas, un proyecto aprobado y firmado, que va a crear más de mil puestos de trabajo durante la fase de construcción antes de que entre en funcionamiento en 2021. Creo que es una buena noticia.

Todas las iniciativas tendentes a mejorar el impacto del FEIE, su transparencia y la complementariedad con otros fondos europeos son bienvenidas, pero lo importante también es su impacto sobre las pymes, que son el principal motor económico de la Unión.

Por otra parte, quiero destacar que, para explotar plenamente el potencial de la Garantía del FEIE y evitar distorsiones en los mercados, resulta imperativo que el BEI colabore activa y lealmente con los bancos nacionales de promoción y los inversores privados. Solo así el instrumento FEIE servirá como instrumento de verdadero crowding y así evitar los fenómenos de mera sustitución de fuentes de financiación en los proyectos a favor del BEI.


  Jean-Paul Denanot (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, lancé en 2016, le Fonds européen pour les investissements stratégiques, que nous appelions de nos vœux, visait à mobiliser jusqu’à 315 milliards d’euros d’investissement en Europe à l’horizon de la mi-2018.

Force est de constater que, malgré des résultats chiffrés significatifs, l’EFSI n’a pas apporté la preuve de son additionnalité. La nature des projets soutenus interpelle sur les choix effectués et sur l’effet d’aubaine qu’ont su saisir un certain nombre d’autorités nationales.

Comment expliquer que l’Europe doit investir davantage pour redonner la confiance en soutenant les secteurs d’avenir? Les besoins sont nombreux: l’infrastructure, notamment le haut débit, l’économie «décarbonée», le soutien aux PME, le soutien à la recherche, la lutte contre le chômage des jeunes, etc.

Alors, allons plus loin et accompagnons ces projets d’avenir par des investissements publics. A minima, demandons à la BEI de faire un effort sur les taux et les conditions de prêt pour que les projets labellisés EFSI se distinguent davantage, plus clairement en tout cas, des actions classiques de la BEI.


  Sander Loones (ECR). – Het oude continent, zo staat de Europese Unie bekend, terwijl wij alles in huis hebben om ook internationaal aan de top te staan. Maar daarvoor zullen we meer moeten hervormen, meer moeten besparen, zodat we met dat bespaarde geld verstandige, slimme investeringen kunnen doen. Ik denk oprecht dat het Europese EFSI-fonds daarbij kan helpen.

De ambitie is zeer hoog: in drie jaar tijd 315 miljard euro aan extra investeringen in innovatie, in infrastructuur, in kmo's. Vandaag evalueren we de eerste fase van dat EFSI-fonds. En wat is de conclusie? We halen onze cijfers. Dat is een goede zaak.

Aan de andere kant stellen we vast dat de kwaliteit van de investeringen beter moet, omhoog moet. Want EFSI moet niet doen wat de gewone bank of een gewoon beleggingsfonds ook al kan. Van EFSI mogen we meer verwachten, zodat we kunnen investeren in meer innovatie, in kwaliteitsvolle projecten, in meer risicovolle projecten. Dat moet onze prioriteit zijn: investeren in excellentie, Europa opnieuw op de kaart zetten, niet kiezen voor nivellering naar beneden, maar wel kiezen voor echte vooruitgang.


  Γεώργιος Κύρτσος (PPE). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το Ευρωπαϊκό Ταμείο Στρατηγικών Επενδύσεων, με την αποτελεσματική λειτουργία του και τη χρονική επέκταση της, συμβάλλει στην κάλυψη του επενδυτικού ελλείμματος σε ευρωπαϊκό επίπεδο αλλά και στην Ελλάδα, η οποία έχει το μεγαλύτερο πρόβλημα. Οι επενδύσεις στην Ελλάδα αναλογούσαν το 2016 στο 11,4% του Ακαθάριστου Εγχώριου Προϊόντος, ενώ στις χώρες της ευρωζώνης το ανάλογο ποσοστό ήταν κατά μέσο όρο 20,1% του Ακαθάριστου Εγχώριου Προϊόντος. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι, για να ανέβει το επίπεδο των επενδύσεων στην Ελλάδα στο επίπεδο του μέσου όρου της ευρωζώνης, πρέπει να αυξηθούν κατά 15-16 δισεκατομμύρια ευρώ τον χρόνο. Όσο δεν καλύπτεται αυτό το έλλειμμα, θα επικρατούν οι απόψεις του Διεθνούς Νομισματικού Ταμείου, σύμφωνα με τις οποίες η ελληνική οικονομία είναι περίπου καταδικασμένη και οι ευρωπαίοι εταίροι δεν θα πάρουν ποτέ πίσω τα χρήματα που δάνεισαν στο ελληνικό Δημόσιο. Αντί λοιπόν να αναρωτιόμαστε για το ποιος τελικά θα επιβαρυνθεί το χρέος του ελληνικού Δημοσίου, καλά θα κάνουμε να στραφούμε στην αναζήτηση μιας ολοκληρωμένης επενδυτικής στρατηγικής, που θα απελευθερώσει τις παραγωγικές δυνάμεις της Ελλάδας από την υπερφορολόγηση και θα κινητοποιήσει ξένες επενδύσεις και πρόσθετη ευρωπαϊκή χρηματοδότηση υπέρ της ελληνικής οικονομίας. Είναι ο ασφαλέστερος τρόπος για να επιτύχουμε σταθερή και δυναμική ανάπτυξη, ποιοτικές θέσεις απασχόλησης και βιωσιμότητα του χρέους του ελληνικού Δημοσίου.


  Hugues Bayet (S&D). – Madame la Présidente, Monsieur le Commissaire, vous l’avez dit, l’EFSI est un projet qui a connu une certaine réussite, notamment au niveau de la quantité de projets que l’Europe a pu soutenir. Mais c’est un plan de relance qui est loin de satisfaire toutes nos attentes. La qualité des projets retenus présente des lacunes importantes et des insuffisances.

Je pense notamment qu’il faut aller dans le sens d’une meilleure répartition géographique des projets, de leur diversification sectorielle, d’un renforcement de la transparence de la procédure de sélection et d’un financement propre, sans puiser dans les budgets d’autres initiatives.

Je voudrais, Monsieur le Commissaire, vraiment insister sur l’importance des investissements publics, productifs, dirigés vers l’économie réelle.

Je pense que c’est vraiment une nécessité pour les autorités, notamment les autorités locales, de pouvoir investir dans des projets qui soient productifs, comme des travaux d’isolation de bâtiments publics, parce que les conséquences sont positives pour l’économie, génératrices d’emplois locaux qui, eux, sont non délocalisables et en phase avec les critères environnementaux.

Monsieur le Commissaire, je voudrais vous rappeler avec force que la règle d’or, ce n’est pas un projet de société, c’est une méthode de travail. Comme les traités le prévoient, je pense qu’il est plus que temps de retravailler sur la flexibilité de la comptabilisation de nos investissements publics si on veut recréer de la croissance et de l’emploi.


  Zbigniew Kuźmiuk (ECR). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! W debacie dotyczącej wdrażania EFIS po półtora roku jego funkcjonowania należy podkreślić, że szacowana kwota uruchamianych inwestycji wynosi około 160 mld euro, czyli ponad 50 % całkowitej kwoty inwestycji, jaka ma być uruchomiona do 2018 r. Niestety bardzo nierównomierny terytorialnie jest rozkład inwestycji finansowanych w ramach EFIS. Do końca 2016 r. aż 90 % środków było skierowanych do starej „piętnastki”, a zaledwie 10 % do trzynastu nowych krajów członkowskich. Na przykład w obszarze infrastruktury i innowacji trzy kraje, Wielka Brytania, Włochy i Hiszpania, były wręcz monopolistami w korzystaniu ze środków EFIS, otrzymały ich bowiem blisko 65 %. Z kolei w obszarze małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw Włochy, Francja i Niemcy otrzymały ponad 36 % środków.

Zdając sobie sprawę, że zamożniejsze państwa członkowskie mają większą łatwość w sięganiu po środki z funduszy działających na zasadach rynkowych takich jak EFIS, chcę podkreślić, że w kolejnych latach te proporcje korzystania z EFIS muszą być zdecydowanie przesunięte na rzecz trzynastu nowych krajów członkowskich.


  Siegfried Mureşan (PPE). – Madam President, EFSI is without any doubt a successful programme. It is on track to achieve its ambitious target of generating an additional EUR 315 billion of investment in the EU Member States. But now let us use this debate also to reflect on what we can improve and how we can make EFSI even better in the future.

One element which we can improve is the geographical distribution. We said at the very beginning that we do not want to allocate certain quotas to Member States and I think that that was the correct approach. We should not change that but should continue to finance the best projects irrespective of the country they come from.

However, we are seeing that 73% of the projects are concentrated in five Member States, particularly countries in which the investment gap is below average. So what we should do is advise: use the advisor we have to help assist those countries that have not yet benefited from EFSI and use this advisor we have to help those countries in particular which do not have developed financial markets to create a level playing field so that all 28 Member States can benefit equally from this project.

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


  Tibor Szanyi (S&D), Kékkártyás kérdés. – Elnök Asszony, Képviselő Úr! Valóban Ön előtt is már mások utaltak arra, hogy egy földrajzi egyenlőtlenség van ebben az egész felosztásban, és egyetértek Önnel abban is, hogy a hatékonyság és a jó projektek kellenek. De vajon Ön észleli-e azt is, hogy aránytalanságok nem csak kelet-nyugati, észak-déli szinten vannak, hanem vidék-város között is, és a rurális területek gyakorlatilag kiestek ebből?


  Siegfried Mureşan (PPE), blue-card answer. – So what we should do to help these countries and these regions is promote EFSI, not only in the urban areas but also in the rural areas. Encourage the advisor we have, the EIB, to provide assistance to people who want to write projects, and create also a level playing field in terms of financial market developments, particularly to assist the countries which do not have promotional banks in the establishment of promotional banks. This will help create a level playing field and give all beneficiaries equal opportunities and equal chances vis à vis EFSI.


  Eva Kaili (S&D). – Madam President, EFSI was primarily designed to help us bridge the investment gap of Europe, but it has not worked as expected. Being a supply side instrument, we understand that it’s difficult to create its own demand, especially in the structure and innovation window because it was not included in incentives like that for the creation of this demand and the facts are clear: very few of the projects were additional; the diverse risk premium—the pricing of the programme caused more disincentives than incentives to apply for it; and lack of institutional framework to enable blending with other EU financial resources made it more difficult for the Member States that need it more.

Now we are looking forward to address and fix this problem with the trialogues of EFSI 2, but the ambitious elements that could incentivise the creation of demand are still not enough: 91% of VS 9, 15 Member States VS 13. It doesn’t seem that it will change dramatically. I do believe that there is urgent need for economic relevance in the EU and EFSIs are potentially headed toward the correct direction. But its structure as designed does not address the realities and the lesson is that for EFSI 1 supply side mechanisms with weak demand will not produce significant results.

Congratulations to Mr Bullmann and Mr Fernandes for the efforts made to change this Direction.


  Othmar Karas (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Kommissar, meine Damen und Herren! Wir müssen schon einmal festhalten, dass der EFSI eineinhalb Jahre alt ist. Und in diesen eineinhalb Jahren hat er immerhin 194 Milliarden Euro an Investitionen angeschoben, von denen 425 000 und mehr kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen profitieren. Wir haben ihn nach diesen eineinhalb Jahren evaluiert und haben gesagt: Wir müssen ihn verlängern bis 2020, und wir brauchen mehr Geld, mehr Investitionsvolumen, das angestoßen wird, und wir erhöhen es auf 500 Milliarden. Und wir haben die Schwächen erkannt und gesagt: Der EFSI muss in die high-risk Champions League. Er muss die Förderbanken der anderen Mitgliedstaaten ausbauen.

Alles, was hier gesagt wird, ist Teil unseres Trilogs. Wir diskutieren heute den Initiativbericht als Antwort auf die Evaluierung, aber wir haben auch einen Legislativbericht, der unser Arbeitsprogramm für die Verhandlungen ist, wo wir ihn verbessern können. Wir sagen nicht: more of the same, aber länger, sondern wir sagen: verbessern, aber auch verlängern, weil er Gutes bewirkt hat.

Aber der EFSI ist nicht alleine dafür da, um die Investitionslücke zu schließen. Wir müssen die Strukturreformen fortsetzen. Wir müssen den Binnenmarkt stärken. Wir müssen die Wirtschafts- und Währungsunion vertiefen. Wir benötigen ein stärkeres Investitionsklima in Europa, und wir brauchen Innovation, weil wir die Lücke noch nicht geschlossen haben – aber wir sind auf einem guten Weg.


  Daniele Viotti (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, l'EFSI, il Piano Juncker, è entrato in vigore nel 2015, a fine 2016 aveva già concesso garanzie per 21,5 miliardi di euro e a maggio di quest'anno ha già raggiunto i 200 miliardi di euro. Non si tratta soltanto di cifre fredde ma di infrastrutture, reti ferroviarie moderne, fibra ottica nelle nostre case, edifici più rispettosi dell'ambiente, nuove tecnologie.

Abbiamo fatto molto, ma non è ancora sufficiente. Con il rinnovo del Piano dobbiamo impegnarci ancora di più. Dobbiamo garantire un'addizionalità reale, impegnandoci perché i criteri di ammissibilità dei progetti siano davvero votati agli investimenti più rischiosi, ma utili per i cittadini, facilitando l'accesso agli strumenti dell'EFSI per le piccole e medie imprese soprattutto, in particolare sostenendo l'ottimo lavoro che è stato fatto fino ad ora dalle banche di promozione nazionale e, infine, consentendo l'intervento anche ai paesi terzi, qualora ci siano chiari vantaggi in termini di efficienza o di economia di scala.

In chiusura, permettetemi una nota di merito al mio paese, l'Italia, che con 3,7 miliardi di investimento risulta il primo paese beneficiario della garanzia EFSI, naturalmente un orgoglio ma anche una responsabilità per il nostro governo.


  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE). – Madam President, I think that the EFSI and the whole Juncker Plan came at the right moment and that we are seeing good results. Money is needed in the real economy.

Let me make three remarks. First, we should have a better guarantee and a better look at the additionality. Financing roads in France, Germany or the Netherlands is not high risk, so what are we doing? Second, on the geographical balance: of course, it cannot be Europe that is standing on one leg in the more developed country; the winner takes all. There we have to support these countries so they have a better capacity to take it up, quality to make projects and investment banks, as my colleague has said.

Third, as the coordinator of the regional committee in the PPE Group, I think we should move much more to combining the funds from the regional funds, the structural investment funds, and the EFSI. This would not mean blending, putting them all together in a big blender, but having these shared management funds in the Member States to give them – this is already possible in the regulations – the possibility of having a higher risk and more loans and guarantees in the real economy. We now have the Omnibus. We come with this simplification and I see a big future for the EFSI Fund. It is a compliment to the rapporteurs and also to the Commission.


  Georgi Pirinski (S&D). – Madam President, the Fernandes-Bullmann report highlights major concerns that EFSI does not provide complementary financing for high-risk projects and that small projects are deterred from applying for EFSI financing. There is no procedure for tackling conflicts of interest, while there are cases where the EIB has been pushing to support projects structured using firms in tax havens! No wonder then that the EU 15 have received 91% of EFSI support while the EU 13 only 9%.

Article 7(2) of the EFSI Regulation stipulates that it is the steering board that shall determine the strategic orientation of EFSI, its operating policy, procedures and rules and the risk profile of EFSI. Under the same Article, three out of the four board members are appointed by the Commission. Therefore, what are the urgent and specific measures that the Commission shall undertake in order to gain the trust of Parliament and the Council to grant authorisation for EFSI 2?




  Michaela Šojdrová (PPE). – Evropský fond pro strategické investice existuje 1,5 roku a přesto se dá říci, že je úspěšný alespoň v některých regionálních oblastech.

Dá se říci, že už vidíme i jeho nedostatky. Předchůdci zde vyjmenovali řadu konkrétních návrhů na jeho zlepšení. Já bych připomněla potřebnost větší transparentnosti, lepší zacílení fondu a také lepší řízení. Objevují se určité pochybnosti o střetu zájmů v řídících orgánech a to je velmi špatné.

Hovořilo se zde hodně o regionální disproporci. Já bych dokonce řekla, že se jedná o marginalizaci, jestliže 13 zemí čerpá pouze 9 % z celého fondu, pak bych řekla, že se přímo jedná o marginalizaci určitých oblastí. Já jsem se schválně podívala, jak to vypadá v ČR, tam se jedná o rozšíření záruk dvou bank pro malé a střední podniky. Myslím, že závěr z toho je jasný. Je dobré nejen pokračovat, ale zlepšovat.


  Nicola Caputo (S&D). – Signora Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'EFSI è attivo da un anno e mezzo, un tempo sufficiente per un primo bilancio e per cogliere le indicazioni registrate finora al fine di migliorare le modalità di attuazione del Piano. I problemi principali sembrano essere la differenziazione degli obiettivi e delle condizioni di finanziamento dell'EFSI da altre fonti di finanziamento analoghe, che di fatto determina una concorrenza con altri fondi.

Esiste un reale valore aggiunto all'uso complementare dell'EFSI e dei fondi SIE, ma le questioni normative complicano questa complementarietà. La distribuzione geografica dei progetti presenta limiti di uniformità, cui va posto rimedio. Così come va superata la grave difficoltà nella creazione delle piattaforme di investimento, dove l'esigenza di finanziamento di progetti di dimensioni minori non riceve risposte adeguate.

Occorre infine intensificare gli sforzi nel contesto del polo europeo di consulenza sugli investimenti per fornire un'adeguata assistenza tecnica e rafforzare la comunicazione dell'EFSI così da poter migliorare anche la cooperazione.


  Ruža Tomašić (ECR). – Poštovana predsjednice, primarna svrha Europskog fonda za strateška ulaganja bila je zajamčiti dodatnost odgovaranjem na nedostatke tržišta ili nedovoljne razine ulaganja. Moram priznati da mi od prvog dana nije bilo jasno kako Komisija misli osigurati da javne investicije pojačaju učinak privatnih ako prije toga nije osigurala povoljniju klimu za privatne investicije.

Kako to obično biva kad se planira velika injekcija novca poreznih obveznika u ekonomiju, dogodilo se to da je dosta projekata moglo biti financirano i bez jamstava Unije i da je donošenje odluka prilično netransparentno.

Zabrinjavajuća je i zemljopisna rasprostranjenost investicija jer je do kraja lipnja 2016. čak 91 % sredstava dodijeljeno zemljama iz skupine EU-15.

Ovakve stvari ruše kredibilitet Unije i njezinih programa jer stvaraju dojam da dio članica profitira na račun drugih. Mislimo li izbjeći takva tumačenja i podići ugled Europske unije, provedba Europskog fonda za strateška ulaganja mora biti puno bolja.


  Ελευθέριος Συναδινός (NI). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, το περιβόητο σχέδιο των 315 δισεκατομμυρίων ευρώ, σε βάθος τριετίας, δεν έχει διαφάνεια. Υπάρχει έλλειψη λογοδοσίας, είναι αναποτελεσματικό, δεν καλύπτει επενδυτικά κενά. Η Ευρωπαϊκή Τράπεζα Επενδύσεων σκιωδώς δεν παρέχει επαρκή πρόσβαση σε πληροφορίες σχετικά με το εν λόγω σχέδιο. Υπάρχει πλήρης έλλειψη στατιστικών δεδομένων και συγκρίσιμων μεγεθών χρηματοοικονομικής αποδοτικότητας όλων των έργων που έχουν χρηματοδοτηθεί μέχρι τώρα. Ο κίνδυνος υπερτίμησης του πολλαπλασιαστικού αποτελέσματος δεν είναι απλά ορατός, αλλά αποδεικνύεται υπαρκτός. Επισημαίνεται από το ίδιο το Ελεγκτικό Συνέδριο, το οποίο τονίζει ότι οι αναφερόμενοι στόχοι και τα αποτελέσματα είναι προβολές που δεν έχουν επιβεβαιωθεί από απτά, συγκεκριμένα, σαφή και επίκαιρα δεδομένα. Οι πέντε κορυφαίες οικονομίες της Ένωσης έχουν κατά βάση επωφεληθεί από το συγκεκριμένο σχέδιο, δημιουργώντας έτσι περαιτέρω αποκλίσεις και ανισότητες μεταξύ των κρατών μελών. Συμπερασματικά, αυτό δεν είναι επενδυτικό σχέδιο, είναι σχέδιο εξαπάτησης και χειραγώγησης των ευρωπαίων πολιτών.


  Krzysztof Hetman (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Europejski Fundusz na rzecz Inwestycji Strategicznych jest niewątpliwie bardzo ważnym narzędziem mającym realne przełożenie na zwiększenie inwestycji w Europie. Mimo iż jego efektywność nie może być jeszcze w pełni oceniona, aktualne dane pozwalają na optymizm, pokazując jednocześnie obszary wymagające poprawy. Po pierwsze, ważne jest, aby fundusz ten był wykorzystywany przez wszystkie państwa członkowskie. Należy więc zastanowić się, w jaki sposób można wesprzeć państwa, które do tej pory z niego nie korzystały lub korzystały w niewielkim stopniu. Po drugie, ważne jest, by fundusz ten działał w synergii z europejskimi funduszami strukturalnymi i inwestycyjnymi w celu zapewnienia ułatwienia finansowania. Po trzecie, należy pamiętać, iż celem funduszu Junckera jest wspieranie inwestycji ryzyka, które bez tego finansowania nie mogłyby powstać. Należy więc unikać wspierania projektów, które zgodnie ze swoją naturą powinny uzyskać wsparcie z innych programów i funduszy unijnych.


  Tibor Szanyi (S&D). – Elnök Asszony! Tisztelt Biztos úr! Itt a vitában hallhatunk különböző számokat, hogy miként oszlik el a fölhasználás a stratégiai fejlesztési alap tekintetében, és én már egy kérdés során említettem, hogy a vidéki, a rurális területek azok igenis hátrányban vannak, nem nagyon éri utol őket ez a lehetőség. Ezzel együtt azért hívom föl még egyszer a figyelmet erre az aspektusra, mert éppen ma szavazott meg az Európai Parlament megint egy csomó olyan – amúgy környezetvédelmi szempontból indokolt – megszorítást, ami a vidéki, mezőgazdasági területeket még nehezebb szabályozási környezetbe viszi. Én úgy gondolom, hogy ez az EFSI ezt hivatott lenne ellensúlyozni.


  Ivana Maletić (PPE). – Gospođo predsjednice, EFSI ispunjava svoj cilj, a to je podizanje razine ulaganja. Međutim, mi želimo više od toga. Želimo rast, razvoj i to visoke stope rasta i razvoja u Europskoj uniji i nova radna mjesta. Za to nam trebaju i dva druga stupa plana ulaganja za Europu. Prvi stup je razaznavanje dobrih i kvalitetnih projekata koji su inovativni i rizični. Financiramo li mi u ovom trenutku takve projekte i jesmo li pronašli upravo te za financiranje iz EFSI-ja?

A drugi stup koji je još preostao je jačanje jedinstvenog tržišta i stvaranje povoljnog okruženja za naše poduzetnike i investitore. Europska komisija to ne može nikako učiniti sama. Za to su potrebni koordinacija i rad s državama članicama i zato pozivam Komisiju da ojača svoje veze i povezanost s državama članicama kako bi plan ulaganja za Europu zaista zaživio u praksi.


  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Doamnă președintă, domnule comisar, vreau de la bun început să felicit raportorii. Au făcut o radiografie exactă a ceea ce s-a întâmplat cu EFSI 1 și vreau să reamintesc aici, așa cum spunea și domnul Bullmann, că nu a fost suficient de bun, am spus de la bun început, criteriul „primul venit primul servit”.

Să fim foarte clari, să nu ne furăm căciula: zonele rurale, zonele mai sărace, nu au capacitatea administrativă pentru a scrie proiecte și nu vor fi niciodată primele. Eu cred că alte criterii trebuie să folosim, dacă dorim într-adevăr ca acest fond strategic de investiții să ducă și la coeziune socială și la dezvoltarea zonelor mai sărace. De aceea, cred că raportorii au prezentat foarte bine. IMM-urile nu ajung, mai ales întreprinderile mici. Conduc intergrupul și constat că IMM-urile se plâng pentru că nu au cu ce garanta ca să poată să ajungă la acest fond. Cred că EFSI 2 are avantajul că are experiența lui EFSI 1 și putem să corectăm și mă bazez foarte mult pe raportori și pe Comisie, evident, pentru corectarea (președinta întrerupe oratorul).


(Ende des Catch-the-eye-Verfahrens)


  Pierre Moscovici, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, thank you for the numerous comments, questions and remarks. EFSI might not be perfect. It certainly is not a magical weapon that can, on its own, close the investment gap we suffer from: create growth and jobs and put our economy on a sustainable and inclusive track. But our debate and the reports prove that it is a valuable instrument in pursuit of this aim. I hear all the expectations in terms of job creation, ambition as regards macroeconomic impact, vigilance in the face of potential crowding out of other investors and fears of cannibalisations of other EU instruments. I understand them all and I share this impatience.

But let us discuss on the basis of actual results, and focus on positive messages. EFSI delivers, and we are in the midst of negotiations to extend it and also to make it better.

Je voudrais, à cet égard, répondre à quelques questions ou remarques.

On m’a demandé si l’EFSI était censé remplacer les fonds de cohésion. La réponse est non. Nous attachons une importance majeure à la politique de cohésion. L’EFSI et la politique de cohésion peuvent coexister et peuvent se renforcer mutuellement. Tous deux partagent un objectif, qui est d’augmenter le niveau d’investissement au profit de la croissance et de l’emploi. Il s’agit de développer les synergies entre l’EFSI et les fonds de cohésion, en aucun cas de les opposer ou de les exclure.

Plusieurs remarques ont été faites sur tel ou tel pays et sur la façon dont ils sont desservis par les fonds de cohésion. À cet égard, bien sûr, nous avons des statistiques.

Je mentionnerai simplement deux pays. D’abord, Chypre. C’est vrai que, pendant longtemps, il n’y avait aucun projet, mais un accord a été signé en décembre 2016 sur le volet PME entre le Fonds européen d’investissement et la banque RCB. En ce qui concerne la Grèce, il y a eu plusieurs interventions. Pendant longtemps, c’est vrai qu’il n’y a pas eu de projet en Grèce. Une équipe du hub a été envoyée pour prêter assistance à la structuration de projets et, aujourd’hui, la Grèce, écoutez bien, est le huitième pays à bénéficier de fonds EFSI. Par conséquent, il y a eu plus qu’un rattrapage en la matière.

Je saisis cette occasion pour dire à quel point je souhaite que, demain, lors de l’Eurogroupe qui se tiendra à Luxembourg, on parvienne à trouver un accord pour la Grèce qui permette de débourser les fonds prévus dans le cadre du troisième programme et de dessiner les paramètres de mesure des dettes à moyen terme, tout cela sur fond d’une politique qui doit privilégier la croissance et l’emploi dans ce pays. Parce qu’après la crise, après les efforts, il est temps que le peuple grec voie le résultat de tout ce à quoi il a consenti. Mon collègue de la Commission, Valdis Dombrovskis, faisait hier cette présentation à mes côtés, lors du collège, et la Commission sait qu’elle a déjà fait beaucoup pour la croissance et l’emploi en Grèce. À travers l’EFSI aussi, nous voulons faire plus. Il faut faire plus. C’est fondamental.

Mon collègue Katainen et moi-même sommes prêts à revenir dans ce Parlement d’ici un mois peut-être, avant la coupure de l’été, pour discuter du résultat des trilogues. Le président Juncker a présenté l’EFSI 2 dans son discours sur l’état de l’Union, en septembre 2016. Soyez sûrs qu’en un an, nous avons déjà fourni des résultats dans cette direction au bénéfice de nos citoyens européens.

Par conséquent, mon message est simple: l’EFSI est un instrument perfectible, critiquable, comme tout instrument, mais qui est aussi remarquable. Alors perfectionnons-le ensemble. C’est ce que nous pouvons faire et c’est toute l’utilité de nos échanges d’aujourd’hui.


  José Manuel Fernandes, relator. – Senhora Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Caras e Caros Colegas, é claro que o Fundo Europeu de Investimentos Estratégicos não vai, não pode, substituir a política de coesão e, por isso, não tem quotas geográficas. O Fundo Europeu de Investimentos Estratégicos exige proatividade dos seus beneficiários e proatividade por parte dos territórios. Isso não significa que não se deva procurar a coesão territorial, a coesão geográfica, a distribuição dos projetos. Deve procurar-se.

E, por isso, o Parlamento insiste no advisory hub, na plataforma de aconselhamento para ajudar à estruturação de projetos e a projetos de maior qualidade, para ajudar à criação de plataformas, para contribuir também para a complementaridade, que queremos que exista e que se reforce entre este Fundo e os fundos da política de coesão. Insistimos no advisory hub, nesta plataforma de aconselhamento para que este objetivo seja conseguido.

Fica claro que este Fundo Europeu de Investimentos Estratégicos tem contribuído para o emprego; tem contribuído também para as empresas e, sobretudo, as pequenas e médias empresas, e também para o empreendedorismo, para a inovação, para o reforço da competitividade da União Europeia.

É também evidente que o aspeto adicional tem de ser reforçado e também a seleção dos projetos deve ter em conta o local onde o projeto vai ser concretizado. O mesmo projeto não tem o mesmo impacto económico em termos da criação de emprego numa região menos desenvolvida ou numa região mais desenvolvida. E, por isso, é necessário que as regiões menos desenvolvidas tenham uma atenção especial, ainda que, insisto, este Fundo nunca poderá ser confundido com a política de coesão.


  Udo Bullmann, Berichterstatter. – Frau Präsidentin! Ich danke den Kolleginnen und Kollegen für eine – wie ich finde – äußerst engagierte Diskussion. Die Berichterstatter haben zugehört; wir nehmen die Anregungen mit. Aber ich darf auch sagen: Wir fühlen uns bestätigt in der Richtung, in der wir weiter voranschreiten wollen, um EFSI besser zu machen.

Ich bitte die Kommission – von der ich wahrnehme, dass sie die Probleme nicht wirklich anders sieht als wir –, Verständnis zu haben. Ich bitte – ich wende mich an den Rat –, Verständnis dafür zu haben, dass wir EFSI dort loben, wo Gutes erreicht worden ist, dass wir aber auch die Probleme benennen, wo wir sie sehen. Und eines mehr: Natürlich wollen wir die Probleme nicht nur benennen, wir wollen sie beheben. Und deswegen setzen wir auf die gute Kooperation mit beiden Institutionen, damit wir in der laufenden Gesetzgebung auch zügig zum Ende kommen, um EFSI-2 noch besser zu machen.

Ich würde mich gerne noch einmal an den Rat wenden, weil das eines der Themen ist, die wir gegenwärtig diskutieren. Ich glaube, dass Kommissar Moscovici völlig Recht hat, wenn er von EFSI-3 spricht – der großen Herausforderung, der wir gegenüberstehen, jetzt über die Phase hinaus zu denken, die wir gegenwärtig beplanen. Natürlich ist es eine Daueraufgabe, uns im Hinblick auf eine nachhaltige Wirtschaft international wettbewerbsfähig zu machen. Trotzdem müssen wir über diesen Gedanken streiten. Und ich bitte Sie, sich doch einmal sehr genau anzuschauen – um nur einen großen Wettbewerber zu nennen –, was die chinesischen Staatsfonds gerade in der Mittelmeerregion unternehmen oder was sie bei ihrem großen Seidenstraßenprojekt unternehmen.

Ist es wirklich so – und ich wende mich an den Rat –, dass unsere Mitgliedstaaten nicht verstehen, was die Stunde geschlagen hat und dass wir uns endlich einigen müssen, auch gerade im Hinblick auf die mittelfristige Finanzplanung, dass wir jetzt schon die Weichen stellen? Ich hoffe, wir finden die Kraft dafür. Das Europäische Parlament wird alles tun, was nötig ist, um in diese Richtung zu gehen.


  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 15 June 2017.

Written statements (Rule 162)


  Monika Flašíková Beňová (S&D), písomne. – Európsky fond pre strategické investície je základom Investičného plánu pre Európu, ako jedného z nástrojov vytvorených na vyrovnávanie sa s dôsledkami hospodárskej krízy. Jedným z jej prejavov bol totiž výrazný pokles miery investícií, čomu mal tento tzv. Junckerov balík zabrániť. Pôvodný zámer bol, že má pomáhať predovšetkým projektom s veľkým inovačným potenciálom, ktoré sú však investične stále pomerne rizikové. Zameriavať sa tiež mal najmä na malé a stredné podniky ako hnací motor európskej ekonomiky. Výsledkom mala byť obnova dôvery na trhu a následné znásobenie takto investovaných finančných prostriedkov. Po roku a pol fungovania sa ukazuje, že o tieto peniaze je značný záujem. Nie vždy však smerujú do projektov striktne orientovaných na inovácie, ktoré by reagovali na budúce potreby rozvoja európskeho hospodárstva. Distribúcia týchto zdrojov v rámci Európskej únie je navyše pomerne nerovnomerná. Drvivá väčšina z nich zatiaľ smerovala do tzv. starých členských štátov. V budúcnosti budú musieť tieto členské štáty oveľa aktívnejšie vystupovať, aby predmetné financie získali. Podpora malých a stredných podnikov je existenčne dôležitá pre napredovanie a konkurencieschopnosť európskej ekonomiky, najmä pri neustále sa zvyšujúcej úrovni medzinárodnej konkurencie.


  Danuta Jazłowiecka (PPE), na piśmie. – Priorytetem naszych prac w Komisji Zatrudnienia i Spraw Socjalnych nad opinią ws. Europejskiego Funduszu na rzecz Inwestycji Strategicznych było to, aby współfinansowane projekty generowały nowe miejsca pracy. W tym celu wnioskowaliśmy o odpowiedni monitoring wpływu na rynek pracy. Niestety pomimo faktu, iż minęło półtora roku od uruchomienia projektu, nie mamy żadnych informacji na temat tego, ile nowych miejsc pracy powstało w wyniku inwestycji wspartych z jego środków. Komisja Europejska w swoim sprawozdaniu nie przedstawiła tych informacji, bowiem w ogóle nie gromadzi takich danych. Nie świadczy to oczywiście o tym, że nowe miejsca pracy nie powstają. Sam fakt, iż znaczna część środków z funduszu jest kierowana do sektora małych i średnich przedsiębiorstw pozwala przypuszczać, że przyczyniają się one do wykreowania nowych stanowisk pracy. Niemniej jednak trudno jest obecnie oszacować wpływ Funduszu na zatrudnienie w Europie. Dlatego też apeluję do Komisji Europejskiej o gromadzenie takich danych!

Chciałabym zwrócić także uwagę na kolejną ważną kwestię. Analizując wykorzystanie Funduszu, widzimy wyraźną koncentrację geograficzną inwestycji. Połowa państw członkowskich dostała ponad 90% zainwestowanych środków. Warto się nad tym zastanowić i przeanalizować, czy pieniądze trafiają faktycznie tam, gdzie są najbardziej potrzebne.


  Karol Karski (ECR), na piśmie. – Wyniki działalności EFIS są satysfakcjonujące. Jednak musimy zadbać o to, aby móc w pełni korzystać z tego instrumentu oraz usprawnić jego działanie. Uważam, że dla lepszego korzystania z EFIS trzeba położyć duży nacisk na jego komplementarność zarówno z europejskimi funduszami strukturalnymi i inwestycyjnymi, jak i innymi funduszami UE. Taka synergia pozwoliłaby sprawniej wypracować trwały wzrost gospodarczy.

Chciałbym także zwrócić uwagę na dużą koncentrację terytorialną do tej pory wypłaconych środków. Powinniśmy poznać przyczyny takiej alokacji i sprawić, by w przyszłości regiony słabiej rozwinięte potrafiły lepiej wykorzystać środki z EFIS. Dlatego też należy postarać się o to, by zwiększono wiedzę ekspercką i pomoc techniczną dla tych regionów. W szczególności trzeba położyć nacisk na sprawne działanie Europejskich Centrów Doradztwa Inwestycyjnego, które powinny korzystać także z wiedzy lokalnej poprzez współpracę z odpowiednimi instytucjami krajowymi.

Jestem zdania, iż wyżej wymienione kwestie pomogą w skuteczniejszym wykorzystywaniu środków, a także wspomogą wprowadzanie zarówno projektów o wysokim ryzku, jak i tych innowacyjnych w krajach, które do tej pory gorzej wykorzystywały środki z EFIS. Działania takie pomogą jednocześnie w realizacji jednego z nadrzędnych celów polityki UE, jakim jest wyrównanie szans gospodarczych pomiędzy państwami.


  Андрей Ковачев (PPE), в писмена форма. – През първите почти 2 години от създаването си Европейският фонд за стратегически инвестиции постигна осезаеми резултати, но географското разпределение на проектите продължава да бъде причина за сериозно безпокойство. Поради по-слабо развитите си финансови пазари, липса на административен капацитет, както и опит в прилагането на финансови инструменти, някои държави продължават да срещат трудности при участието в ЕФСИ.

Едва около 10% от мобилизираните по фонда инвестиции са в Централна и Източна Европа. Това е особено притеснително, като се вземе предвид, че повечето по-слабо развити региони се намират в тази част на ЕС. Затова е от изключително значение при продължаването на ЕФСИ да бъдат взети мерки за географска диверсификация на проектите, така че да се гарантира допълняемост с традиционните инструменти на кохезионната политика.

ЕФСИ трябва да подпомага преодоляването на регионалните различия и да не е в противоречие с усилията на някои държави да наваксат своето изоставане. В тази връзка е правилна стъпка да бъдат променени критериите за допустимост, така че и по-малки проекти да могат да се възползват от финансиране. Трябва да бъдат подобрени също така възможностите за осигуряване на техническа помощ и консултантски услуги при подготовката и структурирането на проекти, особено в страните с по-слабо развити финансови пазари.


  Claude Rolin (PPE), par écrit. – J'invite mes collègues, je vous invite à voter en faveur de ce rapport qui demande une initiative de la Commission en vue de contrôler, à l'échelle de l'Union européenne, les investissements étrangers dans les secteurs européens stratégiques, d'autant plus lorsque les pays d'où émanent ces investissements limitent ou empêchent l'accès à leur marché aux investisseurs européens. Il est à mes yeux indispensable que l'Union européenne identifie les secteurs et industries-clés qu'elle doit protéger et pour lesquels elle doit, le cas échéant, empêcher des acquisitions ciblées par des investisseurs étrangers. À l'heure actuelle, et je l'ai souvent relayé, il y a un problème évident de réciprocité (surtout avec la Chine) et des risques majeurs pour l’Europe, parce que des secteurs stratégiques tels que la robotique, la défense, les hautes technologies et le secteur aéroportuaire, sont visés. Le risque, ce sont des transferts de technologies vers un pays tiers qui, à terme, menace les intérêts européens. Plus que jamais, il faut une politique industrielle stratégique: nous devons protéger nos industries clés.


  Pirkko Ruohonen-Lerner (ECR), kirjallinen. – Mietintö on liioitteleva pitäessään ESIR:iä onnistuneena, sillä näytöksi tarjotaan lähinnä rahan käyttöä. Mietinnöstä käy ilmi, että ESIR syrjäyttää muita EU:n rahoituslähteitä, koska se on yrityksille edullisempi. Mietinnössä annetaan ymmärtää, että luokittelu Euroopan investointipankin erityisiin toimiin takaisi täydentävyyden. Samalla kuitenkin raportissa todetaan, etteivät kaikki projektit ole olleet edes osittain aidosti täydentäviä. Työllisyys- ja talouskasvuvaikutusten arviointi on yleensäkin vaikeaa, sillä ne edellyttävät tietoja täydentävyydestä ja ulkoisvaikutuksista. Jatkossa ESIR ei kilpaile, vaan tekee yhteistyötä muiden EU:n rahoituslähteiden kanssa. Sen seurauksena talous- ja työllisyyskasvuvaikutusten arviointi vaikeutuu entisestään, koska yksittäisten rahastojen mahdollisia vaikutuksia ei pystytä kohdistamaan. Näin emme voi nähdä mahdollista onnistumista tai sitä, että samat tulokset olisi voitu saavuttaa olemassa olevilla rahoitusinstrumenteilla.


  Janusz Zemke (S&D), na piśmie. – Europejski Fundusz na rzecz Inwestycji Strategicznych (EFIS) został utworzony w celu uruchomienia w Unii Europejskiej inwestycji o wartości 315 mld EUR, poprzez zapewnienie gwarancji dla finansowania – ważnych gospodarczo i społecznie – projektów realizowanych przede wszystkim przez sektor prywatny. Po upływie półtora roku funkcjonowania Funduszu jego działalność jest oceniana generalnie dobrze, chociaż pojawiają się także oceny, że zamiast promować innowacyjne projekty, gwarancje unijne były wykorzystywane do promowania także takich przedsięwzięć, w przypadku których istnieją wątpliwości, co do ich zgodności z ustanowionymi kryteriami wyboru. Mając to na uwadze, uważam, że w przyszłości powinno się bardziej dbać o to, by inwestycje realizowane dzięki wsparciu Funduszu prowadziły do wzrostu zatrudnienia, a także generowały trwały wzrost gospodarczy i przyczyniały się do pogłębiania spójności ekonomicznej, terytorialnej i społecznej. Przywiązując ponadto dużą wagę do rozwoju inwestycji w ramach Unii Europejskiej – uważam, że niezależnie od tego, jak wysoki będzie budżet UE w perspektywie 2021–2027, szczególnie chronione powinny być inwestycje strategiczne.


(The sitting was suspended for a few moments)




18. Užsienio investicijos į strateginius sektorius (ES veiksmai) (diskusijos)
Kalbų vaizdo įrašas

  La Présidente. – L'ordre du jour appelle le débat sur les déclarations du Conseil et de la Commission sur les investissements étrangers dans des secteurs stratégiques (actions de l'UE) (2017/2730(RSP)).


  Helena Dalli, President-in-Office of the Council. – Madam President, my intervention will be brief, given that the subject of foreign investment in strategic sectors has not been discussed as such in the Council yet. Consequently, there is no Council position. Indeed, there is not even a Commission proposal on the table. That being said, I would like to underline that Europe is open for business and that foreign investment remains a key principle for the EU. We need investment as an engine for growth and job creation. We encourage others to invest in the European Union and our investors are very successful abroad.

But clearly in the last year some reasons for concern have emerged and these are related to the sharp increase in foreign acquisitions of significant value in key EU economic sectors. I am thinking of industrial machinery and equipment, ICT, utilities, infrastructure or energy. The surge in foreign investment appears less as a result of market forces and more as a consequence of strategic industrial policies by other states. This could compromise fair competitive conditions across the EU and put into question our access to technological know—how. As such, these acquisitions could be deemed not to be in the EU’s long-term interest. In this regard, we welcome the debate launched in February by the Economic Ministers of Germany, France and Italy, who in their joint letter to EU Commissioner for trade, Cecilia Malmström, outlined their concern that partner countries do not match the EU level of market openness when it comes to investment and public procurement. They pointed out that the EU was losing its advantage in technological expertise due to mass acquisitions from non-EU investors. The three countries asked for more scope to investigate individual takeovers and, where applicable, to block them.

We have also noted with interest the proposal for a Union act on the screening of foreign investment in strategic sectors, which was tabled by Mr Weber, Mr Caspary and eight other EPP Members in March this year, calling for intervention at EU level when direct investments by third countries do not comply with market rules or are facilitated by state subsidies, resulting in a likely market disturbance.

Finally, the Commission, in its reflection paper on harnessing globalisation, also noted the concerns recently voiced about foreign investors, notably state-owned enterprises, taking over European companies with key technologies for strategic reasons. In its reflection paper the Commission further underscored that EU investors often do not enjoy the same rights to invest in the country from which the investment originated. It is very clear that the way we address investments in strategic sectors will require necessary attention in the future. In the Council we will follow the developments on this subject with interest and remain ready to carefully examine any proposal the Commission puts on the table.


  Pierre Moscovici, Member of the Commission. – Madam President, let me start by stating the obvious: investment is a major source of growth in the EU and a contributor to economic and social prosperity. We have always welcomed foreign direct investment and openness to investment has always been a key principle of our trade policy.

As a consequence, the US is the most favourable framework for investment in the world and is a major promoter of open, transparent and predictable conditions for investment worldwide. This policy has positioned the EU as the biggest source destination of foreign direct investment in the world.

The Commission however, is also well aware of the growing concerns regarding the perceived rapid increase of acquisitions of European strategic and high-tech companies by companies originating from countries that do not share the same open framework for investments as we do, which maintain important restrictions on foreign investment. The Commission in its recent reflection paper that you mentioned, Madam President, on harnessing globalisation, noted that concerns have recently been voiced about foreign investors, notably state-owned enterprises, taking over European companies with key technologies for strategic reasons. EU investors often do not enjoy the same rights to invest in the country from which the investment originates. These concerns need careful analysis and appropriate action.

We are therefore assessing the real scope of this phenomenon, and trying to be clear about what the real issues are. This may represent a new challenge to EU policy and we need to assess whether we have the appropriate tools to respond to it. This may be particularly relevant at a time when the Commission is proposing a reflection on foreign investment in sensitive defence-related technologies and the opportunity to introduce some control.

The Commission is convinced that an important part of the solution to some of the concerns related to the lack of a level playing field for EU investments abroad should come from our trade agenda, which aims at securing the best possible market access and transparent and non-discriminatory conditions for new investors operating in third countries; but the nature of the concerns requires also to look wider and deeper. Therefore, we are currently analysing the effectiveness of EU policies on foreign direct investment in close coordination with Member States, which are maintaining their own foreign investments screening measures to see if the current framework provides sufficient flexibility to respond to the challenges we are facing.

In taking this word forward, we should avoid as much as possible to introduce unnecessary barriers to trade and investment, bearing in mind that the EU economy continues to need more investment, both domestic—that’s the previous debate—and foreign. The Commission is ready to engage in further discussions with Parliament on these important issues. It goes withou